1952-12-03

Mr. Jean Frangois Pouliol (Temiscouata):: I rise on a question of privilege.
Things are always happening to me that are different from what happen to other people. I have to rise on a question of privilege about a very charming piece of news published on my account in yesterday's edition of Le Soleil.
The first statement is erroneous; it is a question of fact. Le Soleil writes as follows:
-the Pouliot family had eminently served the country, as members of the House of Commons or as officials of the House of Commons.
None of my relatives has been an official of the House of Commons.
The second sentence which I find astonishing is the following:
Also everybody believes that Mr. Pouliot has no desire of going to the Senate, because he likes the atmosphere of the House of Commons and would feel somewhat lost in the upper chamber.
The first part of the sentence is very kind but, on the other hand, Mr. Speaker, I must tell you that 1 would not feel lost in the Senate any more than in the House of Commons and I am convinced that though the first part of this article has been written by the correspondent of Le Soleil, whom I haven't seen since the beginning of the session, the second part has been concocted in a cafeteria at the corner of Cote d'Abraham and De la Couronne street in Quebec city, in the Le Soleil building.
It seems very tactless to make statements of that kind without waiting for the decision of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) who undoubtedly has something to say about appointments to the Senate, and without consulting the man directly concerned who is none other than the member for Temiscouata.
I hope that Le Soleil will publish these remarks tomorrow at the same place the article appeared.
I remember that, when I was elected for the first time, I brought a $10,000 action for damages against the newspaper Le Soleil, to 68108-19J
which I had sent a long letter to set the facts in their true light.
This letter was published. Le Soleil paid the costs of the action and made a retraction, in an editorial, saying that the new member for Temiscouata was "a charming fellow". I hope that I won't be compelled to resort to the same methods to have the statements of Le Soleil corrected.
(Text):



HEALTH SURVEYS


Mr. E. A. McCusker (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I beg leave to lay on the table the following survey reports: Saskatchewan health survey report, two volumes; Alberta health survey report, one volume; Quebec health survey report, twelve volumes; and Manitoba health survey report, three volumes.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, according to press reports the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) made an important announcement yesterday regarding the use of atomic energy for commercial purposes in the near future. I wonder if he would give the house a statement regarding this matter-not necessarily now but when he is prepared to do so within the next few days.


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I may as well clear the matter up now. A representative of one of our newspapers was writing an article on atomic energy marking a ten year anniversary of some kind in respect of the use of atomic energy for war purposes. He asked me when I thought there would be commercial use of atomic energy as power. I gave him my estimate as being five years. I did not regard it as an important announcement, and it is simply my own opinion based on what I have seen of the development of important work in that direction.


Major James William Coldwell: It seemed important to some of us.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If it had been announced as a fact rather than a surmise I think it would, have been more important.

Inquiries of the Ministry
CANADA SAVINGS BONDS	scrap iron to iron curtain countries



INQUIRY AS TO PRINTING WORK

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Meeker (Waterloo South):: In
the absence of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) I would like to ask a question of the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Garson). Is he aware of the fact that job printing work in connection with the recent Canada savings bond issue was done in the United States? Why was this, and can the minister assure this house that Canadian printers will be given an opportunity to do this work in the future?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Acting Minister of Finance):: As my hon. friend had not given me notice of his question I will take notice of it now and bring the answer down.



DISTRICT COURTS, NEWFOUNDLAND    INQUIRY AS TO APPOINTMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. J. Browne (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question, of which I have not given notice to the minister, but it concerns a matter about which I have spoken to him several times. I wonder if there has been any correspondence or other steps taken in connection with the appointment of district court judges in Newfoundland.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In reply to my hon. friend's question I may say there has been no correspondence on the subject for several months.



EXPORT REGULATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):: would like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). I would like to ask whether the government is prohibiting the export of drugs to Russia and other iron curtain countries, as does the United States government. A broadcast yesterday said that Canada was not prohibiting such exports.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the regulations covering the destination by areas of Canadian exports are exactly the same as those of the United States. I am not sure that all drugs are covered in the regulations but certainly all drugs that have strategic value are covered. Subject to correction, I think the restrictions apply to all drugs.

On the orders of the day:


Gordon Knapman Fraser: In
August there was a dispute regarding scrap iron going to iron curtain countries and I would like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) whether such export is now prohibited by Canada.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, all export of scrap iron is prohibited except under permit and I can assure my hon. friend that no permits are granted for export to iron curtain countries or to areas near iron curtain countries.



PRICES-CANNING OF SURPLUS PORK

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) would answer the question I asked yesterday.


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the question of which I was given notice yesterday, although I was not here, was as follows:
I would like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the minister's announcement yesterday regarding the lifting of the embargo to the United States, will the minister give further consideration to the cut in hog prices to take effect December 31? Perhaps this cut could be postponed to March 1.
I would just like to say that the federal government does not set a price for hogs. All we have done so far is to say that, if no one else buys the hogs at $23 as of January 1, then we are prepared to buy them at that price. Of course, that sets a support price under hogs but it does not set a price. In addition, I would like to say that the support price on hogs has never at any time been associated with the foot-and-mouth disease epidemic. The foot-and-mouth disease epidemic did affect the cost to the government but we have not allowed the foot-and-mouth disease epidemic to affect in any way the support price put under hogs. I would hesitate at this time, when we are drawing near the end of our experience with foot-and-mouth disease, to have the two associated. We have already announced our intentions with regard to the support price under hogs, being 23 cents as of January 1, and I do not think there is anything in the recent announcement which would cause us to change that position.


William Scottie Bryce: May I ask a supplementary question of the hon. gentleman? I think most

farmers are worrying about the fact that the announcement, effective the 31st of December, is going to cause tremendous fluctuations in the market, and if something could be done to stretch it out it would be a boon to farmers who have hogs to sell.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Mr. J. A. Charlton (Brant-Wentworth):: May
I ask the minister whether, in view of the fact that he is not going to change the price now, there is going to be any quota set on the amount of pork which the government will buy at 26 cents from now until the first of January?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, up to the moment, and there has been no announcement of any change in policy, the government has been taking the surplus of pork and canning it. We are still proceeding with that plan. Provision has been made to can up to 90 million pounds; that is, in so far as the amount of money provided for the purpose is concerned, we are in a position to can 90 million pounds. The figure is something over 80 million pounds now and we anticipate that any surplus that does come will be taken care of until the end of the year under that plan.


John Alpheus Charlton: Is it true that you cannot buy more than 10 million pounds between now and the first of January?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, it is not true that we cannot buy more than 10 million pounds. We can buy as much as the government provides us with money to buy-and up to now they have not refused us.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, December 2, 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. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, for a short time this afternoon I wish to discuss some matters which I know are of general interest to the people of Canada, and also some particular matters which are of interest to my own province of New Brunswick and the other maritime provinces.
Before discussing those matters I want to join with those who have already paid tribute to the mover and seconder of the address. I did not have the pleasure of listening to their speeches but I have read them and I
The Address-Mr. Brooks agree that they were good, from the government's standpoint at least. I also extend congratulations, Mr. Speaker, to the new cabinet ministers-the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Campney) and the member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair). The member for Coast-Capilano has been appointed Minister of Fisheries and we in the maritime provinces are always interested, of course, in the appointee to this cabinet position; because, as everyone knows, fisheries is one of the great industries of our province.
I was somewhat surprised, Mr. Speaker, at all these appointments-surprised that three of them should come from the province of British Columbia. When I say "three of them" I refer to the appointment of the Hon. Mr. Mayhew as ambassador to Japan as well. I think it is a very good appointment but, as I say, I was surprised that British Columbians should be picked for all these very important positions.


Mr. Cruickshank:: A real province.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: When, parliamentary assistants were appointed, we understood that they were appointed so that they might become conversant with some particular cabinet position in order that later on they might be appointed to that position. I thought that this was a sound policy. Just why the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair), who had been parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance, was appointed to the Department of Fisheries I do not understand. I doubt if he had very many qualifications for the position, and we were greatly surprised.
We have had a parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Fisheries who came from the maritime provinces. When there were three appointments to be made, Mr. Speaker, we did feel that one of those appointments could very well have come to the maritime provinces, to Prince Edward Island. If these appointments were made as a reward for services to the government, the province of Prince Edward Island has certainly shown more indication, in recent years at least, of supporting the Liberal party than has the province of British Columbia.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Oh, nonsense.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: We only have to go back to the recent provincial elections-


George Alexander Cruickshank: Where did the Tories
get?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The Tories were pulled down by the Grits. They associated with them for too long, and it was very unfortunate.

The Address-Mr. Brooks


George Alexander Cruickshank: You had better change your leader again.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: As I say, I was surprised that Prince Edward Island, which is the home of the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Fisheries, was not honoured. In the past when members of the Liberal government or the prime ministers have been defeated in other parts of Canada, they came down to Prince county in Prince Edward Island seeking a seat. I believe it was rather discourteous to overlook Prince Edward Island in this connection, and to overlook the parliamentary assistant from Prince.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne contains many interesting items. It is not my intention to discuss all of them this afternoon; in fact it would be impossible to do so. We are interested, of course, in the international wheat agreement. Wheat is of great concern, not only to the people of the west but to the people of the world. With the great crop of wheat in western Canada this year, the matter of markets is now of great concern to Canada.
We are interested also in the note regarding the St. Lawrence seaway. This matter was discussed last year, and it does not require much discussion at the present time. I believe that the people of Canada were very proud indeed when they learned that the development of the St. Lawrence seaway was to be carried out by Canada alone. It was a great source of pride for our people.
We are interested also in the item referring to national health grants. This subject will be discussed at greater length later on, but this matter of health is one of the most important with which we have to deal. I should like to read an item which refers to the health of the people of our dominion. This item appeared in the press a short time ago and the heading is "Says More than half Unfit for Service". It is dated, Kitchener, Ontario, November 12, and reads as follows:
Lt. Col. H. V. Matthews of Toronto said last night that more than 50 per cent of youths trying to enlist in Canada are unlit for military service.
He told a Remembrance Day gathering that of those accepted, many break down under training and have to be discharged.
"We reject more people than we accept."
He said he deplored lack of cleanliness among troops, apathy towards sport, absenteeism and illiteracy, and lack of ability of the men to look after themselves.
Colonel Matthews is commanding officer of a rifle battalion at camp Ipperwash.
I feel that this is a very sad commentary upon the condition of the young men of this dominion. It is a great reflection also on the propaganda which has been sent out by the


health department, because they have been trying to make the people believe that the health of our people is good.
In that article there is a particular reference to the apathy of the men towards sports. Sports is a very interesting subject in itself, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that at some time it may come in for a general discussion in this house. When I say "sports" I mean sports that are part of the national life of this country. I do not mean sports such as we read about recently where 27,000 people got together and cheered for athletes who were paid, and who came from a foreign country. I mean sports in which our young people take part, and where their prowess is reflected in what they do in international sports such as the Olympic games, the empire games or other international sports as well as sports at home.
The most important item in the speech from the throne was the reference to the visit of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) to London. The paragraph reads:
My Prime Minister and my Minister of Finance will attend the meeting of the prime ministers of the commonwealth to open In London later this month to consider important economic and monetary problems.
Our Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) are there already. I am sure I express the wish of every member in this house when I say that we hope that they have every success. This matter of commonwealth trade is something which concerns not only the people of the commonwealth but the people of western Europe, the people of the United States, and in fact the whole free world. I listened to the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) a few days ago, and despite what the hon. member said I do not agree with his reference to trade with the United States. We are greatly interested, of course, in trade with the United States, but we should be more interested in the development of trade with Great Britain and the commonwealth countries.
In the past Great Britain and the commonwealth were the countries to which we exported most of our products. I hope the time will come again when these channels of export will be opened up and the commonwealth will again become the recipient of most of the exports from this country. A few days ago I read an article entitled "The Buying Picture". It reads as follows:
The official Canadian statistics reveal the following picture; Britain purchased from Canada during the first eight months of this year products valued at $537 million, but Canada purchased from Britain during this same period British goods and commodities valued at only $228 million.

We are buying just 50 per cent of the amount of goods from Britain that she is purchasing from us.
During this same eight months, however, Canada purchased from the United States goods and commodities valued at no less than $1,917 million, or Canada purchased approximately eight times as much from the United States as she purchased from Britain.
The article goes on to say:
The problem is, then, for Britain to sell more goods in Canada so that Canada can buy more goods from Britain.
Trade with Great Britain and with the commonwealth countries, while it is of the utmost importance to the people of Canada in general, is particularly important to the people of the maritime provinces. It is not so long ago that we considered Great Britain, for instance, to be our best market for our long lumber and for our apples. If you go to Nova Scotia today, down in the Annapolis valley, you will find that where, not many years ago, they were exporting many millions of bushels of apples to Great Britain, today this trade has all dried up, much to the detriment of that beautiful part of Canada in Nova Scotia. We in New Brunswick, in years past, found a great market in Great Britain for pit props. I listened to the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) the other evening; I am not going to repeat what he so eloquently presented to the house. Great Britain was a great market for Canadian pit props and she would be today, just as she would be a great market for much of our pulpwood, if she was only in a position to purchase from us.
In days gone by the British West Indies were also a great market for the people of the maritime provinces and could be again a great market for the people of Canada in general. In connection with the British West Indies I might say that we have noted in the press in recent years articles which seem to imply that the West Indies are today at loose ends, that they are looking around for some country or some place in which they can find more security. My opinion is that the British West Indies could well become, both politically and economically, a part of this great country of ours and I should like to see the day come when she is, because I believe it would be to the great advantage of the people in the maritimes especially if the British West Indies were the eleventh province of this dominion.
We in Canada want millions of dollars' worth of the products of the West Indies. They need our fish, our lumber, our manufactured products and our farm products. The West Indies being a tropical country, we need their fruits like bananas, grapefruit and
The Address-Mr. Brooks other products such as cane sugar. At the present time we are buying great quantities of sugar from Cuba. We could buy sugar from the West Indies. We could also buy- and I suppose we do-much of our rum from the West Indies. It is a tropical country; we are a northern country. As I say, it would be a great advantage to a great northern country like this if we had a tropical province such as the West Indies would be, in order to round out our country, as it were.
I believe the United States has her eyes on the West Indies at the present time. She is ever increasing her influence there. From the press we learn that Great Britain has been withdrawing, from necessity more or less, her influence in this part of the world. The United States is moving into airfields. Great Britain is taking out her troops. There is every reason to believe that the West Indies today are looking for some other country with which they might join. The logical country, to my mind, is our own country of Canada.
In speaking last year, I think it was, on the subject of our trade with Great Britain, I asked at that time whether we were buying as much as we could from Great Britain. At that time I pointed out that there were certain products such as television, certain military equipment, and so on, which we had been buying from the United States and which could have been bought more cheaply from Great Britain. At that time I also pointed out that the United States, which in its papers had been advising its people to "buy British", was not carrying out the instructions which it was giving to its people but rather was making large purchases elsewhere or at least was turning down purchases from Great Britain in the matter of hydro engines and generators. I quoted particularly the instance of Seattle, which could have bought from Britain generators for its great hydro plants at almost half the price which was paid in the United States. Still she turned Great Britain down. In commenting on that situation at that time the ambassador of Great Britain said: "Do they really want to trade with us or do they not?"
Just a short time ago I read an article in the Monetary Times. I think the leader of the Social Credit party mentioned this matter the other day. It had to do with the question of advertising British cars here in Canada at certain motor car exhibits. This is an article which was published in the Monetary Times of November of this year. The heading is "British Cars in Canada" and it reads as follows:
Action of Canadian motor car manufacturers in excluding British cars from two Canadian winter

The Address-Mr. Brooks
auto shows has been received with mixed feelings. Some United Kingdom motor manufacturers look upon it as a form of flattery and an admission that British-made cars constitute a serious threat to Canadian models. While they protest the ban on principle, they feel "quality will out" and Canadians will buy the car that gives them the most for the price.
In some circles the move is seen as being at odds with the "buy-British" drives of the past few years, and certainly spiking campaigns to sell more to Britain. Sir William Welsh, North American representative of the British Society of Motor Manufacturers, described it as "a rather strange interpretation of free enterprise," while others questioned Canadian chances of improving exports.
I think that article speaks for itself. There is another article in the Searle Grain bulletin which gives us an indication of how the western people feel with regard to our British markets. This article is headed "Buy British or Sell Canadian", and it reads as follows:
Great Britain is the largest single market for Canadian wheat and flour. Last year Britain purchased Canadian wheat and flour equivalent to 108 million bushels of wheat, which represented 30 per cent of all Canada's export sales of these commodities. Prairie farmers and all of us in Canada must then be greatly interested in doing everything we can to assist Britain to maintain these annual purchases and if possible to enlarge them. Britain can only continue to purchase large quantities of our wheat, flour and other Canadian products as long as Canadians in turn purchase large quantities of British goods, for that is the only way by which Britain can secure the necessary Canadian dollars with which to buy our Canadian products.
That is the reason I say, Mr. Speaker, that I am sure that members of this house hope that some arrangement will be made at this conference which is being held in London at the present time so that there may be more trade between our country and Great Britain and the British commonwealth.
There is a matter to which I wish to refer particularly this afternoon. It has to do with the military training area which is being established in the province of New Brunswick. I am sorry that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) is not in his seat, because this is a matter which concerns his department, and it is one in which I know he is very much interested. It was recently necessary for us in Canada to establish a training area. This became very evident to our department and the government and to the people here a few years ago when we found, very much to the surprise of us all, that there was not sufficient accommodation in Canada for the training of our troops to send either to Korea or to Germany. The result was that the Canadian troops had to be trained in the United States. This, as I say, amazed the people of Canada. They were amazed to find that in this great, broad country of ours we could not find a suitable training area for our men, and had to send them into a foreign country to be trained.

We were not surprised, therefore, when the government and the department began looking around for a suitable training area in Canada. We received very little information from the Department of National Defence with reference to the selection of this training area. In December, 1951, I asked the minister what was being done in connection with the development of a military training area in Canada, and he said that it was under consideration. Again, in April, 1952-that is last session-I asked the minister a question regarding the selection of a training area. At that time he had no definite information, but simply stated that the matter was still being considered, and that certain areas were being inspected. There was no information when the house closed on July 4 of this year; but when I went down to my own province of New Brunswick I heard rumours around that a part of my constituency of Royal was to be selected as a training area. I wrote to the minister on July 16, and had a reply from him. Again he said that the matter was under consideration and that he could give no definite information regarding it.
On August 1 the announcement was made that a training area had been selected in New Brunswick, and the area selected was, as I say, part of the constituency of Royal, an area not far from the Saint John river. That was the first intimation that the people of New Brunswick, or the people of that area, had that this big training area was being selected. I think I am putting it mildly when I say that it came as a great shock to the people living in this area to read in the newspapers that their homes were to be taken from them and that this was to be a military area.
It was a notice that they had to leave their homes, that they had to leave their farms, and that they had to leave all their communities and all their associations. This will be done, Mr. Speaker, at great sacrifice. It is not easy for people to pick up and leave home; it is not easy for them to leave their churches, their schools, their friends and societies. There are over 1,100 families in this area in Queens and Sunbury counties of New Brunswick. There are over 1,100 homes, and the people in those homes have to be displaced. They are splendid people; they are people whose ancestors lived in that section of the country for four and five generations. It is one of the oldest settled parts of the county of Queens in the province of New Brunswick.
As I have said, all these people wanted was to be sure that the site was required, and all they read was what they saw in the newspapers in a short article. I have it here. It

simply says: "Huge New Brunswick army campsite is confirmed. Land purchases for big project will begin soon." The people wanted to be sure first that it was necessary for them to leave their homes, to leave their churches, to leave their societies, to leave all that they had had in the past; that it was necessary for the defence of this country.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of National Defence, in connection with a matter such as this, should have gone down and told these people why it was necessary for them to leave their homes. As I said, there are 1,100 families, some 2,500 people, to be moved out. This matter should not have been first announced in the newspapers. This was a great shock to them.' The minister owed a duty to these people, a duty which should have been carried out. If the minister himself could not have made the visit, then the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg), who is our representative in the cabinet, and the deputy minister of national defence, might have done it; but it was not done. Instead of that, Mr. Speaker, a false impression was given. The impression was given that this area was being selected by politicians. In the article of August 2, after the announcement of the campsite was made we have under the caption "Worked to get campsite" the pictures of the three members of parliament, the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Riley), the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) and myself. The article goes on to say:
Three New Brunswick members of parliament who took leading roles in the campaign to have Canada's biggest military training base established in New Brunswick are seen above.
Well, I was in this house all during the time that I have mentioned. No mention of this campsite in New Brunswick was ever made. These people, who as I say should have been advised by the Department of National Defence, read in the paper that this campsite was more or less selected by members of parliament. They asked me, as they h&d a right to ask, what qualifications, for instance, has the hon. member for Saint John-Albert to pick out a campsite for the training of a brigade or a division in this country? They asked of the hon. member for Charlotte, what are his qualifications?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: None.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: They could ask of me, what are my qualifications? I think I have a little more perhaps than either of the other two because I have some little experience; but none of us had any qualifications. These people who are losing their homes wanted to know why it was that three politicians should be mentioned as having been responsible for 6S108-20
The Address-Mr. Brooks getting a campsite down in the province of New Brunswick. They were satisfied that there was only one way in which a campsite should be chosen, namely, by the best military experts that there are in this country visiting that site and visiting other sites and selecting a site which they considered the best; and after having visited the site and made their selection then they should have reported to the government. The government made the decision, as I said a moment ago. Then the Minister of National Defence or some other outstanding person from his department should have gone to these people, who are being asked to make so great a sacrifice, and explained to them why it was that they would have to leave their homes, and leave everything which they have cherished over a great many years.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: I wonder whether I could ask the hon. gentleman a question.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Yes.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Is the hon. member prepared to state that he is in favour of having a campsite in New Brunswick or not?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I am the only one of all the members of the province of New Brunswick who ever advocated a campsite in that province. I also say to my hon. friend that I am not opposed to the campsite where it is today if, as these people wish to be assured, it is in the interests of the defence of this country, and if no other comparable campsite could have been obtained without the displacement of 1,100 families.
I know what my hon. friend means. This campsite is partly in my constituency. I have said, and I repeat today, that more care should have been taken in making the selection. Some of my opponents have tried to make it appear that I have been opposed to a campsite in New Brunswick. I am asking the minister to give us a report not only on the campsite to which I am referring, but on the other five campsites, or prospective sites, which were inspected.
I would ask for a report on the campsite near Utopia, in my hon. friend's constituency. I advocated in the house that it should have been chosen as the campsite for New Brunswick. Why? Because the department already has a large military camp in the area, and some millions of dollars have been spent at Utopia. We have an airfield there, we have headquarters, we have sewage and water facilities. In addition there is an extensive area at the rear in which no one is living- there are no 1,100 families to be displaced. True, one might find a few families, but there would be no great displacement of people.
298	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Brooks
Then, near Utopia is the bay of Fundy; and in these days, when we read of military manoeuvres, what better site could we have for combined operations than one near the bay of Fundy, where ships could be used? An airfield is already established at camp Utopia, and there is also a great back area that could be used for the manoeuvring of army personnel.
Utopia I tho^feht would have made an excellent campsite. I still think so; and until the Minister of National Defence gives the House of Commons and the people of Canada the reason why it was not selected, and the area on the Saint John river was, I will continue to have that opinion.
I have this further to say. If it is necessary for these people to make this sacrifice in the defence of Canada, I am sure they are willing to do so. A few moments ago I made reference to the people in that area, and I can say there are no finer in New Brunswick. One has only to go back to the records of the last two wars to learn the calibre and the patriotism of these people. They have their war memorials on which the names of their dead are carved. They have their honour rolls, which compare more than favourably with those of most other sections of equal size. They have good farm land and good dairy herds; some of the finest in the province are found in this area. Adjacent to it is a large dairy. Seventy-five per cent of the milk and cream comes from this area.
If these people are to be displaced, then let me impress upon the government the fact that they must be well paid. They must receive more than mere payment for their lands. They must be paid not only for their lands alone but also for the sacrifice they are making. It is not easy for people to leave their friends, their communities, their society, their schools-yes, and their cemeteries. I am told it is the intention of the department to take up the bodies of those who have been buried there for years and to move them to other cemeteries in the province.
This whole area, which for five generations or more has been the home of some of our best New Brunswick citizens, is to be practically obliterated, and they are to be scattered to wherever they can find other homes. Not only is the cost of the farms involved, but the further fact that these farmers have been spending much of their time looking at other places in the province, and in other provinces, to which they may move.
This year they are selling off their stock, so that they will not have the income from cattle that they had last year. They have


made no provision for next year's crops, because they are to be moved out. The result is that they will have no income. I would hope that when the department is considering the purchase of the farms from these people it will take into careful consideration the matters I have mentioned and others.
I shall discuss only briefly the question of employment. I believe the minister's department has given the guarantee that citizens of this area will be given preference in filling the 2,000 or 3,000 jobs that will be available. That is only right. However, only a week ago I received a wire from people down there saying that employees were being brought in from other provinces to work in this area. Upon making inquiry I was told by the department that it would investigate the matter.
We do not want that sort of thing. There is much unemployment in New Brunswick today. Let me impress upon the department and the government that it is not necessary to bring in workers from other provinces to this area, except to do some technical work which the people in the area might not be capable of performing.
In the matter of purchases of produce and the like, I should hope that the farmers of the surrounding area and New Brunswick in general would be given preference.
Then, large quantities of coal will be required. Arrangements will have to be made so that New Brunswick coal can be used. Suitable heating equipment will have to be set up for this purpose. I know that the coal miners association of New Brunswick located at Minto has been in touch with the government, and has given all the particulars in the matter. I would simply renew these representations. The Minto coal area is only a few miles away from the area in question, and I suggest it would be both convenient and economic for the department to obtain its coal supplies from the Minto area. This certainly should be done.
I do not intend to discuss this subject at greater length this afternoon, except to say to the government that I ask-yes, I demand -that the people in this area who are making the sacrifice not only for the people of their own province but, as they have been told, for the whole of Canada, shall be treated justly and fairly.
My time has almost expired. It had been my intention to deal with another item in the speech from the throne connected with veterans affairs. There will be an opportunity to do that later. However, I notice that the benefits provided under the Veterans Benefit Act are to be continued. This is

something which is of course a routine matter and will be continued as long as the Korean war is in progress. The second item is education for children whose fathers died during war service. This is something which has been recommended by the Canadian Legion and the veterans affairs committee on different occasions, and I am very pleased to note that the government is now taking the matter under consideration.
The Prime Minister, when discussing in his speech the other day the increases for veterans asked for by different members, said that the hon. member for Royal had asked for many such increases. That is a fact and I make no apology for having done so. When the government came before the veterans affairs committee in 1948, for instance, and offered the veterans of this country an increase of 10 per cent in their pensions, I moved an amendment that the increase be 33J per cent. At that time they were raised by 25 per cent and today the increase is greater than 33J per cent. I feel I was quite justified, as were other members, in asking for that increase.
When the pensions were increased in 1951 we asked for an increase in war veterans allowances. It was justified then and if it had been given at that time many of our old soldiers who suffered during the winter of 1951 would have had a much easier and more comfortable time. I and other members asked for an increase at that time. The increase for which I had asked was given in 1952, and in the eyes of the government it was then justified. I have asked time and again for increases. If there is a veterans affairs committee this session, as I feel there should be, I shall again ask for what I believe to be reasonable consideration for war veterans.
We have had the different veterans organizations before us in the veterans affairs committee many times. They have presented their briefs on these occasions but I have never felt that the veterans and pensioners of this country were trying to exploit the government and the taxpayers of Canada. I have always felt that what they asked for was reasonable, just and right and that their only object in making such requests was to improve the situation of their comrades and other veterans.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: Mr. Speaker, I was gratified to hear the assurance given to the house by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) two weeks ago when he said that he had impressed upon the royal commission inquiring into the South Saskatchewan river project the urgency of submitting a report with the greatest possible dispatch.
6S108-20J
The Address-Mr. McCusker The Prime Minister said at that time that he would be disappointed if the commission's report was not available before Christmas. As a member from Saskatchewan, I have naturally followed the deliberations and the progress of the commission with very close interest, and I shall have more to say on the matter when the report is made public.
I have risen to speak in the throne speech debate because of a subject that is of particular interest to me as a physician and because of my association with the Department of National Health and Welfare as parliamentary assistant to the minister. I welcome the reference in the throne speech debate to the extension, with certain changes, of the federal national health program. I might say here that it has given me particular pleasure to note the great interest displayed in this subject by various speakers who have preceded me. However, there seems to be a certain amount of misunderstanding because a number of members referred to a "proposed" national health plan. Surely hon. members are not unaware that there is a very ambitious national health plan under which the federal government has, during the past four and a half years, spent approximately $100 million. I believe they made available for this plan approximately $167 million but the provincial services had not advanced sufficiently to be able to absorb the grants as rapidly as they were offered.
Because of this program greater health progress has been made during these four and a half years than during any other similar period in Canada's history. I am sure every member of the house would give his full support to any measure that would help to strengthen the health services available to the people of this country. For this reason the house will await with interest a statement in due course that will amplify the government's intention as expressed in the speech from the throne. I am sure it will readily agree that any statement of government policy in this regard should be made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). As hon. members know, the minister is now attending the general assembly of the United Nations where he is acting as chairman of the Canadian delegation. I think I can assure hon. members that on his return he will give the house more information as to the next steps that are proposed in our national health plan.
My purpose in speaking today then is not to outline future plans but rather to clear up certain misunderstandings that now seem to exist as to the purpose, the scope and the progress of Canada's national health plan. The house now has before it an
300	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. McCusker amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) on behalf of the socialist party of which he is the leader. This amendment expresses regret that the government has failed to recommend legislation establishing a nation-wide health insurance program, with provision for provincial administration. In order to see the problem in its proper perspective, it seems to me that we must examine two key questions suggested by the amendment itself. The first is: What is health insurance? Second, since the amendment to the amendment suggests provincial administration, we must take a look at the constitutional alignment of responsibilities in Canada in the health field.
Since we are considering a subamendment dealing with health insurance, it is important that every member of the house should have a clear appreciation of just what is meant by this term. Health insurance in the best sense is a good deal more than providing some method of prepaying costs of illness. I am afraid that when people think of health insurance too many of them think of it in the much more limited sense of sickness insurance, as I fear the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar does.


Major James William Coldwell: Oh, no.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: As a physician I recognize the importance of this aspect of health insurance. I realize the difficulty experienced by many families in meeting costs of hospitalization and medical care when sudden illness strikes. But as a physician I also recognize that any health insurance program worthy of the name should have a much broader objective. It should be a comprehensive plan organized and directed towards promoting good health. A comprehensive national health plan should include the establishment of adequate preventive, diagnostic and early treatment services and should encourage the full use of these services in order to see that every citizen will not only be assured of adequate care in the event of illness but will be encouraged to take positive steps toward the goal of good health. When a national health plan is considered in terms of these broader objectives it becomes clear what was meant by the late prime minister, the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, when, in announcing a national health program in 1948, he emphasized that the federal grants thus provided represented foundation measures and, indeed, the first steps in the overall development of a comprehensive national health plan. When we consider the program within this broader framework it must be evident to every member that much solid progress has already been made in Canada towards achieving our goal of the best health insurance system in the world.


In a few moments I wish to outline a few highlights of the national health plan, but before doing so let me say a word about the constitutional division of responsibility for health and welfare in this country. Governmental responsibility for health and welfare action in Canada provides an interesting study. In Canada at confederation there was no such thing as social welfare in the modern sense and, for this reason, there is no clear statement in the British North America Act placing social welfare under the jurisdiction of either provincial or federal governments. However, in the health field, apart from certain statutory responsibilities delegated to the federal government-such as control of food and drugs, sick mariners and others- the responsibility for health services is clearly placed in the hands of the provincial authorities.
Over the years the need for social action has increased and, gradually, public opinion has changed to favour a measure of national responsibility for welfare services. The pressure was no doubt increased by our experience during the depression years, when the municipal and provincial governments found it exceedingly difficult to bear the increasing costs of various social measures; and so the federal government has been asked to share more and more responsibility in this field.
The upward thrust of responsibility from municipal to provincial and from provincial to federal governments has been particularly marked during the post-war years, and we have seen the federal government progressively drawn into the health as well as the welfare field. To illustrate the vast increase in the extent of health and welfare measures, and to indicate the changing responsibilities, it might be useful to examine the changed pattern of social expenditures over the past twenty-five years. Let us compare health and welfare expenditures in 1926 to similar governmental expenditures in 1950. In this twenty-five-year period municipal expenditures on health and welfare increased from $21 million to $72 million. Provincial expenditures increased from $17 million to $238 million. Federal expenditures increased from $50 million to $723 million.
These figures clearly illustrate the increased cost of health and welfare measures and the vastly increased participation of the federal government in those fields. This year all governments in Canada will spend $1-25 billion on various health and welfare measures. Here I might remind hon. members that a clear distinction cannot be drawn between what is spent on health and what is spent on welfare. In the final analysis health and welfare are indivisible. For

example, family allowances, which provide greater economic security to the whole family, have their effect on the health of the people by making possible better standards of nutrition and more adequate medical and dental care. Other welfare grants such as old age pensions, veterans allowances, blind pensions, unemployment insurance, and I could name many others, all have their beneficial effects on health.
Today, however, I would like to deal only with those federal expenditures directly bearing on health. When the health grants came into effect in 1948 the federal government recognized that there were certain weaknesses and deficiencies in Canada's health services that could not be corrected within the limits of provincial budgets. The federal government decided, therefore, to make federal grants available to all provinces to assist them in improving their health facilities and thus to pave the way for the introduction of a comprehensive health plan.
There were three main areas in which the federal government felt that accelerated progress was needed and grants were accordingly directed towards those needs. The first was in health information. Basic information on the nation's health facilities and services and on our future needs was wholly inadequate. To offset this situation the government offered grants to each province for the purpose of conducting comprehensive surveys of the provinces' health resources. I shall have more to say about those surveys in a moment.
To supplement the information contained in the provincial surveys, the government undertook a national sickness survey to ascertain the incidence of ill health in this country, as well as the adequacy of health care available to the average Canadian family. We were short of facilities and equipment. To help overcome deficiencies in our health facilities, the government offered grants for hospital construction as well as for the establishment of clinics and other health services.
Grants were also made available for the training and employment of badly needed health workers and for the purchase of specialized equipment and supplies for local and provincial health services.
It was recognized that a great deal more could be done to combat such serious health problems as cancer, tuberculosis, mental illness, crippling conditions in children, arthritis and rheumatism.
Special grants were earmarked to help the provinces develop improved services and facilities in these fields.
The Address-Mr. McCusker Now let me say a word about provincial health surveys to which I have already referred. Let me emphasize that the preliminary work of building the necessary facilities and equipment with the aid of federal grants has, from the first, been recognized as an essential prelude to the inauguration of the insurance aspects of our national health plan. The purpose of the provincial surveys are twofold. Through the surveys accurate information would be made available on the future needs of the provinces and would provide for the intelligent utilization of the grants. The surveys would give each province an opportunity of indicating whether they felt they could now move on to some further stage of health insurance. Nine of the ten surveys have now been received and it is interesting to note the views they expressed.
In general, they commend the government on its grant program and reaffirm the fact that facilities and services will have to be brought to better levels before the next step can be taken with any assurance of success. In view of the wide publicity that has been given to the provincial surveys it seems rather astonishing that so much misinformation or lack of information seems to exist on the subject.
Let us consider statements in the past ten days by members of the three opposition parties in this house-first of all, the official opposition-the Progressive Conservative party. On November 24 the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) said in this house, and I quote from page 29 of Hansard:
. . . there should be general agreement that the first and necessary step in dealing with this subject is to institute an inquiry which would be conducted by representatives of the medical profession, the hospital boards, the dominion, provincial and municipal governments.
Note that the Leader of the Opposition suggests that "the first step" in the institution of a national health plan is to conduct such an inquiry. He said that it would be improper for the dominion government to proceed further with its plan in this field without the most extensive inquiry to ascertain the basic facts upon which any sound approach to this problem must depend. Surely the Leader of the Opposition, for all his extensive travels in recent months, could not have gotten so completely out of touch with things in his own country that he was not aware that ten provincial surveys had already been conducted, nine completed, on the very kind of inquiry that he had suggested. Surely, the Conservative party is not so conservative that it still wants us to call conferences that have been called already, make studies that have already been made or draw plans that have

The Address-Mr. McCusker been drawn up. How could a party and its leader be so far out of touch with reality as to be unaware of what has taken place in the country for the past four and a half years.
The only parallel I can find for this state of amnesia is in the fabled sleep of Rip van Winkle. May I point out also that the artillery "used by the Conservatives in attacking the -government health program is just as rusty .and ineffective as was the old fowling piece =of Rip van Winkle after it had lain beside him during his twenty years of slumber.
The C.C.F. party do not want studies. They want action, headlong action, regardless of the consequences. Last session the C.C.F. party was embarrassed by the conservative views of the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher), whom I see sitting over there today. He would like to see the means test reimposed on old age pensions and extended to family allowances. What are his views on the demands of his party today? He has not heen allowed to express them. This time they are not taking any chances. Their leader has laid down the party line right at the start. The socialists who want the cooperation of the provinces should re-read the provincial health surveys. If they did, they would find that only two of these reports have suggested that the time is opportune.
The member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) suggests that we take the health insurance plans of other countries, Sweden, France, Belgium, Holland, New Zealand or England, and superimpose them upon our own excellent health services. I submit that would be just as sensible as superimposing a Volkswagen body on a Cadillac chassis.
Then, last Wednesday, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) again assured us that a national health plan is not something to be approached gradually. No; the C.C.F. would have us go ahead regardless of whether we are ready or not and regardless of the views of the provinces.


Mr. Knowles:: Did you not just say that plans were already drawn?


Emmett Andrew McCusker: Just a moment; I am making this speech. The Social Credit is one party on the other side of the house which is properly labelled, for in the realm of social action they at least give credit where credit is due. Hon. members will recall the words used by the leader of that party about two weeks ago when he said, and I quote from page 56 of Hansard for November 24:
X think a fair start has already been made in Canada, and it should be aggressively expanded and extended as rapidly as resources can be made available, consistent with sound development practices.

At least the Social Crediters have some appreciation of the progress that has been made over the past four and a half years to build a better level of health services throughout Canada. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) at least recognizes that we have had for four and a half years a definite, concrete and aggressive health program, and does not continually refer to a "proposed" national health plan. The attitude of the hon. member for Peace River is oddly at variance, however, with the tone of the Alberta health survey report which recommends the immediate introduction of compulsory health insurance. I have the report here. In view of the remarkable divergence of views between the Social Credit government of Alberta and the national leader of the Social Credit party, it might be just as well if the hon. member were to state which is the official view.
So much for the surveys; so let me now deal briefly with some of the other features of the federal national health plan. Time will not permit me to go into detail on all that has been accomplished with the aid of federal grants towards building up the needed hospital accommodation, training additional staff, extending existing services and establishing entirely new facilities. Perhaps I might first pick out from the thousands of projects that have been submitted by the provinces over the past four and a half years, and involving federal expenditures of $100 million, seven or eight of the main highlights.
Since the beginning of the program, federal aid has been approved for more than 400 individual hospital construction projects which will provide 41,000 new hospital beds. To help overcome staff shortages, special training has been provided to some 3,900 professional health workers in various fields. Federal funds have been used to employ several thousand additional health workers in provincial and local health departments. Substantial support has been given towards the establishment and equipping of various clinics, diagnostic centres, outpatient departments in hospitals, and other public health services. Over two million Canadians are receiving X-ray examinations each year in an effort to help detect unsuspected tuberculosis in its earliest stages. Assistance has been given towards the establishment of mobile and stationary clinics for the treatment of arthritis and rheumatism. Campaigns against cancer and other serious health hazards have been greatly intensified.
When I am speaking about cancer, may I produce here the act that was passed in Saskatchewan in 1944 and made law in June before the C.C.F. came into power. I am doing this because on a previous occasion when I

spoke in this house the member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) said that the cancer legislation had been introduced by the C.C.F. government. Here is the act, and it was law before the C.C.F. government came into power. I may say that the body of the act has not been changed since that time.


Major James William Coldwell: What was the date of the act?


Emmett Andrew McCusker: It is the Cancer Control Act, 1944, and it was made law on June 15.


Major James William Coldwell: Just a month before the dissolution of the legislature.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: Well, it was law. There has been an impressive increase in medical and public health research. These are but a few of the encouraging developments of the past few years. There are some who claim that the Liberal government has been promising action but doing nothing since a health program was first considered in 1919.
I would ask them to look at the record of the past 33 years. They will see a tremendous increase in government expenditures on health from 1919 to 1951. I have just quoted you the figures. They will also see many evidences that these expenditures have paid off in better health. The general mortality rate has been impressively decreased. Infant and maternal mortality rates have been slashed. Tuberculosis is being brought under control. Diseases like smallpox, diphtheria, whooping cough, etc., have been effectively checked. There can be no question but that Canadians today have access to better health than at any previous time in our history.
Gradually and unceasingly over the years, more particularly since the inauguration of the national health program, Canada has moved ahead along the path towards a comprehensive nation-wide health plan for the people. In the light of past progress and existing needs, plans for the future will be made.
Before taking my seat I should like to say a few words about the stand of the C.C.F. and about their record in my home province of Saskatchewan. Let me first point out a few glaring inconsistencies in the statements of the C.C.F. members.
In a national broadcast their leader said that health insurance would "replace entirely" the amounts now being spent by individuals on health care. Surely the hon. gentleman knows this is not realistic. Surely he knows that these services must be paid for by somebody. Hon. members must realize that we have gone a long way on the path towards ensuring the best of health for Canadians. The transition has been gradual and has not disrupted our economy.
The Address-Mr. McCusker
I think. the following story will illustrate the manner in which this transition is taking place. Professor Howell of the Royal Victoria hospital in Montreal was asked to outline for McGill university a curriculum which, if followed, would result in the graduating of cultured young men and women. He replied that this was difficult. Culture, he said, was something that came upon one who studied, who read and who thought a great deal and it came upon him gradually and was lasting. This is the manner in which our health program has progressed, it has been built gradually, firmly and it will last.
True health insurance cannot be purchased with a lump of money nor can it be achieved by a half-baked C.C.F. pre-election plan. It will be the reward of much planning, much thought, much study and a great deal of hard work.
It is only a few months since the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was castigating the government for its failure to set up a parliamentary committee on health insurance. Now his leader says he hopes the government will not set up a committee. He says we have had enough committees.
Then in another national broadcast the leader of the C.C.F. party suggested that the federal grants are not high enough to encourage hospital building. Surely the hon. member must consider 41,000 beds in 4J years to be a fairly good record.
When speaking the other day the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) was quoting figures that I did not consider were correct, and I asked his permission to place the correct figures on Hansard. I asked if he wanted the correct figures and he said no.


Major James William Coldwell: He said yes.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: He said no.


Mr. Noseworihy:: Pie said yes.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: I will read you Hansard. He said no.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson):: Order.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: I have here statistics of hospital construction grants, beds approved up until November 12, 1952. Grants have been approved for 41,075 hospital beds and also-something that we had not been planning for until recently and which is a new grant-3,245 nurses' beds. While I am correcting the statement made by the hon. member for Saskatoon I might just as well correct a statement that the leader of the C.C.F. made on the radio. He said that in 1944 there were less than 4 beds per thousand in Saskatchewan. The hon. member for Saskatoon said that there were 3-7. The
304	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. McCusker correct figure is 4-8. I have the statistics here which show that. I have them for the year 1941 and they give the figures. I have not time to give them all but they are available to the house if hon. members want them.
There is another matter that both the leader of the C.C.F. party and the hon. member for Saskatoon forgot to mention. They were telling of the great number of beds, almost 7 per thousand, that we have in Saskatchewan. The fact that they forgot to mention is that the population of Saskatchewan has fallen off 7 per cent since we have had a socialist government there, while the population of Canada has increased 18 per cent. It is therefore easier to provide beds when you have a falling population, coming down to the beds that you have, than when you are building up to catch up with an expanding population.
I now wish to say a few words about the health program in my home province of Saskatchewan.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, just before the hon. member proceeds, may I say this.


An hon. Member:: I hope you take this time out, Mr. Speaker.


Major James William Coldwell: I am not objecting to an extension of the time. I suggest that the hon. member look at page 220 of Hansard. If he does so, he will see there the following:


Emmett Andrew McCusker: Does he wish to give correct figures?


Mr. Knight:: The answer is yes.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: All right. Read the next question.


Major James William Coldwell: Very well.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: Then will the hon. member permit me to give them?


Mr. Croll:: And the answer is no.


Major James William Coldwell: The answer is:


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: No. As I explained, I have the source for all these figures. If my friend wishes to correct them in a speech of his own, that is his responsibility.
He is doing that now.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: I am doing that now.


Major James William Coldwell: That is what was suggested by the hon. member for Saskatoon.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: Now I wish to say a few words about the health program in my own province of Saskatchewan which receives such extravagant praise from the socialist side of the house. There is a sort of legend which has grown up in Canada that the C.C.F. has built a wonderful health program in the province of Saskatchewan. As a Saskatchewan physician, I would be the last to


suggest that Saskatchewan has not an excellent health program; even though we have nothing to be complacent about, I am proud of it. But if we are going to pay tribute to the health progress made in my home province let us look to the facts and pay tribute to those pioneers who were responsible for it.


Major James William Coldwell: I have done that.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: Our excellent health structure in Saskatchewan was not built up in the comparatively short time that the province has been in socialist hands but over the past two generations. Long before anyone had ever heard of the C.C.F., the foundations were laid. For instance, I know that the first elements in the province's health insurance program date back beyond 1916. I know that the municipal doctor schemes and the district hospital plans date back to the first world war. The province's excellent tuberculosis control program goes back even further to 1910, and free treatment for all patients in sanatoria was inaugurated in 1929. I saw these and other health programs develop under other administrations. I was present at the birth and know who fathered these plans for which the C.C.F. now claim parentage. The solid health structure that now exists in Saskatchewan has been a slow and steady development, built on sound foundations.
In Saskatchewan we constantly hear it said that we had no public health department. Let me quote a few statistics on health in Saskatchewan. In 1922 there were 134-7 cases of diphtheria per 100,000 people and in 1944 the rate was down to 10-9 cases per
100.000	people. As to scarlet fever, in the period 1920 to 1924 inclusive, there were 289 deaths from that disease in Saskatchewan. In 1940 to 1944 inclusive, there were 39 deaths from that disease. With regard to smallpox, in 1922 there were 33-1 cases per
100.000	of population. By 1944 the rate was down to no cases per 100,000; there was no smallpox. As to typhoid fever, in 1922 there were 31-6 cases per 100,000 people. By 1944, the rate was down to 2-1 cases per 100,000. In the five years from 1938 to 1943, preceding the C.C.F. ad-vent in Saskatchewan! over 500,000 children were immunized against smallpox, diphtheria, scarlet fever and whooping cough.
I ask hon. members this question: Can you say that a province can achieve that record without a good health service?
The province's excellent Cancer Control Act was enacted by a Liberal government before the C.C.F. came into office. When the

socialists got in in 1944, their first step was to engage Dr. Henry E. Sigerist, dean of medicine of Johns Hopkins university, to survey the province's health services. I have his report here. Let me read a quotation from the Saskatchewan Star-Phoenix of September 21,	1944, reporting a public
address by Dr. Sigerist:
He praised the present facilities and standards of health in Saskatchewan, stating that the province had a superb record and a splendid set-up which had been built up in years of gradual work. It was only a question of extending those facilities.
Dr. Sigerist went on to say:
When a history of North American medicine was written, Saskatchewan would have a special chapter for its pioneer work in this field.
We all know who the pioneers in medicine were in Saskatchewan, and they certainly were not socialists, nor were they friendly toward socialism, or its ideas. They were men who detested socialism. Dr. Maurice Seymour, the first deputy minister of health in Saskatchewan, was responsible for a lot of the good record that I have just read. Then there was Dr. Ferguson, who was responsible for the organization of our campaign and the building of our hospitals in Saskatchewan to take care of tuberculosis, and who is world famous. Dr. Munroe-and I am sure the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) will be glad to hear this because he was the Conservative minister of health in Dr. Anderson's government-introduced the cancer legislation in Saskatchewan.


Mr. Drew:: I am not learning that from you just now. Like the other things, I knew this for a long time, because I was associated with him.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: You forgot them the other day.


George Alexander Drew: No, I have not forgotten them.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: Dr. Uhrich, the minister of health in the Liberal government of Saskatchewan, introduced free cancer treatment, among other things. It must be evident to all that the health program for which the C.C.F. is taking much credit in Saskatchewan is simply an extension of earlier programs inaugurated by other governments, and that any developments, outside of hospitalization, taking place today are being paid for in substantial measure out of federal grants, and that we are also paying our share toward hospital and nursing residence construction.
Once upon a time the leaders of the C.C.F. party in Saskatchewan were mostly poor men who talked about socialism. Now they are mostly comfortable capitalists with a love of travel. They believe in private ownership for themselves and state ownership for
The Address-Mr. Wright others. If they cannot get votes on socialism, they try to get them on sickness. Despite the hysterical campaign the C.C.F. party is conducting in an attempt to urge precipitate action on this house, I am convinced that Canadians generally are favouring the sensible, gradual approach to these problems that has been the mark of Liberal policy over the years. That labour does not approve of this campaign is indicated by the following editorial from the current issue of the Trades and Labour Congress magazine:
There is no question that the vast majority of Canadians need and want a system of health insurance. Our politicians have realized this for a very long time and have used it many times for vote-catching purposes. Most people want it with or without any petitions which might be construed as another effort to advance a particular political cause by some further exploitation of a long overdue and urgently desired need for better health. Organized labour does not want to see the question of health insurance politically muddied.
Is this not precisely what the C.C.F. is doing today when they are issuing petitions, putting on campaigns to force this on the government in spite of what the people of the different provinces have indicated they want?
Disraeli said:
Health is the first duty of a statesman.
Today, judging by the C.C.F. campaign, there is danger of it becoming the last refuge of a politician.


Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfort):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate my first observation would be that the speech from the throne reminds me very much of the grab bags which used to be sold in our general stores some years ago. When you opened them you found a lot of everything in them, but not much of any one particular thing. That seems to be about the story with regard to the speech from the throne. It deals with a great many subjects, among them being the subject which has .just been dealt with by the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. McCusker). He has given us a considerable number of statistics with regard to what has been done in the field of health in the dominion and in the province of Saskatchewan over the last few years. His remark that the C.C.F. in the province of Saskatchewan are not now giving credit to the people who started some of these health measures is not true. On many occasions I have heard ministers of the crown in the province of Saskatchewan giving credit to Dr. Munroe. In fact they named one of the wings of the cancer clinic in Regina for Dr. Munroe, in honour of the basic work he had done in that respect.

The Address

Mr. Wright
The hon. member for Regina City indicated that I had on one occasion stated that the legislation with regard to cancer in the province of Saskatchewan had been passed by the C.C.F. government. He also indicated that the act had actually been proclaimed, if I remember correctly, on June 15, 1944. If my memory serves me rightly, 1 think the election was held on June 18, 1944. In other words, the act was proclaimed just four days before the provincial election.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: I am sure the hon. member does not want to be inaccurate. The act had passed through the legislature and had been approved-


Major James William Coldwell: Just before the dissolution.


Percy Ellis Wright: It was proclaimed just four days before the provincial election. There is no doubt that a national health scheme for Canada can only be put into effect, and be effective, when there is basic education with regard to health and welfare services in this country. But surely if the figures given by the hon. member for Regina City of the basic investigations that have been carried out over the years are true, then we have reached the time when we can take another step forward in these health services which are so necessary to our Canadian people.
I am sure that Canadians were startled during the last war -when it was proven that out of the men enlisting for active service approximately 42 per cent were unfit. That condition is not much better today. In fact it is worse, if the figures given recently by Lieutenant Colonel Matthews are correct, in which he states that 50 per cent enlisting today are physically and emotionally unfit for service in our armed forces. Surely it is time we made another step forward. We in the C.C.F. believe that national health insurance is the next forward step that should be made in Canada toward an over-all social security program for our people.
There are three distinct differences of opinion with regard to this matter. The Liberals state their position quite clearly in the speech from the throne. They say this:
Much has been accomplished since the inauguration in 1948 of the five-year national health grants program to strengthen and improve, in co-operation with the provincial governments, the health and hospital facilities available to our people. To ensure the continued expansion of this important work, my government proposes to ask you to give consideration to the extension, with certain changes, of this program of co-operation with the provincial governments.
I do not know what the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) may announce as to what that further step will be; whether it is just going to be an extension


of the present hospital grants; whether it is going to mean an increase in those hospital grants, or whether it is going to mean what I believe, and what we in this group believe, should be a new step forward, which will give to our people complete health care. I say that because I am convinced we have reached the point in Canada where we can take this step, by extending the services we now have and which we are able to extend.
The health survey tabled by the government in Saskatchewan indicates that in that province we have carried on an experiment in provincial health services which could serve as a guide to other provinces, and to the dominion, in extending our medical services to full coverage at this time.
As the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. McCusker) said, medical health services in western Canada have been growing over a period of years. The municipal doctor plan was inaugurated after the first war, and there are now in Saskatchewan 110 physicians with municipal doctor contracts. These physicians provide a varying range of services to approximately 200,000 persons in 107 municipalities in which there are municipal doctors.
Not only this, but in that province a great number of our physicians are engaged in some form of social medicine. Out of 563 active practitioners, 58 are employed in hospitals or institutions, 110 have municipal doctor contracts, and 36 are engaged in the Swift Current health area. This means that in Saskatchewan 204 out of 563 medical practitioners are already engaged in some form of social medicine. So with the introduction of a federal scheme we would simply be extending something already in existence in that province. I think members of the medical profession agree that some form of medical health insurance is necessary. As a matter of fact, already our doctors are engaging voluntarily in the clinic form of medicine. In Saskatchewan the trend among the members of the medical profession is to practise in partnerships and groups. The figures show that 205, or 43 per cent of the 479 general practitioners and specialists are engaged in this type of practice.
An examination of the distribution according to age groups reveals that in age groups below 40 physicians practising in groups or partnerships outnumber those practising alone by a ratio of four to three. The converse is true of age groups from 40 to 49 years and from 50 to 59 years. Of the 86 general practitioners and specialists over 60, 65 are practising alone.
In other words today the doctors themselves are voluntarily forming clinics to work

at their profession. The day of the individual practitioner is over in Canada; and by instituting some over-all form of health insurance we will only be continuing something that is already growing in Canada.
The attitude of the Progressive Conservative party in this matter is expressed quite clearly in its amendment to the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Paragraph (d) of that amendment offered by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) says this:
(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.
Well, evidence was placed before the house by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) indicating that there have been some 30 general surveys and reports in the last ten years. Today the hon. member for Regina City tabled the reports of five provinces and their surveys with respect to health insurance. Surely we do not need another one at this time. Surely we have reached the point where, over the years, we have built up a sense of the need for some further medical health care, to the point where we are prepared to take the necessary steps forward at this time.
That is why we in the C.C.F. offered our amendment to the amendment. Moved by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), it stated that we should recommend legislation at this session establishing a nation-wide health insurance program, with provision for provincial administration. I believe that is the position taken by the great majority of people in this country. The government has received the annual reports of the various labour organizations, including the A.F. of L., the C.I.O. and the Catholic Confederation of Labour. In nearly all these annual reports the recommendation is made that an over-all medical health scheme for Canada be instituted.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture, women's institutes and farm unions-practically every organization in Canada, in making its report to our government, has asked for health insurance. A Gallup poll indicated that 75 per cent of our people are in favour of a national health insurance program. Surely this should be an indication to the government as to the position taken by people across this country.
In the C.C.F. all we are doing is trying to voice the will of the people in respect of a federal health service. I am sure if the Liberal party is to meet the needs of the people it must do more at this session than simply take another step, or extend steps
The Address-Mr. Wright already taken. It is true that health grants to the provinces have assisted. It is also true that the hospital grants now given are not sufficient. As a matter of fact the $1,000 per bed given by the dominion government, and supplemented in an equal amount by the various provincial governments, represents today only the increased cost of building hospitals in Canada since the time the grant was first given in 1948. There has been a tremendous increase in costs, and the grants only meet that increase; in fact, I do not think they do meet the whole of it. Municipalities are still burdened with the major cost of hospital construction.
I think that in the matter of hospital construction the municipalities must accept a share of the responsibility. In my view the building and the administration of hospitals throughout the country should remain under municipal control, because the closer one gets to the people in the administration of local services the more economically they are likely to be operated.
That has been the object of the health scheme in Saskatchewan. The province has tried to assist the municipalities in building these facilities. The moment some of these services are made available to the people you create the desire or the will to build the facilities to meet those services. It was the general hospitalization scheme introduced in Saskatchewan that caused the municipalities to begin a hospital building program. When the people in the province found that these services were to be made available to them, immediately they put pressure on their municipal governments to create the facilities, so they might use the hospitalization scheme then introduced.
The same thing would take place right across Canada. If we passed a national health scheme for the Dominion of Canada we would find a desire created, even in those provinces which may today be below the average in hospital beds available to their population, that would force municipalities to build the necessary facilities to make the act effective. That is why we in the C.C.F. believe we should make a real step forward in health insurance at this session of parliament.
I should now like to refer to another matter which is included in the speech from the throne. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) are now in Great Britain at the commonwealth conference on trade relations. We do not know what the outcome of that conference may be. We do not know what recommendations may come out of it. One press report states that the matter of the revaluation of gold is under consideration and that the

The Address-Mr. Wright question of exchange rates may be taken up. I am sure every member of the house is anxious that out of this conference shall come better trade relations not only within the commonwealth but throughout the free areas of the world. It seems to me if that is to be accomplished there are certain basic things which we must take into consideration.
We in Canada and on the North American continent are in a very fortunate position. During the last war Canada was able to build up many of its productive facilities. We were able to increase the plant capacity of the country for manufacturing. We were able to increase our production of various raw materials. After the war we found ourselves in a much better position as far as trade was concerned than before the war started. Just the opposite was the case in Europe and in Great Britain. On the continent particularly they found that many of their factories had been destroyed. In England some of their factories were destroyed, and others became obsolete through almost continuous use in the production of war materials.
Let us see how we increased the value of our plant capacity in Canada. I am going to use the Aluminum Company of Canada as an example. During the war the capital of that company expanded by over $100 million. That plant was paid for out of the price which we obtained for aluminum. One of the greatest buyers of aluminum was Great Britain. In other words Great Britain, through her purchases of aluminum in Canada, made a very large investment in the expansion of that plant and the production of aluminum in this country, while at the same time much of her plant and equipment was becoming obsolete.
That can be carried into practically every field of manufacture. Our allies during the war, through the price they paid Canada for much of the equipment and material they needed, and which they used in bringing of the war to a successful conclusion, brought about the expansion of our plant and equipment. We find now when the war is over that we have expanded our plant and equipment in Canada while the markets for much of the goods supplied at one time by Great Britain have been lost to her. Her investments in this country were dissipated during the war or were used at that time for the purchase of raw materials and goods from this country. Now we are finding that we cannot trade with Great Britain, we cannot sell our farm products to Great Britain.
You know, it seems there is something wrong when we in this country have an abundance of feed grain and all the facilities


to produce bacon in large quantities, yet in Great Britain the people are on a ration of two or three ounces of bacon a week. Are we genuine in our relationships with our NATO partners when we say to some of the European countries and Great Britain, for instance, as some people in this country do- I am very glad to say there are not many members of parliament in this class-that they should reduce their standard of living even further? These people say that Great Britain should do this so she may take her place alongside us in the production of the necessary materials to secure our protection and theirs against aggression in the world.
It seems to me that we have to reciprocate. We have to do something which Great Britain did in the early years of Canada's development. In those years Great Britain invested a lot of money in Canada in our railroads, in our early manufacturing plants and other enterprises that brought about the development of the country. Surely now in the hour of Great Britain's need, after she has dissipated her resources in two great wars, we should be prepared to reciprocate and try to build up in Great Britain and other NATO countries some of the plant and equipment which they used lavishly for our protection during the last war.
How can we do that? I think the proposals made by the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar should be given serious consideration. If we want to sell our agricultural products to Great Britain there is only one way in which Great Britain can pay for them, and that is in goods or services. She cannot produce these goods and services with her present plant and equipment. Therefore it seems to me that the wise thing for us to do would be to accept sterling for some of the goods and services we can supply to her. Let us sell her bacon, sell her apples, sell her cheese, accept sterling and invest that sterling in plant and equipment in Great Britain to assist in improving her ability to produce more goods and services so that later she can pay us for the products we produce in Canada.
I do not think that we can solve our trade problems by manipulating the price of gold or manipulating exchanges. The price of gold and the manipulation of exchanges simply are a barometer indicating what has taken place in trade. It may be a balance wheel to a certain extent, but the only true balance wheel in trade is the trading of goods for goods; and until the countries with which we are dealing are able to produce the goods we need at a price at which we are prepared to accept them, then trade will be a one-way street and will die. I agree with

much of what the hon. member for Charlotte <Mr. Stuart) said the other day. We have to take down some of the barriers this country has erected against trade. We have to try to make trade a two-way street. We have to invest in some of these countries with which we want to trade so they can produce goods and services to pay for the things we have to sell to them. It does not make sense to see an agricultural policy being followed in this country which would restrict our production of agricultural products to what we can consume in this country when there are other countries engaged with us in a common defence program under NATO that have a standard of living which is much below ours.
This matter of exchange is rather a mystery to a lot of people. It seems an anomaly that today, through the manipulation of our exchange-I do not like the use of the word "manipulation", but through the fluctuations of our exchange-we, as western wheat producers, should be receiving about 20 cents a bushel, I believe-and it was 25 or 26 cents a bushel some three or four weeks ago-less than we were receiving six months ago when our Canadian dollar was 10 cents under the United States dollar. Under the international wheat agreement the last quotation I saw was $1.76. That price was $1.98 some six months ago. It has been as low as $1.72.
We are receiving less, yet the British are paying more for that grain than they were paying previously, just because the price paid by the British was fixed on the basis of the United States dollar. Usually when the producer receives less for a product one naturally assumes the consumer is paying less for it. That is the whole basis for fluctuations in price. When the producer receives less the consumer pays less, and because of the lesser price he is paying he consumes a bit more and you get an adjustment in price; but that is not what is taking place today. We are getting less and the British are paying the same for their purchases of our wheat. Not only that, the millers in Canada are paying less for the wheat because of the increase in the value of our Canadian dollar. They purchase the wheat at the international wheat agreement price. Some six months ago they were paying $1.98 plus regular carrying and diversion charges. Today they are paying the international wheat agreement price of $1.76; but are consumers in this country getting flour any cheaper as a result of that? Not at all. The price of flour has remained the same even though the price of wheat to millers has dropped by as much as 25 cents
The Address-Mr. Wright a bushel. Somebody must be making a greater profit out of the milling of wheat than they were before.
Notwithstanding all this the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) indicated to this house, and to the committee on agriculture, that he was pretty adamant in his position on wheat, that the domestic price for wheat should be the same as the international wheat agreement price. Surely he cannot argue today, with the millers buying the wheat at from 20 to 25 cents less because of the fluctuations in the exchange rates, that it is a position that we in Canada should be in now. Surely there is no reason, just because there was a rise in the value of the Canadian dollar, for the millers of this country to be able to purchase wheat cheaper by 20 to 26 cents. If they do, then certainly that cheaper wheat should be reflected in cheaper flour to the consumers of this country, and that has not been the case to date.
The primary producers of this country are taking a tremendous loss today because of the fluctuations in the exchange rates. Estimates have been made by various authorities. I have here an editorial in the Western Producer which indicates that the loss this year to the western grain producers may amount to as much as $150 million. That is a serious loss. They state here:
It is possible that Mr. Abbott is not fully cognizant of the enormous penalty paid by prairie wheat growers as a result of the exchange situation. It is costing them a full 25 cents per bushel when compared with the rate prevailing at the time the wheat agreement was negotiated. That will amount to something like $150 million on the grain going to market this year. It will cost a farmer $250 on every 1,000 bushels of wheat. The farmer who harvests 10.000 bushels of wheat is nicked to the tune of $2,500.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) may think that is all right, that the western wheat producers should have $150 million less to spend on goods and services this year, but there will not be the same demand for those goods and services. They will not buy as many refrigerators or as much new machinery as they might have had they received this additional purchasing power. It enables the government to keep down the cost of living in this country, but surely the primary producers-and the pulp and paper and lumber people are in the same position as the western farmers-should not be asked to subsidize the lowering of the cost of living in this country. That is what is taking place with the present exchange fluctuations.
It is all very well to say that it is fine for our Canadian dollar to be at a premium over the United States dollar, but some

The Address-Mr. Wright people are paying a pretty high price for that fact, and they are the primary producers, the wheat producers in western Canada.
We all agree that we should have an international wheat agreement. I think 95 per cent of the wheat producers in western Canada are behind the wheat board and the government in trying to negotiate another wheat agreement. What we do object to in western Canada is that when we have negotiated these long-term agreements the government should then change the conditions under which we as producers have to fulfil them. That has happened twice now. When we entered into the British contract in 1947 there was a price ceiling on most of the things which went into the cost of production in this country. Immediately after we made that agreement the government took off the price ceilings in this country with the result that the producers, whose product had been sold at a fixed price for three years and at a negotiated price in the last year, saw their cost of production go up by from 25 to 50 per cent. As a result that agreement, which had been a good agreement as far as the wheat producers were concerned when it was entered- into, became not nearly so good, because conditions over which the government had control changed. Now the same thing is taking place with regard to the international wheat agreement.
When we entered into the international wheat agreement the price was fixed on the basis of the United States dollar, and during much of that contract as a result of the price being fixed on the basis of the United States dollar, we were getting for our wheat $1.98 plus carrying charges. The government then, on the advice of the Conservative party, did away with the foreign exchange control board and freed the Canadian dollar. Immediately that dollar began to rise until it reached $1.04J as compared with the United States dollar. That resulted at once in a change in the conditions under which wheat growers were producing their product to fulfil the agreement entered into on their behalf. As I said before it meant that they would get 20 to 25 cents a bushel less for their grain, because this government changed the conditions that Canada had control over, thereby reducing the price received by the producers for their product.
That is the surest way by which we can discourage our people or attempt to discourage our people from entering into these agreements. In western Canada we certainly believe in these long-term agreements and

we believe that the government, in negotiating them, should take the advice of some of the officials of our various organizations in western Canada. I have in my hand a copy of an address given by J. H. Wesson at the annual meeting of the Saskatchewan wheat pool. I believe that in a couple of sentences he sums up the position of the producers of western Canada very effectively. He states:
I think we should concern ourselves with this one point, and I hope you raise this in the country, What are we likely to get in prices if we don't have an agreement? That should be our concern.
He continues later:
In other words the whole principle of international agreement, that we debated over 22 years ago, was that we wanted prices fair to the producer and fair to the consumer alike, and we wanted to get away from this so-called three-dollar wheat and the next year 40-cent wheat. So I want to repeat we can't expect to get peak prices under an international wheat agreement, but we don't face those cellar prices of 38 and 40 cents as we did in the black thirties. I think the most important thing that our people should consider today is not how much we could get in a ceiling price, as how high we can get the floor price for our own protection for the future of the next four years.
I think that sums up pretty well the attitude of the western wheat producer. I hope that in negotiating another wheat contract our government will take this into consideration.
For just a few minutes I want to deal with the question of transportation facilities. We are going to have quite a problem in getting our crop to market this year. I feel that the wheat board and the transportation companies did a reasonably good job in moving our crop last year. In western Canada we have had two years in which our crop was out of condition, in which a large percentage of it was in the lower grades and a large percentage was tough and damp. These crops have been moved to market without any serious loss. I believe the wheat board and the various authorities who have had charge of the movement of those crops have done a reasonable job. It is true that there have been certain localities in which conditions have existed which should not have existed. Some localities were able to get their crop to market quicker than other areas. But taken as a whole there has been a reasonable attempt made to move our crop to market in an orderly manner.
This year we are going to face problems as great or greater. It is going to take all the facilities we have available to market our crop before the next crop year. One of our facilities which I believe should be extended at this time is the port of Churchill. We have there a government elevator which has approximately a 2 [DOT] 5 million bushel capacity.

This year we have moved through that port the largest amount of grain that has been moved to date, about 8J million bushels. Anyone who knows anything about the movement of grain knows the problem there is when you move 8J million bushels of grain during the short period that port is open, and with an elevator capacity of approximately 2 [DOT] 5 million bushels. In other words there is about 2 million bushels capacity available there, and the space for the other half million bushels has to be used for working space.
If we are to increase the deliveries through that port, as I believe we should, then action should be taken. By delivering grain through that port we can deliver a much greater amount with the same number of box cars than we could if those box cars were used to bring grain to Port Arthur and Fort William, and the amount would be even greater if those box cars must be used to bring grain to eastern Canada. The On-to-the-Bay Association in western Canada is an active body. They have made certain recommendations to the government upon which I believe the government should take action.
They suggest first that the elevator capacity at Churchill should be doubled before the opening of the 1953 season. In answer to a question the other day the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) indicated that this matter would be given consideration. I hope that consideration is going to be given in sufficient time to enable us to handle more of our grain through that port in the 1953 season.
The second recommendation reads:
In view of increase in overseas and coastal trade, enlargement of dock and equipment to allow berthing and loading two more ships, making berth space for five beats.
3.	Essential that an effective ice patrol by air be organized out of Churchill by plane or helicopter effective mid July until late August with assurance that all information and advice be given ships before they approach and leave Churchill.
4.	All season effective air patrol of the straits.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson):: Order. I am extremely sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I have to advise him that his time has expired.


Percy Ellis Wright: Mr. Speaker, I have just a few more of the proposals made by this organization to read. If I could have the unanimous consent of the house, I would do so.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson):: Has
the hon. member unanimous consent to proceed?


Mr. Ferrie:: I object.
The Address-Mr. A. Gauthier


Percy Ellis Wright: As the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Ferrie) has objected to my putting on the record the recommendations of this organization-


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: You would not let me, so I will not let anyone else.


Percy Ellis Wright: -I shall use another opportunity to put them on the record.
(Translation):


Mr. Andre Gauthier (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, may I at the outset offer my sincere congratulations to the mover (Mr. Deslieres) and the seconder (Mr. Schneider) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, for the able way in which they fulfilled the task entrusted to them. Their speeches show without the shadow of a doubt that the electors of Brome-Missisquoi and of Waterloo North have every reason to be proud of the members they recently chose to represent them.
Before beginning my remarks, I would like to mention some incidents that occurred during the past year about which the people of Lake St. John have reason to be proud.
First, last February, their member had the honour of being chosen as seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I then had the pleasure of telling the house of the beauty, the wealth and the prodigious development of that part of our country.
Later, in June to be exact, with the encouragement and co-operation of my colleagues from Charlevoix (Mr. Maltais) and from Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Boisvert), I was able to demonstrate on the spot to a group of 65 members and their wives how well-founded were the statements I had made in my speech on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. This trip, I am sure, was much appreciated and has been for quite a few a true revelation. The sentiment of pride, felt by the people of my constituency and the people of the whole Saguenay district, was unsurpassed except for the honour and the pleasure they had in welcoming such a delegation of distinguished and keenly interested people.
Visits like these are surely enough to revive our pride in being Canadians and to strengthen our desire for national unity.
Finally, we had the honour, during the month of August, to welcome the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). He was able to appreciate for himself the immense indus-

312	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. A. Gauthier trial possibilities of a district newly opened but still full of promise. We are thankful to Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent for the interest he takes in every part of our immense country; the prosperity enjoyed in this "kingdom" of the Saguenay is not peculiar to this part of Canada, for it spreads all over the country.
Mr. Speaker, like every other member of this house and every other Canadian, I was proud and happy to learn of the elevation by our holy father the Pope of His Excellency Archbishop Leger to the exalted rank of cardinal. The people from the constituency of Lake St. John extend to him their most heartfelt congratulations, assure him of their filial submission and respectful good wishes.
Last week, in this house, we heard some severe criticism levelled at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Breton), in an excellent speech delivered yesterday, supported the government's action in regard to television. He did so with skill, with convincing arguments. He deserves our congratulations.
I do not intend to deal with this matter in such an exhaustive way. Still I would like to express my own opinion. The Liberal party has always championed Canadian unity and, for the past 25 years, and especially under its present leader has attempted to bring into play all those factors favourable to the development of a true Canadian spirit and of an attitude worthy of a sovereign nation mindful of the duties which it is called upon to discharge.
Radio broadcasting goes back to 1919, but each station has been operated first and foremost for the income which such and such program could produce; unfortunately, there was no organized body capable of guiding radio activities in the interest of Canadian listeners and1 in that of Canada as a nation.
In 1929, the government which was then headed by the Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King, in a foresighted gesture, instituted a royal commission of inquiry presided over by Sir John Aird. Insisting on the fact that radio broadcasting was a responsible public institution and that it is an excellent means of popular education, that commission, even if it recognized the laudable efforts of private stations, made recommendations which were eventually to bring about a system which was to become one of the greatest factors of national unity and better understanding between the different racial groups of this country.

The opinion claiming that radio broadcasting should serve, first and foremost, to create and maintain a Canadian culture is now firmly established and does not give rise to any discussion. In order to allow for the implementation of such a policy, in order that its application may become a constant practice, it was necessary to have a directing body entrusted with the supervision of foreign broadcasts, with the fostering of programs liable to awaken national interest, in short, with the orientation of broadcasting to programs of Canadian inspiration, more in keeping with our national mentality.
I am not suggesting that it was necessary to give this body the name of C.B.C. or Canadian Broadcasting Corporation or any other name but I declare that even if it were to exist outside the national network, it would be necessary to grant the latter privileges and advantages which would allow it to attain the objective for which it was created.
What is true of radio is even more so of television. The present government cannot repeat the mistake committed in the early days of radio. I for one would not want to see a menace of cultural annexation by the Americans threaten once again the present generation. Has it not been said before the Massey commission on national development in arts, letters and sciences, by a representative of a private station that the best way to raise the cultural level in Canada would be to take full advantage of the culture which has progressed most rapidly, that of the United States.
Do you not believe, Mr. Speaker, that the conscious or unconscious tendency towards the acquisition of American culture greatly endangers the future of our young nation, such a tendency being moreover favoured by economic factors, inasmuch as private broadcasting stations are considered. From a strictly commercial point of view, it is easy to see that a private station owner would be strongly tempted to import films or to pipe in programs produced by American stations more cheaply than in Canada.
For that reason, I favour the present policy of the government in respect to television. It is advisable that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation be the first to guide television and produce programs of Canadian inspiration.
I do not pretend that the C.B.C. is a perfect institution: it has made errors and it will likely make others. Together with the members of the Massey-Levesque commission, I believe that some of the gaps can be filled in. As an example of that, I give the following conclusion put forward by the royal commission:

That persons engaged in radio broadcasting in Canada directly and adversely affected by a final decision of the board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on any matter in which this board has final authority be granted the right of appeal to a federal court against substantial miscarriage of justice.
Although there might be room for improvement as far as the status of the C.B.C. is concerned or for the amendment of some of its regulations, I cannot accept the conclusions of the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Courte-manche) who says, at page 76 of Hansard:
Neither do I hesitate to accept the conclusions of Basil Dean, whose texts published in the Calgary Herald have 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.
The hon. member says that he accepts the conclusions of Basil Dean; it means, in other words, that he would be favourable to a purely technical control the sole purpose of which would be to assign television wavelengths. It is truly impossible for me to support such policy.
Mr. Speaker, we from Quebec have particular reasons to resist the threat of American cultural assimilation. We have a profound devotion to our language, our religion and our traditions-in a word, to our French culture.
The present policy of this government is favourable to the growth of a distinctive Canadian culture, as well as to the maintenance of French culture, which is an absolutely essential element in the existence of this Canadian nation of ours.
Certainly, sooner or later, private enterprise will have a hand in television, but the latter will have, meanwhile, learned to serve the national interest. '
It will be pointed out to us that censorship may play a truly useful part in the cleaning up of television broadcasts. I agree. I might add in passing, too, that censorship belongs to the provincial field and must be applied by provincial governments. Still, by its very nature, censorship exerts a purely passive or negative action, in that it prevents the spread of what may be more particularly injurious to the morals and education of our youth. It can never replace with any efficiency a state-supported body whose mission is to foster and maintain the growth of Canadian unity, of a true Canadianism. In short, we must
The Address-Mr. Fair have a positive and constructive television policy. There is the whole difference, Mr. Speaker, between the policy put forward by the Progressive Conservative party and that expounded by the Liberal party.
The former favours a policy of abstention, a purely negative or passive one, whereas the latter demonstrates in this connection, as in others, foresight, realism and patriotism.
(Text):


Mr. Robert Fair (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in the debate this afternoon I feel that we are coming back to finish up some of the jobs we should have done last session, or perhaps two or three sessions ago. I refer now to the War Veterans Allowance Act.
It will be remembered that for some time we on the opposition side have tried to have something done about that, and the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) was good enough to set up a committee at the last session and make certain changes. Until that time a single veteran was getting an allowance of $40 a month and a married veteran $70 a month. Many of us who had been out around the country did not feel, and still do not feel that that is sufficient for those veterans. Recommendations were made that this be increased from $40 to $60 and from $70 to $120; but when, the bill was brought in provision was made to increase the allowance for the single veteran to $50 a month, and for the married veteran to $90 a month.
I have not heard any veterans' organization, or any veterans, say they are satisfied with that amount. We must remember that since 1939 the value of our dollar has dropped to 50 cents. I think everybody will agree that no veteran can exist on that allowance. Many of them are suffering from very poor health. In my opinion, instead of putting them off with $50 and $90 they should have preferred treatment, because they are the men who, some years ago, went overseas and offered everything they had, namely their lives, in order that Canada should be free. Had this not been done many of us would not be able to sit here in comfort in this house today and discuss this and many other matters.
On many occasions in the past I have referred to a statement made by Sir Robert Borden, who was at that time prime minister of Canada. I am going to bring the matter a little more up to date with another statement by the late prime minister, William Lyon Mackenzie King. This is taken from
314	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Fair Hansard of February 24, 1930, at page 44, and has to do with the veterans' problem. Mr. King had this to say:
May I say that after giving a great deal of time and careful thought and study to this question, the government has come to the conclusion that the existing legislation is not adequate. In particular it has been borne in upon us that there are a large number of returned men who, while not suffering from any disability immediately traceable to some particular happening, are nevertheless finding themselves breaking down through causes more or less unknown. In other words, they are experiencing after a number of years what I think would be described in medical terms as the effects of deferred reaction. Though they went through the strain of the war, though they suffered mentally and physically as they did in those years, the fact that at the time they were strong and in good health led to nothing being immediately visible as a consequence of the strain they had been called upon to endure. As the years have gone by however, and the system has weakened from other causes, the strain of past years has begun to tell and many men are breaking down today apparently for no other reason than that of the strain of the war period.
That is the opinion of a man who was for a long time the leader of the government of this country, and I believe he did give that question a lot of study. A great deal of study has also been given the same question by many others, but I think a little more help would be better than continued study. Are we withholding this help because we cannot afford it? I do not think so. At the present time our bins are full of grain. We are wondering how in the world we are going to get rid of it all; yet these veterans, who as I said before went over to defend Canada, are not getting the assistance to which they are properly entitled. Only the other day, and since the session commenced, we had the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) tell us that they were going to provide additional subsidies for gold mines. It would be much more appropriate if some of this assistance were made available so that our veterans could get better treatment.
There is another group of people I have been speaking about for the past few years, and thinking about in fact for much longer than that but holding back to some extent because of the survey that has been going on for the past number of years. I refer to the incapacitated. Each time we asked about them we were told that a survey was under way. I believe the survey is finished in most provinces at the present time, and I should like to know what action is now going to be taken. We know that many people who are in the very best of health are having difficulties, in some instances, through no fault of their own, in making a living. Then when we go about the streets and go into the homes and find people in wheel chairs or in bed and not able to take care of themselves we wonder why the country cannot


do something about it, particularly when the relatives, the parents, perhaps the brothers and sisters of these people are not able to help them without suffering themselves. When that pension is brought in, as I hope it will be during this session, I should like to see it enacted without a means test.
In connection with the people about whom I spoke a few moments ago, namely the veterans, while the legislation brought in at the last session did help to some extent, one change was made that I believe is not in keeping with our ability to provide further help. These people, single and married, cannot have outside earnings of more than $120 a year or $10 a month without having their war veterans allowance cut down. That is very poor business. While we have had a lot to say about health insurance at the present time, I think that giving these people an opportunity to get out and do a little work, if they are in physical shape to do it, would be one method of helping them attain better health. So, increase the allowable earnings.
I was glad to hear the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) announce the other day that the cattle embargo to the United States will be lifted on March 1. I am sure that will be welcome news to many of the cattle producers; and not only to them, because what is good for them is also good for the rest of the country. I hope that some suitable arrangements can be made so that those who have held cattle off the market will not lose on account of that embargo, and that full use will be made of the floor prices for beef until this problem has been brought down to normal again.
Many of our cattlemen have suffered much in dollars and in worry through no fault of their own and through no fault of the government, as far as foot-and-mouth disease is concerned. We blame them for a lot of other things, but they are not to blame for that particular calamity.
In connection with the question of pork I, like many others, was sorry to learn that the price will be down to 23 cents a pound after January 1. Today we have many people producing hogs, and when they find that the price at which they can sell is uneconomical they will naturally go out of business. Perhaps the result will be that some of those people who are protesting against the payment of subsidies or floor prices will find that because of the lower production of pork they will have to pay a much higher price because pork will not be produced. I know that at the present time we have plenty of pork to supply our market; but I am not satisfied that our market should be confined to Canada.

Only a couple of months ago I noticed that a considerable portion of it had been taken over by Denmark, something I was sorry to see. According to a newspaper item it appears that Great Britain has agreed to take at least 90 per cent of the exports from that country, and at substantial prices. More recently I noticed that Holland had made a short-term agreement along similar lines.
I believe that if some of our trade restrictions were removed, particularly those affecting our currencies, we would have kept much of that market, and the condition would be improved for people in other countries as well. I believe the government is making some attempt to remove some of the restrictions. We know the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) are in London at the present time. The stand they should take was made abundantly clear in the house before they left. They went to London with good intentions and, had they been able in a Liberal party of around 180 members to find another man able to assume the duties of deputy prime minister, perhaps our good friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) would have gone along, too. He seems to be the dealer in the family; and while he does not always make the best deals, the fact remains that he does make them.
A recent issue of the Ottawa Citizen indicates that the Minister of Trade and Commerce was in New York recently and spoke to the United States foreign trade council. The newspaper article contains some comment on his trip. He told them that-
-trade barriers have multipled in some countries at an alarming rate. But there are signs that countries with import controls now are more receptive to the idea of getting rid of them.
"How general that attitude has become, I do not know," said Mr. Howe, "but it has been in evidence in some very important quarters and it is certainly a most significant and welcome sign."
Some of the sterling area countries were trying to learn the precise and true causes of its dollar shortage, but, said Mr. Howe, the free world could not afford to postpone reduction of restrictions until this was done.
I am glad the Minister of Trade and Commerce is catching on to some of the things that are wrong.
Import restrictions, imposed for temporary purposes, had a way of becoming permanent. Quantitative controls on imports, imposed to halt a drain on dollar exchange, made a permanent cure for the dollar problem more difficult. The responsibility for removing the controls rested with countries which had imposed them. But he doubted whether they would be removed "without the encouragement and co-operation of our two countries and particularly the United States."
The time was ripe for a new attack on the world's trade restrictions, said Mr. Howe. He was confident that a world in which non-restrictive trade policies predominated could be re-established. But there
The Address-Mr. Fair was one "great essential"-a need for "close and tenacious co-operation by all the free nations-a resolute will to work together."
I hope the Minister of Trade and Commerce and his colleagues will work together to bring about the condition this article indicates. I believe the Canadian farmers could produce much more, both for the benefit of themselves and the country as a whole, and to relieve starving nations overseas. The farmers feel, however, that if they do not have some assurance of a market there is not much use in producing grain and livestock. Our experience in the past has been that unless we have some contracts, some method of getting rid of our products after they are produced, the farmer must take the rap in the form of lower prices. Certainly he derives no benefit from lower prices, because such prices do not apply to the same extent in respect of the articles he must use in order to produce.
Trade restrictions should be removed. I was glad to hear the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) early in this session, and on another occasion last session, set out some of the things that are happening in respect of prices in this country as compared with those in the country immediately south of us. Many of us who travel through the United States on our way to the west have purchased goods of different kinds in that country. Many times we are able to get them at no more than half the price we must pay on this side of the border.
We have the raw material in this country, and I do not think we are paying as high wages as are paid in the United States. Yet, because of the protection in different forms given to our manufacturers, our consumers are compelled on many occasions to pay 150 per cent of the amount that should be paid. As examples one thinks immediately of automobiles, tires, shoes, clothing and many other commodities. Especially is this true of electrical goods.
I was pleased to note that a little less than a year ago the government did introduce a bill to remedy this condition. While that legislation kept us here in Ottawa almost until Christmas day, and made it necessary to resume after Christmas, the bill was passed, and I believe it had much to do with cutting down the prices of goods. People are receiving as much as $150 trade-in allowance for some item of little value from the kitchen when purchasing a refrigerator, a stove, a washing machine or something of that nature.
For a few moments I should like to discuss the wheat situation. Before doing so, however, personally and on behalf of the people I represent I should like to compliment

The Address-Mr. Fair the chief commissioner and his associates in the Canadian wheat board. While they are continuously being sniped at by the Winnipeg grain exchange and their friends, it is my belief that the men in the wheat board have done a first-class job. The final payments announced a short time ago have made many of our farmers happy. In its restricted form the wheat board has done an excellent job; and when the Minister of Trade and Commerce makes his next trip to Washington I hope he will not permit himself to be tied down to the prices to which we have been subjected in the past.
The crops in 1950 and 1951 were two of the most difficult to handle. Despite out-of-condition and low-grade grain, the wheat board has done a job satisfactory to all, so far as I am aware. I hope they will continue in office and to do good work, even though some may wish to get rid of them. They are the farmers' salvation.
I should like now to discuss the international wheat agreement. In common with other hon. members who have already spoken, I would like to have a new one. I am not convinced that the terms of the present agreement are satisfactory or in the interests of our producers. The price ceiling is $1.80 per bushel in United States funds. For some months this gave the farmers an advantage whereby they received $1.98 per bushel for their top-grade grain, basis Fort William-Port Arthur-Vancouver. But, because of the fiddling around with our dollar and gold and other things connected with the monetary system, we find that at one time our Canadian dollar was at a premium of 5 per cent over the United States dollar. As a result there have been quotations for wheat under the international wheat agreement as low as $1.72 a bushel instead of the price of $1.98. This means a drop of 26 cents per bushel, and those on the sidelines do not see any reason whatever for that difference in price. When the present international wheat agreement was being negotiated we did not vote against it. We thought an international agreement was a good thing but, as I stated before, we were not satisfied with the terms. When we have a definite ceiling price on the grain that we are to sell over the four-year period without having any ceiling whatever on the costs of production, then I think we are stepping into very dangerous territory.
That was pointed out very clearly to the government by those in this group, and the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) made a suggestion one day that there should be a fluctuating price for our grain. In other words the price of our grain should be tied


to the price of goods in the importing countries, and if the price of goods in those countries went up then the price of our wheat would go up. If the price of goods in the importing countries went down then the price of wheat should go down correspondingly. By that method we would have the opportunity to bring back the same quantity of the other fellow's goods regardless of high or low price.
But the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) did not feel that it was possible to get figures upon which to base a deal of that kind. The hon. member for Acadia of course came back and told him that the international monetary fund had all these figures available and had had them for months past. But even with that information in the possession of the minister nothing whatever was done. As a result of the set-up hundreds of millions of bushels of wheat have been sold under the agreement at as much as 50 cents a bushel below the price of class II wheat, which is the wheat sold by the wheat board to countries other than those covered by the international wheat agreement.
I hope this pitfall will be avoided when the next international wheat agreement is negotiated. I understand the meeting is to be held in Washington on January 12, although some press reports state that an attempt is being made to delay the conference until after the new president takes office on January 20. We shall be quite satisfied to wait until after that date provided we can get a deal that is worth while. As I stated before, I should like the Minister of Trade and Commerce to go there in the same spirit evidenced in statements he has made during past weeks, when he has said that we are not going to be too easily satisfied. I believe an international wheat agreement is a good thing, but we must not sacrifice price and other things for the sake of getting such an agreement. The wheat board is doing a good job, and if we cannot get satisfactory terms under such an agreement then I believe the wheat board is also capable of doing this job.
Another matter that has been giving many people a lot of trouble is the question of supplying wheat to Canadian millers for consumption within Canada at the international wheat agreement price. That is a definite steal from the wheat growers of Canada because they get nothing whatever, not a single solitary cent, in return for that. On one occasion the Minister of Trade and Commerce said that he would not agree to the Canadian taxpayer subsidizing the wheat growers in order that the class II price might be paid them. There is no subsidy whatever connected with the matter and the people who

grow wheat and who take a reduced price, sometimes to the extent of 50 cents a bushel, are well aware of that fact. That is a part of the program.
In order to bring down the cost of producing wheat to some extent I would suggest, as I have on two or three other occasions, that an investigation be made into the cost of farm implements. We have examples of prices for farm machinery that are entirely unjustifiable. Cars and trucks are also used in connection with the production of grain, and I would suggest that something be done to find out why the prices of such items are so high compared with prices across the line. That is one way that we might help our producers to cut down the cost of production.
In order to make things better for our national safety, I would again urge the government to take into consideration the early construction of a highway from Winnipeg to the coast over the Yellowhead pass route. There is provision made for a highway in the southern part of western Canada, but Canada is a big country and its defence seems to be one of our worst headaches. We are contributing more than $2 billion a year toward the preparations. I think some of that money could well be spent in the building of a highway from Winnipeg through Saskatoon, my own home town of Vermilion, Edmonton, and on through the Yellowhead pass to Vancouver.
There is another item that has been talked about quite a lot, and on a few occasions I have mentioned it myself. I refer to taxation. We feel we have far too many taxes, far more than are necessary for the purposes for which they are levied. On this occasion, however, I want to deal with the problem of a particular case of taxation involving a farmer and his wife. Last session on July 4, the day we adjourned, I took up this matter, and before that I wrote the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) about it. I had very nice letters from him. He was most courteous, but I believe that somebody in his department is making wrong decisions because I know that the minister would not be guilty of making the decision which was made in the particular case with which I am going to deal for the next five minutes or so.
This case concerns a man and his wife. I believe they were married away back in 1914. At that time the wife would be about 20 and, as far as I can figure it out, her husband would be about 29. I remember that I got married once too, and I was about the same age as this man and my wife was about the same age as the lady involved. I can remember the enthusiasm with which we entered
The Address-Mr. Fair into the farming experience. In the particular case to which I am referring the lady concerned, either by using her own earnings or perhaps as a gift from her folks, was in possession of one cow and one heifer when she was married. They struggled along. They were living in a semi-dry part of the country, and even farmers living in the best part of the country have had quite a struggle all through the years from that time until now.
As I said, in 1914 this lady on her own account had one cow and one heifer. That makes two animals. In 1915, because it takes only nine months for an increase of one calf, there would be four head of cattle. In 1916 there would be six head in the ordinary course of events, and in 1917, provided some of the first calves turned out to be heifers, there would be an even greater increase. Anybody who wishes to do a little arithmetic may work out the problem for themselves. Of course there would have to be a lot of supposition because all calves are not heifers; some of them are bulls. I am bringing out the point at this time to show the nonsense that is sometimes practised in the Department of National Revenue. From 1914 to 1948 is a period of 34 years. With the natural increase of two calves a year, with only two cows being in the production line, we would have a total of 68 head of cattle. I will leave it at that for the time being.
As I stated before, plenty of lean years were experienced because this was a dry district. This lady and her husband worked hard, very hard. I do not know of any group of women in Canada who work as hard and for as long hours as do our farm women. That was particularly true in days gone by. As a result of her start of a herd of cattle she finally built up a nice herd and was able to purchase a half section of land. As time went on they, like a good many other people on the farm, had broken health. In 1948 they sold a part of their basic herd. I say "their" basic herd because I presume this man had some cattle of his own and the two herds grew up together, and naturally they carried on as they should have done. This lady believes there should be a community interest in the case of man and wife.
After selling a part of their basic herd they decided, for the security of the wife, that they would buy an annuity for her. They decided to buy a government annuity, ten years, guaranteeing $100 monthly. That annuity cost them $13,268.76. Looking at it from my point of view I believe the price was a little higher than it should have been. I have not inquired into that as it just caught my eye yesterday.
318	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Fair
In 1948 the woman had $1,000 in her bank account and the husband apparently wrote the cheque which paid for the annuity, $13,268.76. The balance of the amount which accrued from sales of livestock, grain, et cetera, was in the husband's name. Over that account the wife had power of attorney. The husband, as I say, wrote the cheque to pay for the annuity for his wife and it must be clearly pointed out that the money they had in the bank and which was used to pay for that annuity was income from their farm operations and livestock. It had been fully assessed and full taxes had been paid to the Department of National Revenue. There is no argument so far. In my opinion the money belonged to them and they could do with it just as they saw fit.
When the annuity was purchased they were advised by the Edmonton office that there would be no tax since the purchase was made from income on which income tax had already been paid. They were advised that there might be tax on the interest portion of the annuity as they received it. In 1951 the husband was assessed gift tax of $1,184.63. That was protested immediately to the Department of National Revenue and an attempt was made to have the annuity cancelled. Of course that did not succeed, because if you buy a government annuity, I understand the money is there and you cannot do anything about it. You wait until it begins to pay and you carry on from there.
This all means that an annuity guaranteeing $100 a month for ten years cost them $13,268.76 plus gift tax of $1,184.63, or a total of $14,453.39. That was the family's own money. Had the wife written a cheque herself on her own account, if she had had $13,000 or $14,000 instead of $1,000, there would have been no attempt made to collect gift tax on the amount.
Should this lady, who is not now in good health, die after ten years she will have collected ten times $1,200 or $12,000. Without saying one word about interest it has already cost them $14,453.39. I believe quite sincerely that this gift tax was wrongly levied, as the wife's profits were lumped together with those of her husband. I point out that this team worked together on their farm. They worked hard, very hard. I know the territory in which they lived, and they had to work hard. In spite of that, because the man wrote the cheque he is assessed this amount of gift tax.
The wife had $1,000 in her own bank account, and I come back again to the herd of cattle that was started back in 1914 with two potential producers, one cow and one heifer. It is estimated by the Department of
IMr. Fair.]

National Revenue, I believe the Edmonton branch, that the $1,000 she had in the bank would account for the value of the two head of cattle she started with and any increase that should have accrued in the meantime. I think it is time that whoever did that figuring was sent out to a farm to get a little experience on the end of a fork handle or something else.
As I pointed out, from the two head she started with, in the 34 years between 1914 and 1948 there would have been a total herd of 68 head of cattle with only two producing each year. We should also remember that during recent years cattle were a fairly good price. One thousand dollars or -even fourteen thousand dollars would not begin to pay for the cattle that would have accumulated on this lady's own property plus the half section of land they purchased.
They protested to the department and could not get anything done. In my opinion, if the clerks in the Department of National Revenue office in Edmonton, and perhaps other centres as well, cannot figure dollars of assessment any better than they figured the offspring of those two head of cattle from 1914 on, then it is time something radical was done. There is an injustice here which the minister investigated after I took the question up last July. He wrote me a very nice letter. Again I say I am not accusing the minister of any of the injustice that has occurred in this case. I have known the minister here since 1935 and I would not for a moment think of attributing anything like that to him; but he is the minister responsible and he must take full responsibility for what is done by his officials in Edmonton and elsewhere.
I notice that the regulation is to the effect that overpayment of tax may be refunded to the taxpayer upon written application therefor if the request is received within twelve months of the overpayment. I am quite satisfied from what I have read that other farmers have found themselves in exactly the same position, and I am bringing the matter to the attention of the house for a second time so this injustice may be rectified. It is the minister's responsibility. This lady's husband, and the lady herself, have been wrongfully cheated out of $1,184.63 an,d I think it should be taken care of. I know the minister does not want to impose a wrong like that on a Canadian farmer or on anybody else. I believe I have placed their case fairly on the record today. I would ask the minister, in the name of justice, that consideration be given to this case. I understand that these people are now off the farm and are not working it any more. In the interest

of a little harmony and fair play in the country, I would ask the minister to investigate this case and make a refund of the amount I have mentioned. I hope the minister will do that because I know he does not want to be unfair. I have every confidence in him, and I hope this matter will be adjusted.


Mr. Rene N. Juiras (Provencher):: In the
few minutes I have at my disposal before six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to one or two matters that concern my constituency more directly. First of all may I extend my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Deslieres) and seconder (Mr. Schneider) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne on the manner in which they both performed their tasks in the house. I should like to add one more word of congratulation to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) upon the very high position to which he has been named in the United Nations. As one who had the privilege and honour of serving under him at the fourth session of the general assembly I fully appreciate the task that he has been given as president of the general assembly. This is a tribute not only to him personally; it is certainly an indication of the high regard in which he is held at the United Nations, as well as a tribute to our country. I am very pleased to be able to extend my congratulations to him.
I want to refer briefly to the P.F.R.A. This afternoon mention has been made of the South Saskatchewan river project. I fully support this project and hope it will come to realization. At the same time, however, I should like to say that the magnitude of this important project that is being undertaken by the P.F.R.A. should not overshadow or relegate to the background the true purpose for which this splendid act was initiated. In the first place, all the people in the west know that this act has done a tremendous amount of good through the small, individual projects which have been carried out. We in the Red river valley are aware of this as well.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Red river is known to be very temperamental. A few years ago we were complaining about having far too much water in our district, and this year the opposite is the case. The Red river is very low. Actually there is some fear that if this winter proves to be severe the river
The Address-Mr. Jutras might freeze solidly to the bottom, and the water may not be usable at all. However, we are used to that and we have many dug-outs which were built under P.F.R.A. Many farmers have more than one of these dugouts to assure a supply of water. This year, because of the dry season, most of these dug-outs are almost dry, and we may have a severe shortage of water during the winter.
I believe that the P.F.R.A. could help us, not so much financially but by helping us try to make greater use of the water we have at the present time. As a matter of fact, most of the farmers went to great expense this fall to get pumping equipment and hose by means of which they hoped to pump all the water available in the area into one dugout. On an individual basis this proved a rather costly operation. Possibly the P.F.R.A. could give consideration to renting whatever pumping equipment or hose they have so we could make use of every drop of water that is available in the area.
I want to say a word, too, about the Canadian farm loan board. They have been doing a very good job out west. There is an area in the southeast corner of Manitoba in which I think the Canadian farm loan board could do a great deal more than it has done in the past. I am sure the result of this increased activity would be almost to transform that southeastern corner of the province. The people in that area have been relying almost exclusively on pulpwood to earn their living. The supply is getting shorter all the time, and a great deal of that land is almost ready to be broken up and turned into agricultural production. I prophesy that in a few years you will see grain elevators there, and this will be very productive and high-priced land.
However, at the present time the farmers living there are short of cash. Since these farms have not been developed, the farmers have difficulty in getting credit and that is where I think the farm loan board could be of assistance. By a liberal use of credit this whole section of Manitoba could be transformed into a new and very productive source of foodstuffs for the years to come.
I should like to move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]

Thursday, December 4, 1952