1953-11-26

Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. As this is the United States thanksgiving day, I am sure that we unite with our American neighbours in saying thanks to God for the blessings of the past year.



POLIOMYELITIS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the federal government given any assistance toward the care and treatment of polio patients? If so, what type and what amount has been given to each province?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
gentleman spoke to me about this question the other day, and I had understood that he was to speak to me again before we decided the precise form in which the question would be put and the answer given. I think the answer to this question is such- it is so long and the contributions are so great; I say that in all seriousness-that it ought to be put on the order paper and answered in that way. That is the way in which I propose to deal with the question.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct
a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has the attention of the minister been drawn to a news item in a Vancouver paper to the effect that civilian employees at the Jericho Beach army base are being forced to work nine hours a day while the hours for similar civilian employment are eight hours for a five-day week? Will the minister see that steps are taken to have the hours of work at the army base conform to those in similar employment in the Vancouver area?
83276-23J


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: Yes, I have seen the newspaper
report to which the hon. member refers. As he and the house know, I think, the hours and conditions of work for prevailing rate employees in the Department of National Defence are fixed by the treasury board on the recommendation of the Department of Labour.
During the past few weeks the civilian personnel officers of the Department of National Defence have been discussing with the treasury board staff the question of introducing the five-day 40-hour week for prevailing rate employees of the department in those areas where comparable workers in private employment work a standard five-day 40-hour week. The matter is under consideration.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, November 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. A. H. Hollingworth 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.
Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned at six o'clock yesterday evening I had referred to reports made by the combines investigation branch and tabled in the house since 1945. I had just mentioned the report tabled in 1945 on Canada and international cartels, which did not contain any specific reference to any offence under the combines legislation in Canada.
I shall now refer to some reports which have been made on Canadian industries since that time and which have been tabled in this house. In July of 1947 there was a report on dental supplies. In April of 1948 there was a report on an investigation into optical goods. In both those cases the combines investigation branch found there was a conspiracy in restraint of trade. In the first one prosecution failed on a procedural ground, and in the second case I believe prosecution was not started because of the decision made in the first one, the circumstances in both cases being similar.
356	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Maclnnis
In 1948 there was an investigation into the baking industry in the western provinces and the report was tabled in that year. The companies were convicted in Calgary in October, 1951. I should like the members of this house to pay attention to some of the statements made by the presiding judge, Mr. Justice McBride of Alberta, when giving his judgment in the case. The justice said the bakers were more interested in price than in quality, service and salesmanship. Bread is an item of necessity that goes into every home. Even in the most poverty-stricken homes they cannot get along without their daily supply of bread. But here in this important industry-shall I call it an industry?- it was found that there was a combine. I am reading now from a report in the Winnipeg Tribune of October 3, 1951, which contains the following:
Mr. Justice McBride referred in his judgment to certain actions of the six companies. This included illegitimate use of Alberta government stationery. He termed this a "fraudulent system ... a system of misrepresentation and fraud, a system of plunder comparable to meeting a man on the street and forcibly robbing him of his money."
In our courts we are quite severe with those who hold up people on the streets and rob them of their money, but while there was a conviction in this case and fines imposed I do not have much doubt that the same procedure for exploiting consumers is being carried on today, in the same way as in 1948 and previous years before the investigation took place.


Mr. Coldwell:: Over a wider area.


Angus MacInnis: The newspaper article continues:
Mr. Justice McBride said the main purposes of the association then were to fix and maintain uniform prices established from time to time, arbitrarily raising and lowering them, and to prevent and lessen competition in other ways. . . . Such methods, he said, included refusal of supply, dissuading other bakers willing to fill the needs, illegitimate use of Alberta government stationery and appeals to various government departments to compel the stores to maintain the chain bakers' uniform price structure.
I remember reading the evidence ini the bakeries case, and there was considerable in it about the efforts that were made by the large bakeries to put a small bakery operating in Prince Albert, I believe, out of business. The other day the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) waxed eloquent in his denunciation of the government's refusal to grant a licence to Canadian Pacific Air Lines for the carriage of air freight between Vancouver and Montreal. I have never heard his voice raised in the house on this matter of a big business destroying a smaller business, that is so important to every family


and every individual in his constituency. There is not much free competition left in the business of providing the staff of life for the people of Canada.
In 1948 there was a report on the flour milling industry. This was the report that pretty nearly unhorsed the Minister of Justice (Mr. G-arson) when he came down here as a tenderfoot from the Portage plains. There was no prosecution in this case because I understand that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) said "No". In 1949 there was a report on the match companies and they were convicted in Montreal in May of 1951. I understand the case is under appeal. Five match companies were involved and a monopoly was proven. The trial was conducted by Mr. Justice Bienvenue-I hope I am pronouncing his name correctly-in Montreal, and he gave quite an extensive judgment. It took him nearly two hours to read it. A report in the Ottawa Journal of October 29, 1951, contains the following with respect to Mr. Justice Bienvenue's findings:
His conclusion was that the Eddy Company succeeded, by itself or with other accused corporations, in forming and operating an illegal agreement from 1927 to 1950 . . . The fact that Eddy Match finally found itself alone in the wooden match industry was not accidental, Mr. Justice Bienvenue said, but was what it wanted after having taken the means to bring it about . . . Mr. Justice Bienvenue reviewed in detail the methods used in the formation of the monopoly, including setting resale prices for jobbers, establishing "fighting brands"-
Whatever that may mean.
*-controlling prices and giving special discounts.
Mr. Justice Bienvenue said it was no wonder that the financial situation of the Eddy Company had always been excellent and that it had paid substantial dividends in bad years as well as good since its incorporation. There is not much free competition there.
In 1952 there was a report on the rubber companies. Indeed, it is a composite of six inquiries and included investigations into mechanical rubber goods, tires, tubes and accessories, and rubber footwear. The rubber companies did not wait to be convicted. They pleaded guilty and were sentenced in court a few days ago. I have before me a news item from the Ottawa Journal of November 23, 1953, which reports the judge's decision. Mr. Justice Schroeder said:
It is hard to understand how firms otherwise reputable and honest in their dealings could be so conscienceless.
It was said that these companies had carried on an illegal combine for 15 years. I do not know of any hold-up man who has been able to carry on that long without being caught and convicted. The special crown prosecutor,

Mr. T. N. Phelan, estimated that the companies illegally extracted $1,300,000 a year for the 15 years during which the companies had combined. The amount of the fine was put in the paper in large type and was $170,000. I have figured that in the 15 years at $1,300,000 a year these companies illegally extracted $19,500,000 from the consumers of Canada.
Maybe a fine of $170,000 was all that could be imposed under the law but I feel sure that the amount is not sufficient to help the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) bring about free competition in this industry. Something should be done to help him, because he is going to have a very hard time as things look now. Just yesterday the Minister of Justice laid on the table the report of the investigation into the electrical wire and cable industry. In this case ten companies, according to the investigator, had been carrying on an illegal price fixing combine for 41 years. I imagine the reason they did not carry it on before that was that they were not all in business prior to that time. Yet we have people like the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace (Mr. Hamilton), who spoke yesterday afternoon, objecting to government planning. He wants planning by private enterprise. In view of all these investigations, what does private enterprise plan for? It plans for its own pockets and nothing else.
I have been trying to tell that to members of the house for the last 23 years, and I am glad the Department of Justice, through the work being carried on by the combines investigation branch, is now helping to impress it upon hon. members. There are quite a number of other investigations, but I have not time to deal with all of them in detail. There have been investigations into fine papers, coarse papers and the resale price maintenance of soap products. In the latter case I think the minister said the other day that if the companies would not do it again they would not be prosecuted this time. Then there has been an investigation into price discrimination between hardware dealers in North Bay. Again I believe the Minister of Justice said that if they would be good fellows he would let them go. He is going to give them another chance.
I have noticed that the members to my right do not like socialism, not even when it comes in a silk hat. It may be that they are justified in not liking it in a silk hat. I am not sure that I would like it in a silk hat, because it is not likely to be the genuine thing. However, it might be. Circumstances and the pressure of events are pretty strong persuasive factors.
I should like to ask the Leader of the Opposition and others sitting to my right, the members of the government and also those
The Address-Mr. Maclnnis on my left, whether they have taken a look at the world lately, and have they noticed in what countries there is peace, order, justice and an orderly evolution of things. If they have, this is what they have found; that every one of these countries has either a socialist government, or has had a socialist government and now has a strong socialist opposition.


Mr. Ferguson:: Or communist.


Angus MacInnis: No, my friend, not communist. Let me read something to my hon. friend just because of that interjection.
I am reading from an editorial which appeared in the New York Herald Tribune of February 9, 1948. The Herald Tribune is not a socialist newspaper:
The true allies of democracy in Europe are the socialist parties. They alone give us any hope for the preservation of personal liberty. We have systematically despised and underestimated them . . .
The same as has been done in this country.
. . . just because we do not want socialism here at home. We have never taken the trouble to understand the historical development of these parties. They alone are capable of forming strong democratic states, and if they perish, the hope of democracy will perish with them.
This is not just something I am saying. It is something that must be apparent to anybody who will take the time to look over the world and see what is happening. Which are the nations that are causing us worry in Europe? Compare Italy, where there is no socialist party or a very weak one, with Sweden where a socialist party has been administering affairs for the last 25 or 30 years, or with Norway or Denmark; or compare Great Britain, where there has been a socialist party, with France.
I do not want to put a plug in for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), but when I hear my friends to my right talking about high taxes I think there is something worse than high taxes that can happen to a country. That is when a country has a government that is afraid to tax, and by being afraid to tax the right people, those who should be taxed, they are inviting a revolution that will take away with violence and confusion more than would be taken away by orderly taxation.
In conclusion I would like to tell my friend once again that time is running out, and that this is not the time for basing our actions on preconceived ideas and bias inherited from the past. We are living in a new age when new developments are taking place every day, and each new development is demanding new changes and new attitudes toward the way in which we make our living.
358	HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Claxton
In a closing word, if my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition thinks he can bring free competitive industry back to this country, he will have to put a mounted police officer along with the combines investigators into every business in the Dominion of Canada. The reason there are not more reports on the list I have read today is that the combines investigation branch have not had time to investigate more businesses.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Speaker, this debate opened two weeks ago today, and a most extraordinary thing has happened which I must confess surprises me very much. That is that during this whole period the subject of defence has not so far been mentioned. Perhaps I should simply be grateful for this and remain discreetly silent, but I believe that it is a fact that defence is by all odds the largest single business in the country today. The fact that we have some 20,000 Canadians serving abroad in seven different countries, the fact that defence takes about 50 per cent of the national budget and 10 per cent of the national income, the fact that in one way or another about 10 per cent of the Canadian people are engaged directly or indirectly in our national defence, all demand that this house and the people have from time to time reports on progress; that an indication be given of what has been achieved, of what lies ahead, and of some of the problems that have arisen.
On that account I make no apology for intervening in this debate at this or any other time to defend the armed forces when they need defence, to accept responsibility and blame when that is due-and that I have had to do-but above everything else to make it as plain as can be that this huge operation in which we are involved is something vitally important to all of us and to all the people of Canada. Unless we have that comprehension, and unless we see something of the implications of what is involved in the whole operation, then matters are likely to get out of perspective.
Above everything else, and more dangerous than everything else, the men who are serving us abroad are apt to be forgotten, the cause which we are aiming to preserve is apt to be lost sight of, and the whole defence effort here, as in other countries, is likely to lose the momentum with which it was started some three or four years ago. Consequently today I think I should, in so far as time permits, say something about Korea, the build-up of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and, perhaps the most urgently required, make as full a statement as possible on the subject of continental defence.

Since the cessation of hostilities in Korea on July 27 a good many of us are apt to forget what was involved in the three long years of that agonizing war. We are apt to forget how the tide of battle swept up and down that 800-mile long peninsula almost three times, and how at times the outlook for the United Nations forces was desperate indeed. But in the end they succeeded, and succeeded completely, in achieving the military objective of the Korean war, which was to stop the aggressor; and it had no other objective from the military point of view. This was the first time, I believe, in the history of the world that 16 nations, because they had signed an agreement in the charter of the United Nations, joined together in armed action to stop aggression. It was the first time that nations had acted together in peace as an international force along lines somewhat similar to those along which the police forces of our civilian communities operate to stop armed robbery and prevent crime. The objective was not victory. The objective was to prevent aggression by stopping aggression.
For that reason at times the war and its results have not appeared spectacular; nonetheless the objective was just as great a one as the objective of victory in a war, and the objective was achieved just as definitely from the military point of view as it could have been had victory been achieved in a war.
On that account I believe we members of the United Nations should congratulate ourselves that, under the leadership of the United States, we had the collective intention and the collective will to work together in unison to restore peace and to bring about a condition of order. In this work the officers and men of the Canadian forces participating-the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force-played a fair share in bringing about that great result. And on that account, as was said by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), they deserve our gratitude for their service.
There have been several by-products of this operation which have been interesting indeed. One is that it has been established that 16 nations can work together effectively in a theatre of war far away from their own countries, that they can have several supply lines operating simultaneously, and that they can accept without jealousy the leadership of the most powerful nation of their group, the United States.
The great success achieved by the commonwealth division reflects credit on its leaders, and particularly its first commanding

officer, then Major General and now Lieutenant General Sir A. J. H. Cassels, who was more than a great soldier in the field. He exercised his command with foresight and tact, and even with statesmanship, because he was the leader of what was virtually an independent force, though serving under United Nations command.
He was succeeded by another fine soldier, Major General West. The six nations of the commonwealth, co-operating in the commonwealth division, worked together harmoniously-more effectively, I think, and in a more friendly way than we knew in either the first or second world wars.
As for our own brigade, it had good leadership in the persons of Brigadier Rockingham, Brigadier Bogert and, for the closing days, Brigadier Jean Allard. The officers and men of the 25th Canadian infantry brigade earned the high repute in which they were held. On that front, like the commonwealth division, they were recognized by everyone as second to none.
Further it was most heartening to see the way in which the various units of the Canadian brigade there, and the supporting units, worked together and side by side with the representatives of other nations. The number of Canadians taking part was 22,000. Altogether they had a total of 1,558 casualties, of which 304 are either dead or presumed to be dead, 39 died of wounds, six are still missing, 32 are returned prisoners of war, and 97 died from ordinary causes. I might add that, so far as we know, all Canadian prisoners of war were returned.
These casualties are serious, as indeed all casualties always are. We regret them, and extend deepest sympathy to the next of kin of those who were killed. However, I think it is fair to say that, having regard to the fierceness of the fighting and the fact that it was carried on over a period of three years, we can express some satisfaction that the casualties were not higher. I believe we may have that satisfaction, always keeping in mind the nature of the country, the fierceness of the fighting and its duration.
This, I believe, can be credited in part to good leadership and the fact that, almost without exception, all our men arrived fully trained. They were well equipped and kept up to strength. Another important factor was that, unlike most of the other nations, we were able to carry out rotation by units, so that the second battalions of the R.C.R.'s and the P.P.C.L.I.'s and the Van Doos which went out first were replaced by the first battalions and the first battalions by the third battalions; each unit arriving as a group, and fighting together under leadership that they learned to respect in Canada.
The Address-Mr. Claxton
This is far more expensive in manpower, of course, than rotation by individuals. But we believe that it is the right way to do it, and we are very happy that it was possible to do it that way. I may say that we are following the same course in connection with the rotation of units in Germany.
The Royal Canadian Navy did its share with eight ships participating in fifteen tours of duty. They steamed the astonishing total of 700,000 miles, and fired 130,000 shells, more I believe than our navy fired in action in the second world war. The role of the navy was largely that of acting as advance artillery up the west coast of Korea, and in doing so they made a great name for themselves. Their operations were carried out 8,000 miles from the base at Esqui-malt and 13,000 miles from that at Halifax. Altogether 3,621 officers and men of the navy took part in these Far Eastern operations.
The Royal Canadian Air Force carried on its heavy transport operations to the Far East with the aircraft of 426 transport squadron equipped with North Star aircraft. Altogether they made over a thousand Pacific crossings, flying some 36,000 hours for a total of 6,500,000 miles. They completed this great task over this long period of time, and through some of the most difficult flying country in the world, without loss or injury to aircraft, crew or passengers.
Altogether a total of 26,733 Canadians served in the Far East in the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force. It is estimated-and I think this figure will surprise hon. members- that of the 107,000 officers and men in the regular forces of Canada today, 20 per cent wear proudly on their breasts the ribbons of service with the United Nations and the commonwealth brigade in the Far East. So that virtually one out of five in the Canadian armed forces today, wherever they may be, is a veteran of Korea. He is an experienced and trained man, up to the minute in his knowledge of that type of warfare, confident of the ability of his service, his unit and himself to carry out any task given to him.
Altogether they have won 250 decorations, and have been mentioned in dispatches or received the Queen's commendation a similar number of times. At a later stage of the session, as is the practice, I shall ask the permission of the house to put on Hansard a list of those receiving decorations. Also, of course, a considerable number of those who served have left the regular forces and are to be found either in the ranks of the reserve forces or are available-those who are still physically fit-as trained reserves for duty at a moment's notice.
360	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Claxton


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Can the
minister give the figure of those no longer in the permanent service?


Brooke Claxton: It would be between 6,000 and 7,000. That is the calculation I make from the figures I have already mentioned. The cost of this operation to Canada is very difficult to estimate. It depends on what you include; but taking into consideration the expenditures that have been made outside of Canada the total cost is about $200 million, of which some $50 million was paid to the United States for the supplies they furnished to us. We of course paid for everything we got, on a basis that was worked out very exactly with them.
If you take into account the indirect costs and add in a fair and proper proportion of the overhead for administration and training in respect of this force abroad and its training in Canada you might easily arrive at a cost to Canada of the Korean war, three, four or five times as great; but the direct cost for expenditures made on the war was approximately $200 million.
We had serving with us in Japan and later in Korea a number of Canadian Red Cross workers, and they did good work, for which I am now very glad to express the gratitude of the armed forces. Altogether there were 32 of them.
This was a very big undertaking for the United Nations, and particularly for the United States. We feel that that undertaking was justified; that had we not gone in for it and stopped aggression there, by this time there might have been aggression anywhere else. This was the first collective effort to stop the communists. It succeeded, and by its success we hope it will have made a lasting contribution to the security of all of us and to peace, which is our primary objective.
Simultaneously with this operation in Korea there the North Atlantic Treaty Organization came into existence. I should remind hon. members that that treaty had been in existence only a little more than four years, and that the build-up of the organization really started with plans agreed to at Washington just three years ago last month, so the period of the build-up of NATO in Europe and elsewhere corresponded closely with the period of the Korean war, and the countries included in both were faced with the challenge of doing both operations at the same time.
The build-up of forces in Europe has proceeded, though not as well as had been planned at the outset. The plan has not proved to be unrealistic. I am happy to be able to say that Canada has completed all her commitments to NATO either at or in advance of the due date.

The Canadian Army sent first the 27th brigade, and that brigade in its training, record and exercises made a reputation for military competency which I do not think has ever been matched-certainly it has never been excelled in peacetime-by any Canadian forces. I have never seen such praise given to a unit for its military competence as has been given to the 27th Canadian infantry brigade. That brigade has now returned home, and its place has been taken by the 1st Canadian infantry brigade. This brigade consists in part of men who have already seen service in Korea, and to a very great degree it is fully trained, up to strength and consists of seasoned, experienced soldiers. So while it will have a hard job to do in living up to the reputation the 27th brigade made for itself, I believe the previous records of those units that have served in Korea-[DOT] and part of this has served in Korea-will indicate that the name of Canada will be well upheld there.
This brigade is taking up its quarters at new camps that have been built for us by the Germans in the neighbourhood of Soest; that is, halfway between Hanover and Bonn in a very attractive part of Germany. They are near the Mohne See, which is a very beautiful artificial lake and reservoir, which hon. members may recall was the scene of the gallant operation of the dambusters.
These camps are four in number. They have permanent buildings, and we will be adding as soon as we can recreation rooms and buildings and accommodation for married personnel. We have made arrangements with the German government under which it will build for us at its expense a number of married quarters, recreation buildings, schools and other similar accommodation. They are to provide the buildings, the services and most of the maintenance and operation, in return for which we shall pay an annual rent estimated at 10 per cent of the capital cost, which should run to a total of $25 million, or about $2,500,000 a year for us.
During the year we have established an appropriate base depot at Antwerp under arrangements with the Belgian government, and that is in operation. We have moved that base from Hamburg, where it was, to the much more suitable location at Antwerp. Now we have completed the army part of our contribution to NATO.
The air force build-up has proceeded steadily and well in advance of the planned dates, beginning with three squadrons located at North Luffenham, followed by three more at Grostenquin, three more at Zweibrucken, and three more at Soellingen. The wing at North

Luffenham will move to Marville when the airfield there is completed, making a total of twelve constituting the air division which with its headquarters at Metz is fully operational. It is equipped with F-86E Sabre fighters and is, as everyone knows, one of the most formidable fighting forces in Europe today.
These operations of the air force have involved a very large-scale job of transportation of aircraft overseas. The first three squadrons were taken on H.M.C.S. Magnificent; the last nine flew across in a series of operations called "leapfrogs"-one, two, three, four-and I am happy to say that these were also completed without loss. This required a great deal of organization, monitoring of ships with accompanying aircraft, providing patrol ships, navigational aids, stores at every landing point, and so on. I might indicate to hon. members something of the complexities and niceties of this operation when I say that on some of the legs the Sabre fighters arrived at their destination with less than 10 minutes of fuel left. So there was not much time to go anywhere else.
The Royal Canadian Navy has continued its build-up of ships to meet its commitments to SACLANT, and that has been carried on. We expect that we will be able to meet our peacetime commitments to SACLANT, as in the case of the other services, but in the navy there is still some distance to go. We are up to date with those we have furnished, but plenty of target dates have not yet arrived and we hope to meet them.
The navy, like the air force and the army, have taken part in extensive exercises and operations with other NATO countries, indicating that NATO is now a formation of trained combat units, equipped and skilled and having the leadership, communications and other necessities for combined operations. This is a very different situation from what it was three years ago.
I*t can be said that while NATO is not yet close to achieving its final target, it has built up sufficient strength in Europe to add greatly to the capacity of Europe to defend itself and give time for reserves to be deployed and also for the movement of weapons of all kinds, so that the primary objective of NATO can be said to have been achieved. But there is no end to any military objective. The build-up must continue, and it has had to be related to the facts and possibilities, military, economic and financial, of the NATO countries so it could make steady progress toward the desired goal.
In concluding this part of my remarks I should like to draw the attention of hon. members to the situation regarding Canadian 83276-24
The Address-Mr. Claxton soldiers, sailors and airmen overseas. Today we have 20,000 personnel of the regular forces located in seven countries outside of Canada. There are about 7,500 in the Far East; over 400 in the United States; nearly 2,000 in the United Kingdom; about 100 in Belgium; 1,500 in France and over 7,500 in Germany. That represents today about one-fifth of the total regular strength of the Canadian armed forces.
You can imagine that this presents many problems, problems which Canada has not had to face before in peacetime. For example, with regard to the personnel alone, we have problems arising out of rotation, transportation, accommodation, training, welfare, educational services, the provision of chapels, married quarters, schools and stores. We will soon have located in Germany and France a number of little communities of Canadian service personnel with their wives and children. They are dependent upon the armed forces for what they need in the way of accommodation, schooling, religious and other services, and everything that goes or should go into making up normal community life. To provide this is quite a difficult operation in Canada, but you can imagine how difficult it is to carry on abroad, not only in view of the distances and the diverse conditions in those countries but also having regard to matters like civil and criminal jurisdiction, customs and excise taxes, postal and immigration regulations and all the other things that affect the servicemen, but affect still more the civilians accompanying service units. We have to work out arrangements with all the foreign governments concerned to arrive at satisfactory agreements regarding all these points. I am happy to say that these agreements have either been made or are well on the way to being made.
Finally there are the relations of the Canadian service personnel and their dependents with the civilian population in the host country. We have to recognize how important it is for Canada that our men, their wives and children, conduct themselves as Canadian ambassadors. We have to recognize how important it is that the citizens of the host country and those who are taking their place in the bulwarks of freedom there are really working for the same cause. We are not an occupying force, we are not a garrison force. We are there for the same reasons that they have armed forces. This presents a very challenging problem in public relations, both among our forces and with other countries. We are tackling this steadily as best we can.
Now, I thought that the house would like to have me say something about continental defence. This was dealt with though, not

The Address-Mr. Claxton for the first time, on page 3 of the white paper which was issued at the last session, where it was stated:
There has also been a substantial increase in the emphasis on the defence of North America against air attack.
In the last few months there has been a lot of talk in the press and elsewhere about continental defence. The realities of the subject have sometimes been obscured by the sort of Buck Rogerish features like intercontinental pilotless aircraft, long-range guided missiles, flying saucers and even death rays, but the realities are still very real and very serious.
The first talks with the government of the United States on joint defence began in 1938, and ever since then this subject of defence of North America has been under active consideration by representatives of Canada and the United States.
The wartime co-operation between Canada and the United States did not stop with victory. It continued on into the peace. On February 12, 1947 Mr. King made a very important statement on this subject in this chamber. Even at that time military teams of both countries were actively engaged in planning joint defence arrangements including continental air defence. This work was carried out under the chiefs of staff of both countries and was co-ordinated by the permanent joint board on defence. By the beginning of the second war it had become apparent that the continent of North America could be attacked by air.
Almost simultaneously with the development of long-range aircraft came the development of radar capable of making that attack much more difficult. This new device was invented and brought into effective use in Britain. The miracle of radar enabled skilled and courageous airmen to win the battle of Britain.
Effective air defence depends on the organized integration of three sets of operation, each one essential to do the job: first, the detection and identification of the enemy by radar, ground observers or other means; second, communication of this intelligence to a command centre and by that command centre to air and ground anti-aircraft defences and to all the various and important agencies for civil defence; third, aircraft and other anti-aircraft weapons to kill or drive off the attacking bombers.
In any country this is a highly difficult and complicated operation. In any country it is an exceedingly expensive operation. You can imagine that its complexity and expense increase enormously as the size of

the country increases. The area of North America is something between six and seven million square miles, and that fact increases greatly the difficulties and the expense of air defence. We should always remind ourselves that no means has yet been found to make any area so impregnable against air attack that no bombers will get through. Rich as our countries are, the combined resources of Canada and the United States in men, materials and money are not equal to undertake such an immense task even if it were possible.
As in all matters of defence, what we must do is to undertake first what is most urgent and most essential so we can make the best possible use of our resources available for defence. Even before 1947 service planning groups were working on plans for a system of air defence. I can say now one of its principal components was a radar chain across the far north. While such a radar chain might give us early warning of an approaching attack, between this Arctic radar chain and the main radar control system far to the south lay a vast and isolated area in which it was simply not practicable to build the complete gridwork of overlapping radar coverage which is necessary to keep attacking planes under continuous observation. Thus by the time any attackers had travelled the hundreds of miles between the first alarm and the nearest desirable target they would be completely lost to our defending control system.
Therefore such an isolated Arctic radar chain might provide an alarm which might not lead to effective action, while it might nevertheless be likely to immobilize all activities in all target areas. Moreover, it would be very easy to create this result by "spoofing" raids. That is, an enemy aircraft of any size would come in, being very careful indeed to get picked up on a radarscope. The alarm would go out 2,000 miles or 7,000 miles to the south. Activity would stop. The aircraft would either go back home or go in somewhere else. This project never reached the stage of discussion between governments.
There were a number of other developments. Something more than two years ago the two governments agreed to proceed at once to build up a system working upward and outward from the principal target areas, which would give protection to the most vulnerable areas against the most likely forms of attack. On February 25, 1953, for the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), I tabled an exchange of notes covering this operation. Obviously everything that is done in Canada to strengthen

the defence against air attack is done not only for the defence of Canada but, at least equally important, for the defence of targets in the United States. On this account the government and armed forces of the United States have been continuously associated with us in this operation. Arrangements were worked out so the construction and operation of roughly two-thirds of the stations in Canada would be paid for by the United States and one-third by Canada. Work on this project started at once and it has since proceeded expeditiously in accordance with our plans. That is, it has been under way for from two to three years. This system is partly in operation now, and it should be completed in a few months.
Simultaneously with the construction of these radar stations we have gone ahead with the construction of a system of communications embracing a radio relay system supported by land lines and backed up by high frequency radio. We have now largely constructed and partly in operation a military network to provide the necessary communications between the radar screens and the air defenders. You can judge something of the size of the system of communications required for air defence when I tell you that I have been informed that air defence in Britain during the war needed communication services equal to those necessary to carry all civilian traffic in peacetime.
Where existing airfields could be used, we have enlarged and opened them. We have constructed a number of satellite airfields and built emergency landing strips which are necessary in this kind of operation.
Unfortunately there were no aircraft in existence or even under design in any country which had the qualities we consider desirable to meet the threat of air attack across this continent as that threat might develop in the next few years. What was needed was a fighter aircraft with a range twice as great as any fighter in existence. It should have full instrumentation so as to make it useful at night and in all weather and over country presenting great navigational difficulties. It should have a fast rate of climb and good manoeuvrability. It should be able to take off and land using airfields of ordinary length. Finally, it had to carry a large armoury of versatile weapons and be capable of carrying air-to-air missiles when they became available.
These were some of the specifications for the CF-100 to satisfy the foreseen requirements of our own particular problem. It is the conviction of the manufacturers and of the R.C.A.F. that they have been met by the 83276-241
The Address-Mr. Claxton present aircraft. Anyway, it is the only airplane in production anywhere today which can meet anything like our requirements. Indeed, no other country has an aircraft of equivalent performance in production and, so far as I know, we shall be in this position for some considerable time.
Other countries have expressed great interest in the CF-100, and it is not unreasonable to expect that later types of this aircraft will be used much more extensively, particularly as the role of the single-seater fighter comes closer to being met by virtually pilotless aircraft.
Some people seem to think that the contribution of the United States and Canada to the combined forces of the North Atlantic alliance in Europe had to do only with NATO, whereas working together for continental defence had to do only with North America. This is quite wrong, and wrong in two ways. In the first place our experience in two world wars has shown that we have had to go to Europe to fight a war for the defence of our countries, to win victory and to restore peace. Now we are doing the very much more sensible thing of going to Europe in peace so as to make it unnecessary for us to go to Europe in war. Combined defence of Europe under the North Atlantic alliance is defence of North America. North America is the citadel fortress of free peoples and free governments throughout the world. But the bastions of freedom lie also in Britain and France and in all the 14 nations of NATO, and wherever free men stand against the menacing threat of communist imperialism.
In the second place, Canada and the United States are two signatories of the North Atlantic treaty, two partners in the North Atlantic alliance; and like the others we have formally agreed to defend each other's territory. The defence of North America is part of the defence of the North Atlantic region, and Canada and the United States constitute one of the five regional groups of NATO. In the North Atlantic treaty we-that is Canada and the United States-have agreed to plan and build up our joint defence as one of the regional groups of the North Atlantic area.
Far, therefore, from there being any conflict between our work for NATO and our work for continental defence, the two are simply two sides of the same coin, two parts of what, after all, is a world-wide objective, namely the preservation of peace and the defence of our freedom.
It has also sometimes been suggested that continental defence has been subordinated in importance and priority to the build-up of the combined forces of the North Atlantic treaty
384	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Claxton nations in Europe. That is not the case. We -have tried to build up our defences both at home and abroad as fast as both could be effectively done with the resources that were made available. It may be doubted if we could profitably have commenced work on our air defences in North America before we did because the aircraft, the means of communication and the radar equipment which we thought we needed to do this particular job were not even designed, still less in production here or anywhere else.
This job of design, development and production of the equipment for air defence in this country has been most complicated. We needed equipment of entirely new design. The operation was new because of its immense scope, and it raised problems which were new as well as difficult.
The exercises "Signpost", held in 1952, and "Tailwind" in 1953, as well as a number of other exercises, have demonstrated that the equipment has proved better than our expectations. While, of course, it is not 100 per cent effective-no air defence ever is or ever can be-it adds seriously to the hazard of attacking aircraft and so constitutes defence and a deterrent of sufficient importance to justify the large sums of money which it is costing.
As I mentioned, this part-and it is only one part-of the program of joint defence will be completed in 1954, but we are not stopping there. In the United States and here, both independently and in conjunction with the permanent joint board on defence, studies and other work are toeing pressed to find ways and means to improve these defences. The intelligence that the Russians had exploded an atom bomb was naturally a spur to these activities, and the production of additional long-range aircraft and atom bombs or still more destructive bombs increases the threat to North America. In time it might become possible to deliver so devastating an attack on this continent as to seriously cripple its military and industrial strength, actual and potential.
Work on continental defence has included some major research projects. In this, military and scientific experts of Canada and the United States have been working closely together. The reports on these matters are naturally highly secret, but enough has been said officially to indicate something of the magnitude of the requirements and the general character of the far-flung installations which are actually in construction or under consideration. New equipment is being subjected to the most comprehensive tests both technical and by trial in exercises and simu-
TMr. Claxtcn.l

lated operations in which the best of our high-altitude, high-speed aircraft endeavour to penetrate the screens.
Much of this work has been carried on jointly through teams of Canadian and American military and scientific experts, but where they have carried on separately they have kept each other fully informed through the fullest and frankest exchange of information, subject to certain exceptions with regard to atomic information. This autumn there were several of these combined operations going on simultaneously. As a result we have received a report from a joint Canada-United States team engaged on this work, and senior officials representing both countries have had a number of meetings. There has been complete agreement. The chiefs of staff of each country have recommended that this report be acted upon, and the Canadian government has indicated its intention to proceed with this at once.
As the President of the United States said in his address in this chamber on November 14:
In our approach to the problem, we both realize that purest patriotism demands and promotes effective partnership. Thus we evolve joint agreements on all those measures we must jointly undertake to improve the effectiveness of our defences, but every arrangement rests squarely on the sovereign nature of each of our two peoples.
The equipment which is being considered for this new development has been subject to extensive tests. One type of equipment which may be used is known as the "McGill fence", and this was designed, produced and tested in Canada, largely at McGill University. Plans for surveys and production designs for this additional project are already under way and I expect that much of the equipment will be produced in Canada to Canadian design and on Canadian initiative, though what we do will, of course, be undertaken with the full agreement and support of the United States. The new development is intended to increase substantially the likelihood of our having additional time of warning, and also to give us additional assurance against the risks of paralysis through "spoofing".
It should not be thought that this new project is the only matter under study and consideration. At the same time other studies, surveys, research, development and construction are being proceeded with in each country.
To summarize:
1.	Representatives of Canada and the United States have all aspects of continental defence constantly before them for study and action, and the two governments are in general agreement.

2.	Measures recommended by the chiefs of staff on the basis of recent studies have been agreed to, and we are pressing on with surveys and the design and construction of additional defences.
3.	Further work will be considered with a view to agreed action in accordance with the results of studies, surveys, tests and exercises that are under way or that may be undertaken.
4.	As stated in the joint communique issued by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the President on November 14, there is complete agreement on the vital importance of effective methods of joint defence against direct attack.
5.	Experience has shown that the machinery for planning and action for joint defence has worked well, but if any changes appear desirable they will be made.
I have taken this time, Mr. Speaker, to give the house as fully as it is possible to do this account of the background and of the actual stage we have reached with regard to the development of plans and projects for joint defence, and also with regard to the specific development that I have mentioned. This represents another step forward in the co-operation of Canada and the United States to preserve our security and our way of life on this continent as part of the operations of the United Nations and of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The great need and the main problem before us was pointed up by General Gruenther, who is the supreme commander of the allied forces in Europe, when he said:
Never was there a greater need among the NATO nations for unity, for wisdom, and for perseverance. Never was there a greater need to see clearly that our lives are bound inextricably together. Never was there a greater need to continue to work together to build our defensive strength for peace.
He went on to say:
. . . This effort is an international one. It depends ultimately upon the understanding of the peoples we serve that the best-indeed the only-defence for each is the defence of all.
The need for unity of purpose, of will and of action, and determination and perseverance to carry it out has been pointed out on many occasions. It is a challenge to our grand alliance together. Above everything else we should have unity of purpose, agreement and understanding and continued good friendship with our neighbour, the United States,
I was struck, more struck than I have been at any time during the 13 years I have been in this house, with the way in which the Canadian people arrive at essential unity
The Address-Mr. Hees with respect to great purposes, as was shown in this House of Commons yesterday afternoon. It struck me, as it must have struck other hon. members, when I listened to the speech of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), supported as he was so ably, so magnificently, if I may say so, by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), and so well by the leaders of the other parties, how truly the members of this house reflected the feeling of the Canadian people that nothing must come between the United States and Canada which will affect that unity of purpose which is so necessary if we are to preserve our way of life and our security. It is our strongest defence and on it all military defence depends. If it fails in any respect, how could we possibly count with confidence on the 14 nations of NATO standing together?
I am sure the contributions made yesterday will be an added tie in preventing any such failure, and I am sure the relations between Canada and the United States with regard to continental defence and their joint work together for a common purpose will continue to be an example to other nations. I am sure too that these other nations will continue to work with us along the lines indicated by General Gruenther and his great predecessor General Eisenhower as the one way not only to deter aggression but to preserve peace and preserve our security at home and abroad.


Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Deputy Speaker, through you I would like to offer my congratulations to the Speaker on his election to his high office, and I would also like to offer my congratulations to you on your appointment. I think both appointments were among the most popular that have been made on parliament hill for quite some time.
This afternoon the matter I want to speak about is one which, although it is not a current problem, is nevertheless a matter which is very important to working people throughout this country, and particularly to municipal governments from coast to coast.
We all know from past experience that the economic pendulum swings both ways, and although today we are enjoying a buoyant economy, I think we must be prepared to look after human needs on a level comparable to Canadian standards of living in case we should be so unfortunate at some future time to be involved in a recession, with its consequent employment difficulties.
If unemployment should increase to a marked degree at some future time, then there are going to be a great many people in this country who will exhaust their unemployment insurance credits, and, through no fault of their own, will be unable to find a job. These people must go on living, and they
366	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Hees cannot do so unless they have the funds to provide food, clothing and shelter for themselves and their families.
These people cannot wait around while this matter is debated in this house, and the buck passed back and forth between various levels of government. I believe we must decide now who is going to bear this burden if conditions should go against us.
For several years now conferences of mayors and reeves throughout this country have been passing resolutions urging this government to accept its responsibilities in this matter, and the reasons they have put forward are five in number.
First, the federal government is the only level of government capable of financing such a program. Today the unemployment insurance fund amounts to nearly one billion dollars, and it continues to grow daily.
Second, the federal government is the only government which has the machinery to administer a program of this kind.
Third, this would avoid the duplication in administration which would occur if various levels of government were attempting to handle this program.
Fourth, uniform standards of assistance would be assured to all Canadians.
Fifth, the limited sources of revenue available to the provinces and municipalities make it impossible for these bodies to meet the financial burden.
I believe these requests by the municipalities to the federal government have been put forward on very logical grounds. They are two in number; first, that the economy of the country is guided to a very large extent by the fiscal policies of the federal government and they, in turn, have a very direct bearing on employment as a whole; second, municipalities simply do not have the sources of revenue necessary to meet this problem when it arises, and the problem must be met when it does arise.
Therefore I urge the government to bring forward legislation at some time in the near future which will assure that people whose unemployment insurance credits have expired, and who through no fault of their own are unable to find jobs, may continue to receive unemployment insurance benefits. I believe we should take this decision now, so the machinery can be put into operation if and when it is ever necessary.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that the measure I have outlined, although it is a necessary one to meet adverse conditions whenever they arise, is of necessity only a negative approach to this problem. The


positive approach is that we should do everything possible to make sure that these adverse conditions do not arise.
I believe the most constructive step this government can take is to give assistance and encouragement to industries to participate in comprehensive and continuing programs of industrial research.
This kind of program, I believe, should have two objectives; first of all, to assist in the development of new sources of cheap power which will attract new industries; second, to provide inducements to industries which will encourage them to develop new and better techniques, which will enable us to process far more of our primary products than we have in the past.
An example of research leading to the possible development of an additional source of cheap power is an investigation into the possibilities of the Passamaquoddy dam project in New Brunswick. This project holds the possibility of an additional million horsepower. The preliminary surveys of this project indicate that it could be economically sound, and that it could provide the maritime provinces with a very important source of cheap power. I believe this government should make available the funds necessary to carry on a thorough investigation to find out if this is or is not a practical project; and if it is discovered to be practical, I believe it should be proceeded with without delay.
We all know that industry goes to power, and if it is possible to develop additional sources of cheap power in the maritime provinces, then industries will locate there, and that will make the economy of the maritimes far less dependent on the primary products which they produce. To me, Mr. Speaker, this is the only practical way I know to effectively decentralize industry. We hear many speeches urging and agreeing with the idea of decentralization of industry. This, I think, is a practical approach to the problem.
Now I should like to deal with an example of research leading to the development of new industries, which I think could take the form of assistance given to the potential oil and gas by-products industry in western Canada. We all know that in Alberta, and to a lesser extent in British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, we have enormous resources of gas and oil. In recent years more than $5 billion of these reserves have been proved up, and we know that we have discovered only a small fraction of the reserves which are confidently believed to be present.
If the incentive for exploration is continued by the opening up of additional markets for these products, and if that expansion is

accompanied by a comprehensive and continuing program of industrial research to develop better techniques for the processing of oil and gas by-products, then I think we can develop in western Canada a by-products industry which will be of tremendous importance to the economy of the Canadian west.
This will lead to the building of literally dozens of sulphur, chemical and petrochemical plants, which will require hundreds of millions of dollars by way of capital investment and will create employment for many thousands of Canadians. Not only will it provide employment for Canadians, but I believe an expansion of this kind can be the solution to our immigration problem. It will enable us to bring in many people of the right type from other lands to contribute to our progress and welfare in this country; because with expanding industry, those who come in will not be jostling Canadians out of jobs. They will simply be taking their places beside Canadians to make this a more productive land.


Mr. Gillis:: What about markets?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I believe that if the oil and gas industry is given freedom to grow and to expand, and if the potential byproducts industry is assisted by a progressive, comprehensive and continuing program of research, there can be developed in western Canada a very important steel industry, which would utilize Canadian iron ore as well as Canadian coal and gas. This industry could produce steel pipe and steel casings to be used in thousands of Canadian oil wells and in thousands of miles of Canadian oil pipe lines across the prairie provinces.
I have mentioned only a couple of possible steps which this government could take to assist in maintaining the present high level of employment and increasing that level of employment very materially. When we consider the tremendous natural resources of this country, from coast to coast, I think we must all agree that our best chance of maintaining a high level of employment, and of increasing it materially, is to develop our vast natural resources instead of just sitting around talking about them and thinking about them.
We in this country are living in a time when our very survival depends upon our ability to trade with other free nations. The failure of the democratic countries to do so is simply going to drive many countries into the orbit of communism.
In our pursuit of unclogging the channels of trade we must be prepared, in the very near future, to compete on a much more
The Address-Mr. Shaw highly competitive basis, both at home and abroad. The reason for this is that wage levels throughout the world are by no means uniform. We are proud that in Canada our wage level is considerably higher than the average. If we are to successfully compete with the many low-wage countries with whom we are soon going to have to compete, the only way we can do so is to considerably increase our technical know-how. That is the only way we can possibly lower our costs of production, and bring those costs down to a point at least somewhere near the costs of production of the people with whom we are competing.
At the present time there stands on the order paper in the name of the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy) a resolution calling for the setting up of a committee of the house, to consist of members of parliament from all parties, as well as representative of labour, industry, agriculture and education, to sit down and see what results can be expected from a very important and accelerated program of industrial research.
I hope this resolution will be debated in the house on a non-partisan basis, because I feel it is something we should all support. The work of that committee should bring into sharp focus the urgent need at the present time for industrial research.
I said at the beginning of my remarks that I believe a continuation of unemployment insurance benefits is very necessary if adverse conditions at some future time should make it impossible for people, whose unemployment insurance credits have expired, to find jobs. However, I think we all appreciate the fact that the only real unemployment insurance is an increasingly high level of employment. The people of Canada want jobs, not handouts.
I sincerely hope the government will give some consideration to the suggestions I have made today, because I think they would assist in making an increasingly high level of employment a reality.


Mr. F. D. Shaw (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, while I am tempted at this time to devote my remarks to those matters which are of peculiar concern to my own constituency, my present intention is to confine what I have to say almost exclusively to the amendments.
I must confess there is a temptation to take advantage of this opportunity to deal with coal, because actually there is a serious problem in connection with the coal industry. I am tempted to deal with agriculture, particularly the marketing aspect of the problem. There is a temptation to deal with old age

The Address-Mr. Shaw pensions and, as I say, with a multitude of problems affecting the people not only in my province but throughout Canada. [DOT]
Despite the fact that on August 10 a minority of the Canadian electorate did reelect a Liberal government, there are still problems. I am sure some of those who were led to believe that the Liberal party held the solution to all problems now fully realize the extent to which at least in some respects they were deluded.
The section of the subamendment with which we are particularly concerned is as follows:
We further represent that this house regrets that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to recommend legislation establishing a nation-wide health insurance program, with provision for provincial participation.
Last session, on November 24, 1952, to be exact, the C.C.F. moved a similar amendment to the amendment. While similar, it did differ in some respects. That amendment of November 24, 1952, reads as follows:
That the amendment be amended by deleting paragraphs (d) and (e) and by substituting therefor the following:
"We regret further that Your Excellency's advisers have failed:
(a)	to recommend legislation establishing a nation-wide health insurance program, with provision for provincial administration;
(b)	to implement their proposals to the dominion-provincial conference of 1945."
I cannot of course fully comprehend the true significance of changing the word "administration" as it appeared in the 1952 amendment, and substituting therefor the word "participation". I realize of course that the mover of the amendment to the amendment did emphasize the fact that under a scheme such as he envisaged administration would be on the provincial level and from there pass along as far as possible to the health units, and I presume he meant municipalities within the provinces.
As I say, I cannot comprehend the full significance of the dropping of the word "administration" and the substitution therefor of the word "participation". Consequently I cannot fully comprehend the significance of their dropping section (b) which, as I have already indicated, called for the implementation of the proposals of the dominion-provincial conference of 1945.
There is one other significant difference between the proposal of 1953 and the proposal of 1952. The mover of the amendment to the amendment last year, on November 24, said first of all, "We think that the plan must be contributory". I find a departure

from that position this year at page 55 of Hansard for November 16, 1953. I quote:
Finally, we believe that the plan should be financed by the federal government out of the general revenue of Canada.
As I say, I cannot at the moment fully comprehend the significance of the change. However, I think it is sufficient to say- and I say it in the best possible spirit-that there is a good deal of evidence that the C.C.F. are coming closer and closer to the position which the Social Crediters have taken over the years with respect to this matter. At the same time that they are coming closer and closer to our position, they are moving farther and farther from their former position which I have always feared embraced that which is frequently designated as state medicine. They may -call this state medicine, I do not know; but of course my understanding of state medicine is something a good deal different from that program enunciated by the leader of the C.C.F. on November 16.
When we endorsed that subamendment last year we made it perfectly clear that our endorsation did not commit us in any way whatsoever to the acceptance of any specific health plan or program which they might have in mind. Second, our support of the amendment to the amendment last year simply indicated, as we made clear, our belief that an expanded health program for Canada is desirable and undoubtedly is necessary.
Our position is exactly the same at this time. Our attitude toward this whole problem of health revolves around several important beliefs which we hold. I think it was last year, Mr. Speaker, that my leader made the declaration on our behalf that in our opinion there is no greater asset to any nation than the health of its people. He also pointed out-and I repeat our position with respect to these principles-that every effort should be made, first by the people individually-and let me underline that-and collectively through their governments to achieve a high standard of national wellbeing.
Government activities in the field of health, Mr. Speaker, should not, in my estimation, be limited only to financial participation and possibly to a measure of administration. I believe government participation must be directed to the creation of conditions within the country under which individuals are provided with the opportunity of securing a decent standard of living; because, as far as we are concerned, one of the most certain steps toward better health would be, I repeat, the establishment

of economic conditions which would provide an opportunity for our people to acquire a decent standard of living, which of course includes a decent standard of food, clothing and housing.
We shall never forget, when referring to that aspect of the whole question, that during world war II between 40 and 50 per cent of our young Canadian men and women who either reported voluntarily for military service or who were called up under the N.R.M.A. were rejected on physical grounds. We cannot but believe that that situation could be traced back, without any difficulty whatsoever, to the conditions of the 1930's while they were young people growing up.
We think any health program in this country should have a definite objective. This is not new. We have stated this objective before. It is very close to the statement made by the sponsor of the amendment to the amendment. As I say, we have made it in the house over the years; and it is to make it possible for every Canadian, irrespective of means, to obtain medical, dental, optical and hospital services, and along with them a sound program of health education, with emphasis upon preventive medicine. Any scheme one may contemplate must ensure, among other things, that there are sufficient doctors, technicians, clinics, hospital beds, nurses and dentists.
May I say just at this point that sometimes when we hear certain persons referring to matters of this kind they either intentionally or unintentionally leave the impression that nothing or at least not much is being done in this field. All I have to do is remind hon. members that in many of the provinces of Canada the local governments have been acutely aware of the need for increased facilities and increased personnel.
The federal government in recent years has made money available for such things as hospital construction. As I say, they too are aware of the needs. All one has to do is examine the statistics in order to learn that at least in many parts of Canada we are moving rapidly forward in the acquisition of hospital facilities, etc.
There is one problem which crops up frequently, the apparent desire on the part of doctors to practise in the larger urban centres where modern facilities are available and where they are able to carry on their profession much more successfully. I cannot remember the source of my information, but I recall reading an article recently which set out a method by which we could encourage young doctors to practise in the rural areas. Young students desirous of entering medical
The Address-Mr. Shaw school could be given financial assistance, and this could be done under a provision that if the doctor would practise at a country point for one year a certain part of the loan would be cancelled and if he practised for two years a more substantial part would be cancelled.
The suggestion appealed to me for two reasons, one of which is the tragedy of many young students who are desirous of entering the medical profession but who must discard the idea because of the financial cost involved.
In any scheme or health insurance program it is imperative, as far as we are concerned, that five vital principles be recognized and maintained. First, as I have indicated, we feel that there should be a fair measure of individual responsibility. It is amazing what a fair measure of individual responsibility will do.
I am reminded of the time I was teaching school in a certain area a number of years ago, and I was presented with the opportunity as a non-taxpayer of acquiring municipal hospitalization for $5 a year. We were approximately 35 miles from the nearest municipal hospital. I assume it is quite natural for members of the medical profession to prefer to treat patients in a hospital rather than some point 40 miles away and the result was that many persons who should not have been hospitalized were hospitalized. It was also quite certain that many people were being hospitalized on their own initiative. Of course that meant their doctor had to be prevailed upon to agree that they should be hospitalized.
But all this created a situation which simply could not be continued, namely the facilities being jammed to overflowing. Shortly after that they brought in a proviso that each patient would have to pay $1 a day, and almost overnight that problem which had existed in that particular area was solved. Quite apart from all this, I hold a rather deep conviction that our objective should not be to remove from the shoulders of any individual all semblance of responsibility with respect to this or many other things to which we might refer.
If I recall correctly the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), who moved the amendment to the amendment, contended that patients should have a choice of doctors. Certainly that should continue to be the case. I think that is a rather pronounced departure on the part of the C.C.F.


Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Oh, no.


Frederick Davis Shaw: In 1945 you were going to put all doctors, nurses, dentists and so on on salary.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: That is an entirely different story.

The Address-Mr. Shaw


Frederick Davis Shaw: Just a minute. All I can say
is that in the schemes which exist today a choice of doctors is not a practice that prevails. In fact the end result of certain schemes-I am referring to the British scheme-is that many patients never get to see a doctor, one of their choice or otherwise.


Clarence Gillis: Is that not true in Ottawa right now?


Frederick Davis Shaw: That may be true, but we are seeking a solution to the problem. I think we should want something better. I think all of us believe in freedom. We expect to be free within the accepted sense of the word today. We should be free as long as we recognize that other people should be free too. Surely if that is the case we must be logical and accept the principle that other groups within our society shall be free also. We submit that any scheme must guarantee that there shall be no regimentation of patients, doctors, nurses or hospitals.
The third point which we submit should characterize any scheme, if you want to use that rather bad word, is that emphasis must be placed on preventive medicine, in other words we should try to keep people well. I do not say this in a critical sense at all, but I have made rather a comprehensive study of certain health insurance schemes in operation in various pa-rts of the world and it seems to me, if I can accept the information which I have procured from various sources, that adequate emphasis is not placed On the preventive aspect of medicine. In trying to meet the needs of people who are unwell or who require treatment of a curative nature they have allowed the preventive aspect of medicine to be pretty well brushed aside. We say that whatever program of this kind comes into existence in the provinces or in Canada should recognize the value of preventive medicine.
Fourth, we consider that any proposed scheme must operate with the co-operation of the federal, provincial and municipal governments. One might go beyond that and suggest that it must include voluntary health organizations, health units, etc. We feel, as apparently does the mover, that the administration of any such scheme should be on the provincial and municipal levels. We feel strongly about that matter, Mr. Speaker. We are absolutely opposed to the imposition upon the people of this country of any scheme which gives some indication that it may destroy the existing patient-doctor relationship. We should not like to see-in fact, we would be very much opposed to them-some things which are apparently being done under certain schemes elsewhere where, in the final

analysis, laymen are the ones who dictate as to the type of treatment which an ill person should receive.
There is evidence of that situation in several of the schemes overseas. I may be wrong but I believe that, in the powers vested in the local executive councils in the scheme in Britain, there is a strong indication that laymen are having far too much to say about the type of treatment which the individual might secure. We never would support any proposition or scheme which places treatment on the assembly-line basis or, in other words, simply the pushing of patients through, with no opportunity whatsoever to deal with the psychological implications of individual cases. Any medical man will tell you that those are extremely important in dealing with people who are ill, whether they are really ill or ill in an imaginary sense. I think also that it is extremely important that we recognize that in the development of any scheme we must proceed with sufficient care to have a reasonable guarantee that inflated demands which follow the implementation of any set of proposals shall not create a situation where we are worse off than we were before we started. As I say in connection with that point, this matter of the maintenance of individual responsibility certainly will play an important part.
I do not desire to take too much of the time of the house, Mr. Speaker. I am conscious of the fact that the membership of the house is anxious to have at least one vote today. I am, of course, fully conscious of the fact that I shall have further opportunity to say other things that I should like to say. I mentioned some of them earlier and certainly it is my intention to take advantage of the opportunities provided to me to give voice to my opinions with regard to some of the major problems confronting us.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I make it absolutely clear that, when we support this amendment to the amendment, we do not want it to be construed that our endorsation of that subamendment commits us to the acceptance or the support of any specific plan which the C.C.F. may now or later advance. We have our own ideas with respect to that matter. As I said before, our endorsation of the subamendment simply indicates our belief that an expanded health program for Canada is desirable and essential. Being an Albertan, I think we in Alberta have made great strides. We should certainly like to see the federal government come along with financing more financial assistance. I am sure that we can advance even more

rapidly than in the past. I do not want to leave the impression-and I have made certain of that already-that the federal government is doing nothing. I realize that they are. I am conscious of the grants for hospital construction, et cetera. Mr. Speaker, we are supporting the subamendment subject to those considerations just indicated.


Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Your Honour, in opening my speech this afternoon I should like to congratulate you upon your appointment as Deputy Speaker of the house and chairman of committees of the whole. Those of us who sit on the opposition side always watch carefully the way in which the presiding officer carries out his duties. We have learned to respect you for your fairness and your patience. I am sure that you will fill this post with great honour to yourself and great credit to the whole House of Commons.
I propose today to make suggestions to the government and to the house-because, after all, the house is or should be more important than the government-on three different questions. The first one has to do with the Department of Justice. I believe that the time has come for the Emergency Powers Act to be repealed. Let us make this twenty-second parliament of Canada supreme. The three previous parliaments have not been. In fact, no parliament of Canada since 1939

fourteen years ago-has really been supreme, because during the whole of that intervening period there has been in the background a special statute giving the cabinet power to govern by decree and quite regardless of the House of Commons and the Senate.
First, in 1939, the War Measures Act was brought into effect. Of course that was done quite properly to meet the emergency of the war. Then in the post-war years, when the war ended, the War Measures Act was put back into cold storage but there were enacted other measures which gave to the government most of the powers contained in the War Measures Act. I refer to the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act which 1 believe was passed in 1945 and came into effect on the 1st of January, 1946, then the Continuation of Transitional Measures Act which came into effect in 1947 and remained in effect until April 30, 1951, when the present act came into force, known as the Emergency Powers Act. This act, of course, goes very far. I would remind the members of the house, particularly the private members,
The Address-Mr. Green just what wide powers the cabinet now have under this Emergency Powers Act. Section 2 reads as follows:
2. (1) The governor in council may do and authorize such acts and things, and make from time to time such orders and regulations, as he may by reason of the existing international emergency deem necessary or advisable for the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada;-
Those words I have read are extremely wide, of course. It continues:
-and for greater certainty, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing terms, it is hereby declared that the powers of the governor in council shall extend to all matters coming within the classes of subjects hereinafter enumerated, that is to say:-
(a)	control and suppression of maps, plans and photographs;
(b)	control of communications and means of communication;
(c)	control of the harbours, ports and territorial waters of Canada and the movements of vessels;-
Here is a very wide one:
(d)	transportation by land, air or water and the control of the transport of persons and things.
And a much wider one:
(e)	trading, exportation, importation, production and manufacture.
Finally there is clause (f) which deals with the imposition and recovery of fees and so on. Those powers are tremendously wide.
The act would have expired last spring but those of us who were here in the last parliament will remember that the government brought in an amendment extending it until the 31st of May, 1954, and with the provision that it could be extended for a further year merely by an address of the House of Commons and the Senate. Certainly unless the act is repealed now it will be in force during the whole of this first session of the twenty-second parliament. At least, we hope that the session will end before the 31st of May, but if not it will end very shortly thereafter. The act can also be extended for a further year. Unless we repeal the Emergency Powers Act now its shadow will be over the whole of the first session of this new parliament.
As the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) is aware, there was a spirited debate in the spring when the Emergency Powers Act was extended. He had some rather peculiar reasons for continuing it in force.
I remember one of them was that there might be an invasion of Canada. We were never quite clear as to how that invasion would come about, and of course the answer to that suggestion was that if there were an invasion the War Measures Act would be brought into effect at once by proclamation. Then he said we needed the legislation
372	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Green to look alter the routing of box cars on the prairies; that we had to have the Emergency-Powers Act so that we could get the right number of box cars at the right places on the prairies to handle the movement of grain and so on. He also had one even more fantastic reason. He said that there was going to be an election and that the government needed the Emergency Powers Act, presumably to win the election. As it turned out, they did not need all that help.
Seriously speaking, the government put up no case at all, in my opinion, for the continuation of the Emergency Powers Act for another year. The ministers did indicate that they would not use these powers while the house was in session. We were all led to believe they would not think of using the Emergency Powers Act while parliament was here to do the legislating. However, about two or three weeks after the bill had been passed they did use it to pass an order in council described as the control of trade by sea for mainland China and North Korea order, 1953, which was passed over in the east block behind closed doors on the 17th of April of this year. The order having been passed by decree, there was of course no opportunity for the house to debate the question. There was no opportunity for the press to report such debate and no opportunity for the Canadian people to form an opinion.
The opposition moved a vote of no confidence in the government because of that action which was in the following words:
This house, whilst in accord with a policy of imposing strict limitations and conditions on Canadian ships and cargoes and passengers carried thereon to mainland China or North Korea or within the territorial waters of these countries, desires to record its opinion that the action of the government in proceeding by order in council under the Emergency Powers Act while the house is in session was a violation of the rights of parliament, and that any powers necessary to implement such a policy should have been provided by an amendment to the Canada Shipping Act.
In the voting on that non-confidence motion two of the government supporters, and I am proud to say that one of them was a member from my own province, the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. MaeDougall), voted against the government because they took the stand that it was wrong to pass that order in council under the Emergency Powers Act when parliament was in session and in a position to pass the necessary legislation.


Mr. Fleming:: And a breach of faith.


Howard Charles Green: In any event, the election is now over so the Emergency Powers Act is not needed for that reason any more. The fighting in Korea is ended, I believe. There is ample power in the Defence Production


Act for carrying on the functions of that department so the Emergency Powers Act is not needed for defence production purposes. The Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) never finds himself caught without a good strong act behind him, and both he and the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) admitted to me when the Defence Production Act was passed in 1951 that it contained all the powers necessary even if we were to become involved in a third world war. Therefore the Emergency Powers Act is not required for that purpose.
I suggest to the Minister of Justice that if any of the existing orders in council based on the Emergency Powers Act are required they should be changed from orders in council to amendments to statutes. For example, take the control of trade by sea for mainland China and North Korea order. Make that an amendment to the Canada Shipping Act. Put these orders in council on the statute book after they have been debated in the house so that the Canadian people can know the law and know when they are breaking it. I urge upon the government that the Emergency Powers Act should be repealed right away. Let us take these drastic powers right out of the hands of the cabinet. The time has come to restore the supremacy of the Canadian parliament. Now, at the beginning of the first session of this new parliament, is the proper time to do it.
My second suggestion has to do with the Department of Veterans Affairs. The only mention of veterans affairs contained in the speech from the throne is found in the last three words. At the end of the speech there is a list of odds and ends to be introduced at the present session, and at the very end we find these words, "and certain veterans legislation". We already have on the order paper two resolutions dealing with veterans affairs. One precedes a bill to amend the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act and the other concerns amendments to the War Service Grants Act. Both these measures are important but there is not a word in the speech from the throne and nothing contained on the order paper or in any of the remarks that have been made by members of the government to the effect that the War Veterans Allowance Act is to be dealt with at this session. I realize that this act has already been mentioned and very ably dealt with by many of the members who have spoken before me, but I make no apology for saying something about it today.
Amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act are unfinished business from the last parliament. They should have been

passed at the last session. One reason I feel so strongly about this matter is that there was a unanimous recommendation from the special committee on veterans affairs in 1952 concerning the War Veterans Allowance Act which has been ignored by the cabinet in so far as any results are concerned. I have never known that to happen before in the case of a recommendation from a special committee on veterans affairs.
We were unable to get a veterans affairs committee set up in 1953, but the 1952 committee dealt primarily with the War Veterans Allowance Act. The Legion and the national council came in with recommendations that the amount should be increased to $60 per month for single men and $120 for married men, and that the ceiling on permissive income, the total income these front-line veterans could have, should be $1,200 a year in the case of single men and $2,000 a year in the case of married men. In that committee the opposition members, supported by one or two government members, tried to get through a recommendation that the increase in the amount of allowance proposed by these great veterans organizations should be recommended to the house, but we were unable to do so. We were voted down, but we did get a unanimous recommendation concerning the permissive income. The report was tabled in the house on June 18, 1952. It states:
Your committee further recommends to the government continued and sympathetic study of the needs and requirements of recipients of war veterans allowance, keeping in mind the recommendations of veterans organizations in that respect and particularly with regard to permissive income.
As I have said, the government has not yet acted on this recommendation and I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that the permissive income of the recipient of the war veterans allowance over and above his allowance is only $10 per month both for the single man and for the married man. Under the old War Veterans Allowance Act it was $125 a year for the single man and $250 for the married man. Under the Old Age Assistance Act it is $240 a year for both single and married men, and yet under the present War Veterans Allowance Act it is only $10 a month or $120 a year.
In many cases this low ceiling means real suffering and tragedy for these veterans of Canada. Take the recipient of the war veterans allowance who is 70 years of age or over. He cannot get the full benefit of old age security like all other Canadian citizens because if he is drawing $50 a month war veterans allowance and has no other income then he can only get $10 benefit from old age
The Address-Mr. Green security when he becomes 70 years of age. If he happens to have $10 of outside income in addition to his $50 war veterans allowance then he gets absolutely no increase when he becomes 70 years of age.
There is no means test for other citizens when they reach 70 years of age and yet these veterans of Canada, who, as I have said, are front-line veterans who have served in a theatre of war, are subject to this means test. I think it is a shame and it is a situation that should be remedied without delay. If the permissive income were increased even to $40 a month, then they would be able to benefit, they would be able to get the full old age security payment when they reach 70 years of age.
Take the case of the recipient of war veterans allowance and his wife who have both a chance to do light work. For example, they may be able to carry on work as janitors, or perhaps only the wife is able to work. Then, the permissive income of $10 a month over and above the allowance is so low that they simply cannot take a job of that kind because if they do they lose all or most of their war veterans allowance. Take the man who has saved a little money, or a man who has a small superannuation payment. He should be able to get the full benefit of the war veterans allowance and not have it cut down because he happens to have a certain amount of superannuation. Take the small pensioner: his case is tragic too. When we increased the pension two or three years ago these small pensioners who were on war veterans allowance got no benefit whatever because as the pension went up the war veterans allowance came down.
These are examples I have given which prove conclusively the need for raising the permissive income for these war veterans allowance recipients and I suggest that the proposal of the veterans organizations that the ceiling should be $1,200 a year for the single man and $2,000 a year for the married veteran is entirely within reason, and this session of parliament is the time when this change should be made. It must be adjusted at this session.
I suggest once again that there should be a standing committee on veterans affairs, or if the minister is unwilling to meet that suggestion then let him set up a special committee at this present session and get this injustice remedied.
My third and final suggestion has to do with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier). I regret he is out of Ottawa today, but I am very happy to see his parliamentary assistant here, the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Langlois) and I should like to congratulate him too on his appointment. He had

The Address-Mr. Green great experience in the navy during the war and coming from Gaspe he has the smell of the sea in his nostrils. If he does not make a good parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transport then there is something seriously wrong with him, but I am sure he will be a good assistant.
In the speech from the throne there is no mention whatever of the Canadian merchant navy or, as some people call it, the Canadian merchant marine, although obviously the Canadian merchant navy is in a critical condition at the present time. I may say I was astounded to see that the Minister of Transport handed out a statement about the merchant navy the day the house met. He did not make that statement in the house. There was no word about it in the speech from the throne. He gave the statement to the newspapers and I propose to deal at some length with it in a few moments. I raise that because I think it was an improper thing for him to do. He should have made his statement right here in the house.
To give the house the picture of the position in which the Canadian merchant navy now stands, I will quote first of all from the last report of the Canadian maritime commission for the period ending 31st of March, 1953, and dated June 29 of this year, which was tabled shortly after the house met. On page 8 we find this statement:
Our fourth report, written one year later in 1951, noted the rise in freight rates consequent upon the outbreak of the Korean war in June, 1950 and the increased tempo of defence stockpiling. In 1952 we recorded that whilst this rise had passed its peak the industry was still enjoying prosperity. Now, in 1953 -
And this is the sentence to which I wish to draw the attention of hon. members.
-we must face the fact that our deep-sea shipping industry is once more engaged in a struggle for Its continued existence.
The commission could not have given a more definite warning to the government, to the house, and to the people of the serious condition in which the merchant marine finds itself at the present time.
Then on October 15 the Canadian Shipowners Association presented a memorandum on the Canadian deep-sea shipping industry to a committee of the cabinet and on page 1 we find this statement:
For over eighteen months Canadian deep-sea shipowners have been discussing with government agencies the prevailing problems of the industry and the need for a declaration of future government policy. The industry is now in a critical stage, and unless the government revises present regulations and affords some assistance, this industry will shortly cease to exist.
In the port of Vancouver we now have only two Canadian deep-sea cargo vessels


operating. Six years ago we had 46. Nothing more clearly illustrates the desperate straits to which the Canadian merchant navy has fallen.
In 1945 there were 173 deep-sea cargo vessels under the Canadian flag, in addition to a number of Canadian-built ships of United Kingdom registry. According to this report of the Canadian maritime commission we find at page 4 that at the end of March of this year there were the following in the Canadian merchant fleet of ocean-going ships in foreign trade: First of all, there were 34 war-built 10,000-ton cargo ships. That figure was down by eight from the preceding year. There were ten 4,700-tonners, that figure being down by two from the year previous. There was one passenger ship, down two from the preceding year. There were three diesel cargo vessels, three other cargo ships and fourteen tankers. The other cargo ships were down two, but the tankers had gone up from twelve to fourteen. This made a total of 65 ships.
In the period since March 31 of this year those 34 vessels of 10,000 tons have been reduced to 27, for seven more ships have gone. The result is that we now have a total of only 58 vessels in the fleet.
Then, so far as tonnage is concerned, the figures show that the gross tonnage in 1945 stood at 1,075,903 tons. According to this report, at March 31, 1953, the figure had dropped to 442,089 tons. And I believe, in the intervening period, down to November 15 there had been a further drop to 392,289 tons.
Another way of showing the desperate straits of the merchant navy is to examine the amount of Canadian cargo being carried in Canadian bottoms. I refer again to this last report of the Canadian maritime commission, this time turning to page 20 where I find a table showing Canadian flag participation in the carriage of Canada's overseas trade, including only dry-cargo vessels. This does not include trade with or carried via the United States.
In 1947 20-2 per cent of the cargo was carried in Canadian ships. That percentage has been dropping steadily, until in 1951, the last year given in this report, it was down to 7 [DOT] 9 per cent, and I believe in 1952 it fell again to 6-4 per cent. No doubt it will be down for 1953, because we have fewer vessels.
Canadian cargo carried in United Kingdom ships amounted to 45-2 per cent in 1947. In 1951 that had dropped to 40-6 per cent and in 1952 to 35-4 per cent. On the other hand Canadian cargo carried in other vessels- Greek, Panamanian, Norwegian or the ships

of other nations of the world-amounted in 1947 to only 34-6 per cent, while in 1951 it had gone up to 51-5 per cent and in 1952 to 58-2 per cent. Furthermore, all but two of our deep-sea cargo fleet are old wartime vessels, slow and almost obsolete. We have only two modern vessels, and they are tankers.
The question is-and it must be faced by the government, by the house and by the people of Canada-are we going to have a Canadian merchant navy, or are we not? Once before we let the merchant navy fade away. Indeed, we did that twice before. We had, first of all, a great merchant navy of wooden ships in the old days. That disappeared. We had a large merchant navy during the first world war, and that was allowed to disappear. Are we now going to do the same thing?
I thought a decision had been made some years ago, because I have here a speech made on July 16, 1947, by the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe). We find that at page 4204 of Hansard the minister was dealing with a bill to set up the Canadian maritime commission, and said:
There is no question in our minds of trying to support a large merchant navy merely from the point of view of national prestige. We do feel, however, that a merchant navy adequate to our needs should be retained.
And again at page 4214:
I would not suggest that we have a merchant navy sufficient to carry all our exports. I would suggest that we require a merchant navy able to carry a substantial part of our exports and to protect Canada's position in the matter of freight rates and other problems of carriage. Today-
-and this was in 1947-
-we are the fourth maritime nation in the world, and when the boats now on British register are returned-
They have not been returned. We have had to put more on British registry to keep them operating.
-we shall probably be the third maritime nation in the world. Whether Canada in the future will require to maintain that position is a question for the maritime commission to study, so that it will be in a position to advise the government. Being a shipping and shipbuilding nation at the moment, it is important that we shall remain a shipping and shipbuilding nation.
There followed in due course the recommendations of the Canadian maritime commission as they appear at pages 8 and 9 of their second report. The fifteenth recommendation reads in this way:
The experience of the last war also indicates that Canada's national security requires that there should be available under Canadian registry a small and efficient ocean-going fleet for supply purposes and for the transportation of essential materials.
The Address-Mr. Green
Number 16 is as follows:
On the grounds of national security it therefore appears advisable to maintain the shipping and shipbuilding industries in Canada on a nucleus basis capable of rapid expansion in an emergency.
And then going on to number 18:
It is estimated that a deep-sea dry-cargo and tanker fleet of about 750,000 deadweight tons-
-and we are down to almost half that figure today-
-would be sufficient for the carriage of essential cargoes in the early stages of an emergency and to act as auxiliaries for the defence services. Such fleet should contain a proportion of modern vessels, faster than those comprising the present-day fleet. The present vessels are uncompetitive with foreign flag vessels in liner trades.
Then, policies were adopted by the government. For example, there was the tonnage replacement plan. I have not time to go into it in detail, but the essence of the plan was that the owners of war-built ships could sell them to other nations, provided the money was placed in escrow for use either in paying off mortgages held by the government on the ships, or for building new vessels. Well, it does not work out that way. A practice has developed of the owners assigning their right to these funds to shipping companies on the great lakes, and then the men on the great lakes build great lakes ships in Canadian yards, and thereby comply with the tonnage replacement plan, while the man who owned the deep-sea ship has to take a discount when he assigns the escrow money to the great lakes man. As I pointed out earlier, only two modern vessels have been added to the fleet, and those are the two tankers.
In 1949 we had the transfer and subsidy plan to help retain the deep-sea fleet. A certain number of ships were transferred to British registry. That meant of course that the Canadian crews were put on the beach and British crews were shipped. They became in effect British ships for every purpose, except in so far as there might be any income tax payable by the owners in Canada. For a year the government paid a subsidy of $75,000. I think the plan originally was to subsidize 40 ships, but I believe only 37 actually received the subsidy payment. These facts are all contained in the various reports of the maritime commission, but I have not time to read them.
The subsidy plan did keep the fleet in being, and then along came the Korean war, which of course was a great benefit to the fleet, because rates went up and there were a lot of goods to be transported. Now we are again in a decline and we have come to the final crisis. Therefore I repeat, the question is: Are we to have a Canadian merchant navy or are we not?

37S
The Address-Mr. Green
I admit at once that the question is extremely difficult. It is not an easy matter to solve this problem, but I believe our answer as Canadians should be that we must have a merchant fleet; in the first place for national security, as pointed out in the report of the Canadian maritime commission; then, because of Canada's increased importance in world affairs, and again because of the vital importance of our export trade. Are we to have our export trade subject to exploitation by foreign vessels, or are we to retain at least some of our merchant navy to handle a portion of our Canadian products?
Is our navy to be engaged solely in protecting the cargo vessels of other nations? Surely the main purpose of the Canadian navy should be to protect our own merchant fleet. What about the St. Lawrence seaway? We are hoping to have a great increase in the number of ocean-going vessels which come into our great lakes, and I am sure that will happen. Are those vessels to be under some flag other than the Canadian flag? Surely, for that reason alone, we should take steps to see that a Canadian merchant navy is kept in being. If we let it go down, then trouble comes and we have to rebuild, that will take a long time, and will cost us far more than it would do to keep the merchant navy at the present time. Finally, there is tradition. We are a seafaring nation, and we should always remember that.
I now come to the minister's statement. He outlined government policy on November 12, and here it is:
It has been decided that owners of deep-sea vessels on Canadian registry be allowed to sell their vessels-
That is very much like a fire sale notice; in effect it is notice to ship owners all over the world, who may want to buy ships cheaply, that 30 or 40 Canadian vessels will be going on the market. I continue with the statement.
-on condition that the proceeds of sale are placed in escrow for the acquisition of modern vessels to be placed on Canadian registry. The use of escrow funds will be modified by removing the provision that vessels acquired with them must be built in Canadian yards and by adding a limitation that such escrow funds will be used in the future only for the acquisition of dry cargo vessels and not of tankers. The Canadian maritime commission will be responsible for ensuring that vessels acquired through the use of escrow funds, whether through new construction or by purchase, be of a modern and efficient character.
That is all right, if there was anybody to build these new ships. There is no sign yet of any new ships being forthcoming in this or in any other way. The statement goes on:
No change will be made in the present position in respect of Canadian vessels under United Kingdom registry. This maintains the status quo
TMr. Green.]
of the agreement between the United Kingdom and Canada concerning Canadian-owned vessels which were transferred to United Kingdom registry in 1950, as well as those vessels which are owned by Canadians but were never placed on any other registry but the United Kingdom.
And then the final paragraph sets out policy which I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, and to hon. members could not be more uncertain, could not flounder around more and could not be less likely to bring about what we all want, namely, a Canadian merchant navy. Here is the last paragraph:
It is further announced that, after due consideration, the government has decided that the request made by the Canadian shipowners association for operating subsidy could not be approved at the present time. However, if-
There are several "ifs" in this statement. I continue:
However, if it appears feasible to establish modern Canadian flag vessels on certain routes that would be of benefit to the development of Canadian trade, Mr. Chevrier indicated that consideration might be given at a later date as to whether or not some form of assistance ought to be provided in such cases.
I do suggest in all earnestness that there must be a far more clear-cut policy than that. In the United States they faced this same problem, and finally came up with a policy of maintaining the merchant navy. Their whole policy is directed toward that end. There is a subsidy for their ships and also provision made for obtaining employment for them. For example, half of the cargo being sent to Europe under the Marshall plan must be carried in United States bottoms. Whether these are the correct plans for Canada I am not in a position to say at the moment, but our merchant navy must be retained, and now is the time when this problem must be faced.
If there is no leadership the Canadian merchant navy is doomed, and that would be a tragedy for our nation.
Those are my three suggestions, Mr. Speaker. I ask that the government consider them, and I do hope that we shall be able to get action on them during the present session.


Mr. Claude Ellis (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, let me preface my remarks this afternoon by expressing to you a deep feeling of humility on this occasion when I make my first effort at debate in this house. I am deeply conscious of the great honour bestowed on me on August 10 last by the citizens of Regina in selecting me as their spokesman in this house.
I should like to state at the outset, Mr. Speaker, one observation that I have made as a new member, one completely inexperienced in parliamentary matters. I have been greatly impressed by the manner in which you have

conducted the affairs of this assembly. Your conduct as Speaker has impressed me as being dignified, impartial and courteous.
I would be remiss in my responsibility, Mr. Speaker, if I did not avail myself of this opportunity in the throne speech debate to put before the house a number of matters which I feel to be of great concern not only to the constituents in Regina but to the people throughout the country generally. Regina is an urban constituency, yet at the outset I want to associate myself with the remarks made by other hon. members from this group and from my own province respecting the very serious problem pertaining to agriculture in that province. We in Regina realize only too well that the prosperity of our city depends upon the prosperity of the surrounding agricultural territory. A falling farm income is going to be reflected in a lower volume of business in the city. That will mean less business and the employment picture within the city will be affected.
I will go further and say that the agricultural problems facing this country are not only the concern of those who represent rural constituencies, nor are they solely the responsibility of western constituencies or agricultural areas in the maritimes. These problems must be faced by the country as a whole. Our basic industry of agriculture must be in a sound economic condition if the country is to prosper.
There is one matter I should like to draw to the attention of hon. members of this house which has reference to a question asked a number of days ago with respect to certain civil servants in the city of Regina. It will be recalled that when the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) was asked why there should be a differential between the wages paid postal workers in Regina and those paid civil servants of the Saskatchewan government, the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) made an interesting comment when he said, "they are organized". At that point the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) replied, "that is the point".
That is exactly the point. I think all hon. members welcomed the recent announcement of increases for the civil servants. But I think the time has come in this country when we should recognize that there is a better method of carrying on employer-employee relations. We have got beyond the concept of master and servant; we have come to accept the principle of collective bargaining in business and in industry. In my province the civil servants send their representatives to meet the representatives of the government around the table as equal partners to negotiate their wage differences.
The Address-Mr. Ellis
As some hon. members know, a month or so ago an agreement was reached in that province between the government and its civil servants which not only provided substantial increases but which set a standard which might well be followed by all governments with respect to questions of wages, hours of work and so forth as between employer and employee. I think the time has come when the government should make overtures to the civil servants to the end that in the future the civil servant will not have to come to the government cap in hand to ask for long-overdue wage increases but rather that the representatives of that body will meet with the government and after deliberating and discussing all aspects of the problem come to an agreement which is mutually satisfactory to both parties.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), the leader of this group, has introduced a subamendment criticizing the failure of the government to announce its intention to introduce a nation-wide health insurance plan with provisions for provincial participation. We are perhaps coming close to the time when a vote will be taken on that subamendment. I feel that this is a very important problem and I believe it is of special significance to us in the city of Regina. As hon. members know, the former member from Regina was parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and consequently health proposals played a large part in the campaign last August.
We were told of all the things the federal government had done in the field of health. It was suggested that the government was ready to embark on an ambitious program of health insurance, yet what do we find at this first session of the new parliament? Not one word is mentioned about health insurance. The other night the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre dealt with this problem most effectively and reminded us that health insurance was first promised by the Liberals in 1919. We have been waiting ever since. Statements attributed to the minister have been to the effect that we cannot do this overnight. What kind of night is it that extends from 1919 to 1953?


An hon. Member:: A long night.


Alfred Claude Ellis: It has been a long night and we are still waiting. Nothing is mentioned in the speech from the throne about health insurance. I submit that health grants do not constitute health insurance. Of course they are welcome as they meet a very important need in this country. But I believe that the people, at least the people in my constituency, want an over-all system of health
378	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Ellis insurance applicable throughout the country. That is what they want and I think that was a very important factor in the election last August. I do not want to labour this matter as it was dealt with most effectively by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
There is one other matter which I feel is of great urgency at the present moment. This was also an issue that played a great part in the campaign last August. I refer to the need of housing. I think if we were to survey the problems confronting the people of Canada today we would find that the problem which causes, more than anything else, heartache, disillusionment and discouragement among vast numbers of our people, is the inability to obtain adequate housing.
We hear of friends, relatives and others who in many instances have to pay over half their income for rent. I know of some who are paying over $100 a month rent for basement suites and even then they are told that they are fortunate to have them. Social welfare authorities have indicated that only a certain percentage of a person's income should be used for housing, that if you spend too much of your income on housing you must neglect other necessaries of life: you have to cut down on food or on your expenditures on health and clothing. There is only a certain amount of money which a person can make available for housing.
The situation is that there are many people in this country who find' themselves in the position where they are paying over half their income as rent for inadequate housing. This is not a new problem, it is something that has been with us for a long time. In the Curtis report the government outlined the picture very clearly in 1944. That report stated quite categorically that about one-third of the people in the low income groups in this country never could enjoy reasonable housing without government subsidy.
What has been done about it? It is true that houses have been built, but many of them were not designed to meet the need for low-cost housing. There are not many in this country who are able to pay $16,000 or $20,000 for a house. There are not many of our people who are in position to make a down payment or go out and buy a lot. Many young people starting out in married life find themselves in the position where they cannot get adequate housing. They are not in a position to go into the market and buy a house at today's prices. The government has failed with respect to low-cost housing.
[Mr. Ellis.1

This problem has been referred to, not only in the Curtis report but in other ways, and I would refer particularly to a recent publication of the Canadian House Builders Association which announced that at the beginning of 1952 there were around half a million Canadian families who were not occupying homes of their own, who were doubled up, who were overcrowded, who were living in basement suites. I have here an item taken from the Gazette for November 20 of this year. It states:
The accumulated demand for new homes remains large. D. B. Mansur, president of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, estimated that the number of Canadian families is currently about 10 per cent higher than the number of available housing units. The shortage has eased since 1946, when the corresponding figure was 12 per cent.
We are still faced with the situation in the country where there are ten per cent more families than there are houses. What is going to be done about it? There is a problem there. What has been done thus far has been done by using free enterprise methods. What is the picture?
I have here an article which appeared in the Financial Post last year dealing with the housing situation in Canada. It points out- and I think it is quite significant because I think it indicates the basic cause of our failure to meet the housing problem in this country-that the government has relied upon the agencies of free enterprise. But free enterprise is interested in building homes only if, through the building of those homes, invested capital can earn a higher rate of income than by investing in, for example, pool halls or breweries or any other type of building construction or any other type of business. Finally the situation is simply this. I am quoting now from the Financial Post:
"Housing must compete for the savings dollar. At the moment, it's not competing very well."
That's the blunt statement of Canada's housing facts by an official of a large lending company.
This is what he meant.
We're "over the hump" in the big post-war backlog of unsatisfied demand from the war years and the thirties.
We are over the hump. That is the opinion of a lending institution. As far as it is concerned we no longer have a housing problem. Once they have met the needs of those who can pay $16,000 for a house, they are through. There is no more money to be made out of housing. Therefore they will withdraw from the field. The article continues:
There's still a big demand for housing, and with a growing population and expanding economy it will continue. But the need for housing can't be made into effective demand and then actual purchases without money.

Under the private enterprise way of doing things, money will be forthcoming only if that money can return to the investor a higher profit than by investing it in some other line of business. The fact of the matter is that as far as private enterprise is concerned there is not enough money to be made out of housing. There is the key to the housing problem and also the key to the failure of the government to meet the housing problem.
Other countries have had housing problems. In 1945 the coalition government in Great Britain, under the leadership at that time of Winston Churchill, estimated the housing needs or the housing requirements of Great Britain to be three-quarters of a million new houses; that was in 1945. As a result of the aggressive policies of a Labour government, that housing need was met by the end of 1948. What have we done about housing?
I suggest in all sincerity, Mr. Speaker, that here is a problem that will have to be faced. We are told that there is legislation coming down concerning housing. Quite naturally we cannot deal with the details until such time as the bill has been made public. But enough advance information has been given about that bill to enable us to surmise that it is not going to make a real frontal attack on the problem at all. It is going to assist a great many people who have perhaps enough money to make a down payment, but it is not going to meet the low-cost housing needs of the people of this country. It seems to me it is going to result in the government surrendering completely to private enterprise the last interest it has in housing.
I suppose it is easy for people to be critical. Perhaps it is a little bit more difficult to make positive proposals. But I think that we in this group have for some time now made proposals to the Canadian people which we feel will bring an improvement in the housing situation and will eventually overcome the problem entirely. Speaking in Toronto last week the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) reiterated what we in this group have been arguing for some time. We have argued that this matter ought not to be left in the hands of private enterprise when private enterprise is interested in housing only when it can make money out of housing. It is not concerned with meeting a social need. We in this group maintain that housing is a social problem and it has got to be treated as such. We have got to take the entire idea of profits out of housing to satisfy that need. That is what we have
The Address-Mr. Drew argued, and it was brought out by our leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, in a speech in Toronto on Saturday when he stated that our group had consistently advocated a housing program which would provide for a lower interest rate, an interest rate of two per cent.
It should not be a question of making money out of housing. It is rather shameful to think of making profits out of human need. In addition to lower interest rates, we further propose to extend the amortization period to thirty years; and to lower the down payment to ten per cent. If that were done, Mr. Speaker, it would enable a Canadian citizen to purchase, for example, a $10,000 home, with a $1,000 down payment and at monthly payments of $33.20. This is our proposal. It appears sound and logical. It is one answer to the housing problem. We in this group do not believe in making criticism without, after having made the criticism, offering some positive alternative.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) has made as the subject of his amendment what he feels to be the failure of the government to live up to the traditional policies of free enterprise. I suggest that the failure to solve our housing problem has simply been because the government has stuck to the principles of free enterprise. Sometimes when we debate this question of free enterprise, it tends to become a little bit academic; but it is not an academic subject. It is something that reaches down into every facet of our lives and touches every problem faced by the Canadian people. Basically it can be reduced to a question of the fundamentals.
I do not want to take any more of the time of the house. It is my first speech. I want to be reasonably short. But I should like to urge the government to consider the adoption at this session of a housing program which will meet the low-cost housing needs of the people of Canada.


Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of Ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am going to direct myself to the subamendment that has been presented and indicate the view I have with regard to the effect of that amendment. The hon. member who has just spoken is quite right. Free enterprise is not merely an academic subject; it is freedom. What we are dealing with here is a motion by way of amendment that deliberately strikes out the words "free competition". Every speech that has been made has demonstrated beyond any question that what we have is pure and unadulterated socialism presented by that subamendment as it stands. After all, that
380	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Drew is what we might have every reason to expect. It is the right-yes, it is the duty- of the members of that party to recommend a course consistent with their political belief. It is refreshing to find them back where they began. The speeches that have been made in this session have borne little resemblance to those we have heard on earlier occasions during the past couple of years. They are right back to the Regina manifesto.


Mr. Studer:: But not in Saskatchewan.


George Alexander Drew: They are right back to state control. They are right back to the old idea that you must do away with the profit motive, place everything under the control of the state, and substitute for the judgment of thousands and hundreds of thousands of individuals the judgment of whom?


Mr. Knowles:: Not the C.P.R., anyway.


Mr. Argue:: Not the Leader of the
Opposition.


George Alexander Drew: The judgment of whom? These men who know how to solve everything. If there is one thing that has been demonstrated beyond all question within the past few years it has been the danger of entrusting the business of the state to those who consider themselves supermen. When we have this resolution presented to us by way of amendment we must not for a moment be beguiled by the fact that the second part of it deals with something which has been advocated just as strongly by this party as by the party on the left. The socialist party most certainly has been supporting ideas which have been employed elsewhere. We heard a reference made today to what has happened elsewhere. We were told only this afternoon to look at the world, and that where you find strong government you will find socialist government. Have they got a strong government in France today?


Major James William Coldwell: Democratic government.


George Alexander Drew: Have they got a strong government in France today in that great country which has stood beside us during all these years of struggle and strife? No!


Mr. Noseworthy:: They have got private enterprise.


George Alexander Drew: Nor have they strong governments in many of those countries which have gone back to the most reactionary form of government there is, a return to the control of the people by the state. We are talking about freedom. We are talking about freedom-
Mr. Nose worthy: To make profits.


George Alexander Drew: -to make profits through our efforts by the energy and the intelligence that God gave us instead of placing profits in the hands of a government such as happens when a socialist government is formed.


Major James William Coldwell: Read the reports of the combines investigation branch.


George Alexander Drew: Oh, my friends on the left-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Your friends are across the way.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: No, I say advisedly "my friends on the left", and I trust that I shall continue to be able to say it; but I hope that nothing will discourage that through their trying to substitute meaningless chatter for argument with respect to doctrines that they support and in which I do not believe. This is the most reactionary proposal of all. For centuries now man has been trying to get away from the control of the state and under wise, fair and embracing laws to be able to use the education that our society gives and find a reward for an initiative that balances off the risks, and which is the only thing that has given great driving power to free societies in the past century.
It is no accident that here on this continent the productive capacity per man in our two democracies has been higher than anywhere else in the world for some time. It is because free men and women have had the encouragement of reward for work. Do not hold up our society as a terrible example. Look at the figures of what our society produces in average earnings and compare them with those of any socialist society anywhere in the world.
I recognize that we are hearing socialist doctrine propounded, and I respect the sincerity of those who put it forward, but I think that they should also accord us the privilege of saying why we do not believe in it. The suggestion that advocacy of competition is an abandonment of those advances that have come through the years is simply disregarding the very things that we have been discussing in the house. Granted there are abuses, granted there have been many abuses of that freedom which has been accorded, attempts have been made, and they have not been confined to one party in the house, to deal with those abuses. One of the legislative measures intended to deal with abuses possible under a system of freedom is the combines act. If it has not been enforced, let those who complain lay charges.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Forty-one years catching up with them.


George Alexander Drew: We have had our objections,
and1 very serious objections, to the administration of the Combines Investigation Act. In fact if some of the members on my left are curious let them examine Hansard and they will find that they felt that, almost to an unwelcome degree, we carried on criticism of the administration of that act in this very house within the past two years.


Major James William Coldwell: That is assuming something that is not quite correct.


George Alexander Drew: No, it is not assuming something that is not correct. Both parties on my left criticized the administration of the act, but the record is clear that the main criticism of its administration came from this party which has supported the principles inherent in the Combines Investigation Act at all times. We want laws that will prevent abuses, but in seeking a cure for the abuses we do not want to go back to a point where once again those who happen to have the power of government are going to be empowered to tell other people what they shall do and to deny to individuals or groups of individuals the right of free competition.
My friends opposite have perhaps not welcomed the suggestion that they are socialists in silk hats. They are welcome to any other name that they choose, but the objection that I have expressed, and which has been expressed by others, is that they have consciously or unconsciously carried forward this very belief in state control and as recently as the past few weeks have enunciated policies which seem to be strangely inconsistent with the ideas of freedom that they have supported so strongly by their spoken declarations over the years.
I would refer to the statement by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) at page 48 of Hansard for November 16, 1953, when he dealt with my remarks about the stated policy of the government, that they were going to decide what is good for industry where that falls within their power, and that they were going to substitute their supreme judgment for that of individuals or groups of individuals who are prepared to take risks and enter certain fields of activity. These were his words:
We do believe in competition when competition is apt to provide what it normally does provide, the right kind of stimulation and better service; but we did not believe that under existing conditions that would have been apt to happen in the operation of this as a public utility service.
I grant you, Mr. Speaker, that this statement is a long way from some of the statements which have been made, particularly by the newer members of the socialist party in this house during the present debate; nevertheless it is an assertion of the principle that the government will decide when it is wise
The Address-Mr. Drew for individuals or groups of individuals organized collectively under our statutory provisions to engage in this or that venture, when it is wise for them to take risks, and whether they should really be allowed to risk their money with the chance of making a return.
That is the policy that is enunciated, that is the policy inherent in the decision made in the refusal of the application by the Canadian Pacific Air Lines for permission to operate a competitive air cargo service. I repeat what I said before. It is not this specific application that is at issue. It is the principle enunciated as the reason for dealing with it. It is a principle which is strangely similar to that which has been supported so vigorously and so strongly and in terms reminiscent of the Regina manifesto. It was over 100 years ago that that great writer, John Stuart Mill, had this to say:
If all citizens were appointed and paid by the government, and looked to the government for every rise in life, nothing could make such a country free otherwise than in name.
I concede immediately that the principle now enunciated is still a long way from denying those personal rights and freedoms that would carry us to the point pictured by John Stuart Mill, but the time to stop any move toward a state of that kind is when a policy is declared which could lead to that end.
Our amendment is directed particularly to this action of the government, and let there be no doubt about it the motion which we have put forward is a want of confidence motion. In stating that we ask for the support of the principle of free competition, we do so because we criticize the government for abandoning it, and we did hope that the government may have reconsidered, even while this debate was under way, a statement of policy so contrary to what they have alleged to be their policy in the past and so consistent with the over-all policy of the socialists to our left. Every dangerous movement, Mr. Speaker, has a beginning and it moves forward, and it is often by those who are most sincere and innocent of any wrong design that the most dangerous course can be initiated, because it is the man who is perfectly sure he is right, firmly convinced that he is right, who will stick to a course which may be completely wrong.
Now, at some time this course could lead to very dangerous results. We have pointed out how dangerous they could be if under the stress of any economic disturbance this government sought to apply these principles to a wider field, as it unquestionably could under the emergency powers it now possesses. In any trend of this kind there is some point of no return. Let us be sure we do not approach the point of no return. The

The Address-Division trend is clear. Our motion is intended to assert the principle of free competition, of freedom, and because the subamendment that has been presented deliberately removes free competition and the supporting argument bases that removal upon socialist doctrines we shall certainly vote against the subamendment, no matter how satisfactory any other part of the subamendment might be.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Some hon. members say six o'clock and others say question.


Major James William Coldwell: I point to the clock; it is six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: I cannot put the question at six o'clock unless I have unanimous consent.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not ask you to rule on this point

so far as what has happened tonight is concerned, as this is the first recorded vote in this new parliament. However, it seems to me that it should be made clear, both to old and to new members, what the rule is with regard to voting. Citation 67 of Beauchesne's second edition reads:
If a member was not present in the house when the question was put by the Speaker, he cannot have his vote recorded.
This point of order was raised, as it has been raised on other occasions, on October 27, 1949. On that occasion Mr. Speaker Macdonald made a definite ruling, as recorded on pages 1210 and 1211 of Hansard. The following sentence is the important one:
But I would point out this citation to all members and ask them to note that a member should be in the house and should hear the question read from the beginning.
I would ask that Your Honour consider this point and perhaps give a direction to the house for future occasions.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I could comment on the point of order at this time. The hon. member has referred to a ruling made by Mr. Speaker Macdonald in which he said that an hon. member must be in his seat and have heard the question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: From the beginning.


Mr. Speaker:: That particular point is not quite clear. If the hon. member looks further in Hansard he will find I think that there were rulings made by Mr. Speaker Macdonald that if a member had heard the question he might vote. I have not that ruling before me at the moment. I noticed that two hon. members walked into the chamber-I could not identify them-at the moment that I was reading the amendment to the amendment.
I would agree with the hon. member that in future hon. members should be in their seats at the beginning of the division. I do not find in the records any instance where a vote has been denied even when it was found that an hon. member was not in his seat at the beginning of the reading of the question. I would imagine that at some time in the future if the rules are not adhered to they will have to be applied. I am glad to have this opportunity to warn hon. members about the course I may perhaps have to take on future occasions.
Once the Clerk has announced that the result of a vote is so many nays and so many yeas, and if a point of order is raised after the division is over, I may have to declare that the vote be reduced by a certain number if some hon. members were not seated at the beginning of the vote and therefore should not have voted. (See Bourinot's fourth edition, page 381.)
The Address-Mr. Low


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my reason for rising to speak at this time in this debate is to take advantage of the opportunity to move an amendment. I could not move an amendment on behalf of the Social Credit group when I first spoke in this debate because the rules of the house limit the number of amendments at any one time to two. The Social Credit group, therefore, if it is to be able to move an amendment at all, must do so after the subamendment is disposed of or after the votes have been recorded on both the amendment and the subamendment. Although we do not wish unnecessarily to prolong the present debate we feel justified, for various good reasons, in presenting our amendment for consideration by the members of the house.
We were not satisfied that either the amendment moved by the Conservative party or the subamendment moved by the C.C.F. expressed the Social Credit views at all closely. Both of them, it seemed to me, left some things which we felt should be definitely put forward as practical proposals for the solution of at least one of Canada's greatest problems, that of securing suitable markets for our abundant production. In addition, both amendments contained some expressions that need clarification. I say that because the meanings of those expressions have been distorted by a good deal of political straining over the years until they are now misunderstood throughout this country and, perhaps, throughout a large part of the world.
My colleague the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) this afternoon made our position clear relative to a national health program and to that part of the C.C.F. subamendment. Consequently I shall have nothing whatever to say about that matter tonight. I will confine my remarks to the Conservative amendment and some closely related matters.
The amendment now under consideration expresses the belief of the Progressive Conservative party that the welfare of Canada is dependent upon free competition. That term "free competition" has already been bandied about in this debate and has been interpreted by some hon. members, including the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Maclnnis), to mean monopoly enterprise. I do not think I am competent to say exactly what the Conservative party meant by their declaration, although I think I know.
This whole world suffers from those who, for their pride's sake or for political party advantage, try to destroy what they do not understand. So I would rather not interpret

The Address-Mr. Low or try to interpret the Conservative declaration or what it means. I think perhaps the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), this afternoon just before the dinner hour, made at least some parts of it extremely clear. But we Social -Crediters are sincere and very firm in our belief that the welfare of Canada is dependent upon private or individual enterprise: that is, the right of every individual, by himself or in association or cooperation with others, to engage in any enterprise or pursuit of his choice that has not been expressly forbidden by law on the ground that it violates fundamental human rights, or some of them.
In my judgment history is full of evidence that an economic system based upon private enterprise, in its capacity to produce goods and services, is infinitely superior to one that is based upon socialism, given equal natural resources, climate and other conditions upon which production depends. In that respect I am in thorough agreement with my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition. The reason for that is, of course, the greater inducements that are to be found in a private enterprise system; that is, inducements to all-out productive effort. The profit motive that is a part of the private enterprise system is a powerful motive to effort. It is one that appeals powerfully to basic human nature. No other motive has ever been discovered that will urge human beings to do things and to produce things with anything like the energy, the drive and the initiative with which they do them under a private enterprise system. Let it not be forgotten, Mr. Speaker, that an abundance of goods and services must be produced if the people in any economy-I do not care what you call it-are to be able to live abundantly.
Private enterprise has solved the problem of production. It has not been socialism that has done that. Private enterprise has built our country into the great, powerful and wonderful country that it is today. Socialism, in my judgment, never could have done it under any circumstances.
It is perfectly true that neither private enterprise nor socialism has as yet solved the problem of distribution. It is also true that maldistribution is the disease that plagues every economy in the world, free or not free. No economy has as yet learned how to distribute equitably the abundance that it is capable of producing in peacetime, or how to prevent unemployment or how to prevent or cure the cycles of boom and bust that occur all too frequently in our economies. But I have faith that we can solve the problem of distribution, and I have faith that we can do it without having to

sacrifice or to destroy the private enterprise system with all its basic natural advantages, or without plunging the country into war or dictatorship of any kind.
We should be spending our energies in a united effort to perfect the very imperfect mechanisms of distribution, the most important one of which, of course, is the money mechanism. As you know, Mr. Speaker, high finance, which is perhaps the most antisocial, anti-human-welfare monopoly in the world, has never feared socialism and it does not fear it today. One newspaper correspondent not so long ago wrote that the money monopoly would crawl into bed with Coldwell, but would never crawl into bed with Low for fear of getting hurt. That was just his way of saying that high finance does not worry about socialism, because every socialist effort ever yet made let finance carry on in its control of all things without any fundamental change whatsoever. They know that under Social Credit, of course, they would lose their unlimited power over the lives and the property of the people and would have to yield that power back to the people themselves.
From the way private enterprise operates today I know that it is not perfect. Abuses have crept in. Abuses are there. We know there has to be, for the sake of the safety, welfare and liberties of the people, some government regulation. But we believe that regulation should be limited to what is necessary to safeguard the safety, welfare and' liberties of Canadian citizens. We stand unshaken in our determination to preserve and to perfect the private enterprise system as the real base of our Canadian economy.
My friend the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), when he spoke in this house on November 24, spoke with conviction. I congratulate him on being honest enough to say, without qualification, that the C.C.F. group are socialists. That is their right. I concede to every man the right to choose what he will be. I am sure that statement indicates the respect that I hold for their views and for their approach to the problems that we face. But I am perfectly sure that anyone would find it extremely difficult to discover today exactly what is the official Canadian definition of socialism. I have read many books and pamphlets that purported to tell what socialism is, from the time that Fred Henderson wrote that socialism is government ownership of the means of production and distribution-all of them-down to my friend the hon. member for Vancouver East who, the other night, seemed to imply that socialism is co-operation. I think it would be worth while if we could be given

the official definition of socialism, together with a detailed statement of its short-range and its long-range objectives.
I say that because I believe that the Canadian people are entitled to have them and would be keenly interested in having them. I say at once that such things may now be in circulation but if they are I have not seen them. Let me remind the hon. member for Vancouver East that socialists are not the only advocates of co-operation. Every political movement in Canada has at one time or another advocated co-operation in one form or another, but in my judgment the only co-operation that has ever yielded any good fruit so far as human welfare is concerned is that which springs voluntarily from the heart of a generous lover of his fellow man.
Compelled co-operation is dictatorship of course, and it can further be said with truth that co-operation alone will not solve the problem of distribution because it would be powerless against the kind of financial dictatorship which has made it impossible for private enterprise to distribute equitably the vast production that has been achieved in this country and in other so-called free enterprise countries.
My friend from Vancouver East is also in error when he says that Christ taught co-operation and not competition. My friend forgets the powerful and pointed parable of the talents wherein the Master recognized the profit motive as a natural human urge. Christ taught co-operation of course but not to the exclusion of competition by any means. The Master taught the worth of the individual, that all organizations of society should exist to serve him and to provide for him opportunities to develop and perfect his personality. At no time did He ever imply or teach that the individual human being must live submerged in a collective society or a regimented group. Christ taught respect for private property and advocated the ten commandments, especially the eighth, "Thou shalt not steal", as a fundamental safeguard for the property rights of all men.
God taught that the right of title to property was the very basis of an individual human being's personal sovereignty. The Master taught respect for the God-given gift of free agency. He drove the money changers out of the temple and encouraged fair and equitable distribution of the abundance that the earth can yield so that all can live in security and without fear. These Christian teachings, amongst others, Social Credit aims to translate into policies of good government by soliciting and inducing the co-operation of 83276-25
The Address-Mr. Low men and women of good will to do the job. Therein lies our philosophy which the hon. member for Vancouver East says we have not got. We have developed a set of policies based on these Christian principles, a copy of which I have with me tonight and which I am going to send to the hon. member for Vancouver East with my compliments so that from now on he will be informed and will not again say that Social Credit has no policy.
It is easy to say things of that kind but it is not wise for any of us to speak from prejudice. Prejudice is a great time saver. I will admit that it enables one to form opinions without bothering to get the facts. I am just trying to help the hon. member for Vancouver East to get the facts. We stand unaltered and unshaken in support of the private enterprise system that has done so much for this and every other country that has let it do so, and we have a marvellous country. No one can gainsay that, and I just wanted to make it clear that because of the fact so many people have misused and misinterpreted and are misusing and misinterpreting the terms "free enterprise" and "free competition" we felt it was desirable to suggest that our interpretation of the meaning of those terms would be what I have given in the part of my speech I have made thus far.
The second portion of our amendment, which I shall move without much delay, deals with trade. It is not my intention to go into any great detail at this time because I presume some of my colleagues will be speaking on our amendment and will doubtless deal with trade and matters associated therewith. But I do want to say that we are in substantial agreement with that part of the Conservative amendment which deals with trade. Our great need today from one end of Canada to the other is markets for our primary products, markets, let me emphasize, in countries where our products are needed and wanted. There is nothing more frustrating to our producers than to be hooked to a market that is as uncertain as the United States market. We do not advocate that we cease trading with the United States. We want to trade with our great neighbour but our past experience teaches us that we can never count on the stability or continuity of that market, especially for our agricultural production. The economy of the United States is too much like our own to furnish our best and most stable market for agricultural production because all too often the farmers down there have surpluses of the same things that we have up here. But I say again that we want to trade with them. Of course we do.
386	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Low
But, Mr. Speaker, Britain, the western European countries, Greece, the Middle East and the commonwealth countries have over the years been our best market for food materials. We have lost much of that market in fact by our very foolish ideas with respect to trade. We have actually driven Britain and other countries behind the iron curtain to secure much of their trade which I believe we should be enjoying right here in Canada today.
Since the war ended we have neglected the sterling area markets. They have wanted our production. They have said so. They have told us time and time again, but although they wanted our products in the worst way they could not buy them for two reasons. First, we were demanding in payment for our goods gold or United States dollars. Second, we would not spend Canadian dollars in their markets so they could buy what we had to sell them. Furthermore, we have not been prepared to spend these dollars in- order to assist Britain to get back on her feet. I say to you that the British market therefore has ceased to be our best market. If we had been prepared in 1945 to accept sterling in settlement of trade balances owing us by countries in the sterling area, we could have been of real help to the recovery of Great Britain and western Europe, and at the same time we could have preserved our traditional markets in countries that needed and wanted our goods rather than what we now have, that is, attempts to force our way into a market that neither needs nor wants many of the food products we have for sale abroad. Every now and again, just when we think we have got an established market, up goes a barrier or import quota that keeps the product out.
We advocate and have advocated for many years that we be prepared to settle the trade balances of other countries with us by accepting the only thing that they may have, their own currency. We advocate and have advocated that the first thing that we should do in Canada is to satisfy our local markets and see to it that the people of Canada are able to buy and consume what they want of Canadian production. If we were to see to it that effective purchasing power in the hands of our people was kept at a high level so that they could buy what they wanted of our production, many of the surpluses or so-called surpluses that plague us would disappear overnight and we would not be bothered about them. We would not have to be.
Therefore let us see to it first that we satisfy our home market. May I say that


satisfying our home market involves supplying that 10 per cent of our Canadian population that today appear to have to live at or below the borderline of poverty, including many worthy retired people whose incomes have shrunk to very small amounts simply because of the fact that through foolish policies we have allowed the purchasing value of the Canadian dollar to decline by almost half. These people ought to be considered also with those on war veterans allowances and old age pensions and the disabled. Those people represent the fringe I am talking about, the 10 per cent who have to exist today at or below the borderline of poverty. Certainly they are entitled to some of the production that we have in abundance and which we want to get distributed.


Mr. Campbell:: Where would you get the money?


Solon Earl Low: That would be a very simple matter. If you look up the Finance Act of 1914 you will find that under the terms of that act we can easily finance the distribution of these goods in Canada without in any way putting ourselves in bond to the merchants. The second suggestion we make is that by being ready to accept sterling in the settlement of balances owing to us we would show the world we are really ready to buy in sterling countries so that they can buy from us.
So, Mr. Speaker, in order to make our position perfectly clear I wish to move, seconded by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch):
That the amendment be amended by deleting therefrom the words "free competition" where they appear in the third line, and substituting therefor the words "private enterprise"; and by adding at the end of the said amendment the following words: "by the acceptance of sterling in payment therefor".
The amendment as amended would read:
We respectfully represent to Your Excellency that the welfare of Canada is dependent upon private enterprise; and that the prosperity and security of all Canadians will be advanced by government policies which will restore markets for primary products and generally promote a high volume of international trade by the acceptance of sterling in payment therefor.
Let me say just one word in conclusion. By these final words at the end of the Conservative amendment we do not mean to imply that the acceptance of sterling would be the only means but that would certainly be in our judgment an important one of perhaps many.


Mr. R. F. L. Hanna (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to take part in this debate as the member for the new federal constituency of Edmonton-Strathcona. I would like also to congratulate you,

Mr. Speaker, on being elected to your high office by the unanimous vote of this house. I would also like to congratulate the mover (Mr. Hollingworth) and the seconder (Mr. Villeneuve) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Both these new and young members of the house have set a very high standard which it will be difficult for other new members like myself to measure up to. I was much impressed by the remarks of the hon. member for York Centre about the new constituency which he represents, for in many respects the new constituency which I represent has much in common with York Centre. Both constituencies came into being as a result of the very rapid expansion of the Canadian economy since the war.
Although these new constituencies are some 2,000 miles apart, their coming into being in such widely separated parts of Canada is indicative, I believe, of the general expansion and national growth which is so evident throughout the length and breadth of the country. The new constituency of Edmon-ton-Strathcona was set up by the redistribution bill of the twenty-first parliament. I noticed that the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose (Mr. Fair) referred to the former constituency of Camrose which was eliminated under the redistribution, and regretted that the former member for Camrose was thereby deprived of the opportunity of running as a candidate in the recent election. I suggest that the former hon. member for Camrose took the best possible alternative when he moved to the new federal constituency of Edmonton-Strathcona and went into business there. I am confident that he will be both happy and prosperous.
Such an occurrence is indeed typical of what has been going on in Edmonton since the war, for in the past ten years the city of Edmonton has been progressing with giant strides and its population has been increasing at the rate of about 1,000 persons per month. There are now three federal constituencies in the city of Edmonton. The city is therefore represented by two other hon. members in this house as well as myself and I feel that it would not be appropriate for me to deal at too great length with the city as a whole and consequently anticipate what the other hon. members from Edmonton may have to say. I would, however, like to speak briefly about that part of Edmonton and the surrounding rural areas which I have the honour to represent.
The new federal constituency of Edmonton-Strathcona comprises all of the city of Edmonton lying south of the North Saskatchewan river. This was the former city of Strathcona which was amalgamated with the city of 83276-254
The Address-Mr. Hanna Edmonton in 1912. It is the fastest growing part of the fastest growing city in Canada. This growth, rapid as it is, has none of the characteristics of a boom. Rather it is accelerated growth and development along soundest economic lines. The basis of the growth in and around the city of Edmonton in recent years is due to Edmonton's incomparable location as the centre of Canada's principal oil fields, and to its rich agricultural soil, to its position on three major railways, and to its being the focal point on main highways reaching out in all directions, and to its airways leading to all quarters of the globe.
It is because of this particularly favourable location that Edmonton has become known as the oil centre of Canada, the gateway to the north, and the crossroads of the world. No less than six major air lines operate in and out of the city of Edmonton.
South Edmonton also shares with the rest of the city the indescribable beauty of the wide and deep North Saskatchewan river valley which is happily reserved for the most part as parkland and playgrounds, picnic grounds, golf courses and the like. In that part of Edmonton also is situated the University of Alberta which, like the rest of the province, has expanded by leaps and bounds. On the spacious campus of the university is the Aberhart memorial t.b. sanatorium, which I am happy to say has benefited to the extent of over $600,000 from federal health grants.
Just outside the city limits in this new constituency there has sprung up in the last five years an industrial development which is without parallel anywhere. In this industrial area we have two large tank farms that are the starting point for two major oil pipe lines. The Interprovincial pipe line, now being extended to Sarnia, Ontario, is the longest pipe line in the world. Recently completed and now in operation is the Trans Mountain pipe line from Edmonton across the Rockies to the Vancouver area of British Columbia. In this area there are also three major oil refineries which are undergoing-continuous expansion.
Here also we have the $55 million plant of the Canadian Chemical Company which has now commenced operations, making many new chemical products never before manufactured in Canada. Nearby we have the new $13 million polythene plant of Canadian Industries Limited, as well as many smaller manufacturing plants associated with the vast petrochemical industry which is concentrated in the constituency of Edmonton-Strathcona.
Ten miles or so to the northeast of this industrial area we have the thriving historical town of Fort Saskatchewan. This town is now undergoing an expansion similar to that in Edmonton. The new nickel refining plant
388	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Hanna built by Sherritt-Gordon for the processing of ore being brought from Lynn Lake in northern Manitoba is about ready to commence operation. This plant will produce not only nickel but many valuable by-products, in large quantities. I am sorry I cannot give the house up-to-the-minute statistics on capital investments and output of these various industries. Hon. members will understand that it is already over three weeks since I left my constituency and any figures I have are likely to be badly out-ofdate at the present time.
However, some appreciation of Edmonton's growth in the last six years may be gained from the fact that during this time bank clearings have increased threefold to about $2 billion a year, at the present time. Municipal assessment has increased from $83 million to $180 million. Municipal tax levies have increased from $4 [DOT] 9 million to $9-6 million. The number of telephones in use has increased from 26,000 to 56,000, with a bigger backlog of unfilled applications at the present time than ever before-a backlog of more than 11,000, to be exact.
I must point out that the constituency of Edmonton-Strathcona is not all urban, in character. This constituency includes an agricultural area that can scarcely be equalled anywhere, owing to its deep, rich, black soil and abundant rainfall. Some of the world's finest purebred livestock are found in the rural part of Edmonton-Strathcona; and an indication of its graingrowing potentiality is illustrated by the fact that Thomas F. Rhatigan in this constituency was recently crowned the world oats champion at the royal winter fair at Toronto.
In order that hon. members may learn something more about Canada's fastest growing city, arrangements have been made for the distribution to hon. members of two booklets about Edmonton which, I feel, will be of considerable interest.
In concluding this part of my speech I recall the words of Mr. John Hodgson, recently retired finance commissioner for the city of Edmonton, when he said: It is the only city in the world that one can describe with Hollywood superlatives and still be accused of understatement.
At this point I should like to say that I consider it a great honour to have the privilege of serving my constituents in this House of Commons under the inspiring leadership of our distinguished Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). Today he ranks as one of the leading statesmen of the world. Canada is fortunate indeed to have such an
rMr. Hanna.]

outstanding citizen for its Prime Minister and I rejoice that he is shortly to depart on an extensive tour of Far Eastern countries. No better ambassador of good will could possibly be chosen by Canada, and I am sure that we all wish him a pleasant journey and safe return.
Referring to the speech from the throne, I am most happy, and the people I represent will be happy, at the announcement that the government is considering measures for increasing the availability of money for home building. I hope that when this legislation is brought down it will also provide for a much lower down payment under the National Housing Act than has been the case heretofore.
In spite of the giant strides that have been made in home building in Canada since the war, more and more homes are still needed, particularly in a fast growing constituency like the one I have the honour to represent. I may say that I have had the privilege of serving under the Veterans Land Act administration for seven years, since the war. Under the small holdings provisions of that act the down payment for a home has been only 10 per cent. No one knows better than the government the outstanding success that has attended that particular piece of legislation.
I would also like to commend the government and the Veterans Land Act administration on the success they have achieved with the veterans build-your-own-home campaign. As a result of this scheme many veterans and their families are today far better housed than otherwise they could have been. I realize, of course, that not every person can build his own home, but many can, with a little encouragement. If such a program is fostered it will contribute much to relieving the pressure of the housing shortage right across the country.
I understand that the Canadian Legion has submitted to the government a brief in which they suggest that the build-your-own-home machinery of the Veterans Land Act be made available to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The idea would be for the Veterans Land Act to build the homes within its organization and then turn them over to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for financing. I believe there is much merit in this proposal and I urge the government to give it most serious consideration.
I also note in the speech from the throne that it is proposed to work out with the provinces a scheme for the establishment of a nation-wide assistance program for the totally disabled. This is, I believe, a very necessary and commendable piece of legislation. It is

a natural extension of the government's old age security program which was so necessary, and has proved so successful. The province of Alberta, from which I come, is one of the provinces that have recently enacted such legislation. But the provincial act has one serious shortcoming. That is, it subjects Canadians from other provinces to a very restrictive residence clause-ten years, to be exact. That is perhaps inevitable, when such legislation is handled strictly on a provincial basis. Just before I came down here I had representation from a very fine citizen of 63 years of age who had come from one of the maritime provinces. He has resided for the past eight years in Alberta and is now totally incapacitated for work. He cannot qualify for assistance in Alberta because under the provincial act ten years' residence is required. Neither can he return to the province from which he came. As a Canadian this person is entitled, I believe, to assistance. It is too bad that it is denied him simply because he found it necessary to move from one province to another. We will never promote Canadian unity and Canadian solidarity by legislation of this kind.
We must realize more and more in this great country that we are all Canadians above everything else. As Canadians we should all be treated alike, no matter in which province we choose to live. That is why I hope this piece of legislation will be passed by this house with the minimum of delay.
And while I am on this subject I would like to put in a word for our friends, the blind persons of Canada. While these physically handicapped people are now receiving an allowance, it is subject to a rigorous means test that is working great hardship. I am informed that as a result of this means test a single blind person in receipt of blindness allowance is allowed a total income, including the blindness allowance, of only $840 per year, while a married person is limited to $1,320 per year. Surely, in this day and age such incomes are far too low.
I believe that if the means test is removed these handicapped, but otherwise excellent citizens, will not only be able to maintain a decent standard of living, but they will be given an incentive to become productive taxpaying citizens. These people, through their organizations, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind and the Canadian Council of the Blind, have presented their case to the government, and I urge that it get every possible consideration.
There is one other matter in this respect to which I would ask the government to give early and favourable consideration, namely, the brief of the Canadian Legion on behalf
The Address-Mr. Hanna of the recipients of war veterans allowance. In this case I am convinced that the allowance is too low when the high cost of living is taken into consideration. I also suggest that, although those unfortunate people are in need of assistance, many of them are quite capable of taking occasional small jobs to help them maintain a decent standard of living. Even at $60 a month for single veterans and $120 a month for married veterans, these people would not be able to enjoy very many extras. It is for this reason that I suggest that greater latitude should be allowed in permissible income from casual earnings. Not only will such additional casual income make life more liveable for these people; it will add to their incentive to contribute to the national economy by performing odd jobs, for which they may be suited. We must realize that although these people are unable to make their own way in life unassisted, there are many duties they can perform from time to time, and we should in no wise stand in their way. These men and women all stood by Canada in her hour of need, and we must not fail them in their declining years, and in a time of Canada's greatest national prosperity.
I think the government should also consider whether it can possibly do something to raise the pensions of retired civil servants, and retired railway employees, who are trying to subsist on pensions that bear little or no relation to today's cost of living. These people contributed to their respective retirement funds all that was asked of them in the days when their dollars were worth much more than they are today. Now when they are at the stage where they have to try to live on an income based on the pre-war dollar, they find it cannot be done.
Now all this may seem like a tall order for the government. However, all these groups that I have mentioned should have some share in the increased national output of Canada, to which they have all contributed in one way or another in earlier years.
I am very glad that the government has seen fit to increase the pay of the civil service and the armed forces. By so doing the government has recognized the inescapable fact that it must compete with private enterprise to get the best type of men and women into its service. All hon. members I am sure recognize that if the rate of reward is below the average obtainable outside, the government service will not attract the type of men and women that Canada needs to do its business, and to man its armed forces at home and abroad.
I would now like to deal briefly with a subject that I do not think has been mentioned in this debate so far. I refer to the
390	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Hanna trans-Canada highway. I would like, first of all, to commend the government for the action it has taken in co-operating with the provinces to bring about completion of a national highway from coast to coast. Surely, this is a project that has long been needed in this day of the automobile and motor transport. I am sure all Canadians will feel proud when the day arrives that cars and trucks can go from one end of Canada to the other on a first-class Canadian highway. And I make this suggestion to the government: that as soon as such a highway is completed, the necessary arrangements be made with the provincial authorities to have this highway marked and designated from coast to coast, Canada highway No. 1.
But I go further than that. I suggest that for reasons of national unity and national security the government adopt as soon as possible a more concrete national highway policy, and set up a national highway authority. One of the first aspects of such a policy would be the planning and building of additional national highways as soon as the first one is completed. On grounds of national defence alone such a policy is absolutely necessary. We are all very much concerned with the defence of Canada, and rightly so. But as someone very properly has said: "What is the use of spending vast sums on fire engines, if we cannot get them to the fire?"
Now I cannot suggest where the location of such additional national highways should be in the east. I will leave that matter to the hon. members from the eastern half of the country. But I do know that there is an urgent need for a new national highway in the west, from Winnipeg to Vancouver by way of Saskatoon and Edmonton, and through the Yellowhead pass, in the Rocky mountains. There are many good reasons why this route is an even better one than the route now under construction through the Rockies, but time does not permit me to dwell on them in the debate.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I hope the day is not far distant when the government will see its way clear to throw its weight behind the building of Canada highway No. 2 through the Yellowhead pass.
I would like to compliment the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) on his statement in the house on the wheat marketing situation. It was particularly interesting, in view of what we have heard from some other hon. members, to hear him say that Canada has never sold so much wheat so rapidly as during the last two crop years. And on top of all that, we in Canada are 

blessed with another bumper crop of grain. I would like to give the wheat board credit for its long record of service to the western farmer. It is my hope that they will continue their most strenuous efforts, as I know they will do, to market the new crops as quickly as possible, and to the best possible advantage. There are a good many farmers I believe who find themselves in a tough spot because they cannot deliver more of their grain. However, I am satisfied that the majority of farmers are not looking for a handout, but for the opportunity to deliver their crop. I, for one, am convinced that the wheat board and the government are doing a good job in endeavouring to see that the delivery quotas are raised as soon as possible. And it is my hope that they will redouble their efforts in this regard, in order to relieve whatever hardships may exist.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to note in the speech from the throne that it is intended to amend the Municipal Grants Act. Of the three levels of government in this country none is so hard pressed as the municipalities. One might say that the recent prosperous times have brought many of them nothing but financial grief. While demands for essential services have increased by leaps and bounds, as in my own constituency, the municipal tax base has remained as restricted as before, namely to the real property tax. I believe the time has come for this government to grant to the municipalities the full annual amount of the taxes it would have to pay if it were not tax exempt. And this would not be just a gratuitous handout to the municipalities. In my view it is only the fair payment which this government should make for the services the municipalities give federal property-for example, police and fire protection, paving and road improvement, sewer and water service, and so on. This government should set the example to the provincial governments in this matter. When this has been done, I believe that the provincial authorities may be persuaded to follow suit, to the relief of the hard-pressed municipalities.
Many hon. members will have heard that our own province of Alberta is a debt-free province. Well, this is not exactly what it appears to be on the surface. It is not the whole story by any means. While it is a fact that our provincial government has a cash surplus in excess of its outstanding debt, the Alberta people, through their municipalities, are little, if any, better off than they ever were, from the debt-free standpoint.


Mr. Blackmore:: That is not right.


Richmond Francis Lionel Hanna: If you leave the provincial
debt situation out of the picture you will find that they are much worse off. In the last five years the municipal debt of Alberta has just about doubled.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Most of it is self-liquidating.


Richmond Francis Lionel Hanna: In my home city of Edmonton, right in the heart of the oil fields, the municipal debt has increased almost threefold in the last five years.


John Horne Blackmore: Much of it borrowed at
2 per cent from the provincial government.


Richmond Francis Lionel Hanna: The hon. member knows that while some of it was borrowed at 2 per cent, the rest was borrowed at 2\ per cent, 3J per cent or higher. Meanwhile during the past 7-J years the Alberta government has received $228 million from oil and natural gas alone, but this has helped the municipal taxpayer very little.
It is my hope, Mr. Speaker, that if this federal government will pay, in one form or another, its fair share of municipal taxes, other governments whose responsibilities to the municipalities are all the greater may be encouraged, shall we say, to do likewise and pay their fair share to the municipalities for the services they receive.
My home city of Edmonton so far has received nothing under the federal Municipal Grants Act, due to the 4 per cent feature. Still its per capita debt is the highest of all Canada's major cities. I mention this because some hon. members might be interested in knowing that to live in a debt-free province does not necessarily mean that its citizens are free from debt, and the resulting heavy taxation which carrying that debt entails.
Before closing I would like to commend this government for the steps it has already taken to bring about some equalization of freight rates in so far as they affect western Canada. The western provinces, especially Alberta, are at the peak of the freight rate structure of Canada. In the interest of more interprovincial trade and Canadian solidarity it is imperative that further steps be taken to ease the burden of freight rates now bearing down so heavily on western Canada and on Alberta in particular. I trust that the steps already taken to correct this situation are only a foretaste of what is to come in the future.


Mr. Roland Michener (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, I feel impelled to rise because of the opportunity this debate presents to new members for identification and initiation. But constituency identification, like station identification. should not be a long process.
The Address-Mr. Michener
St. Paul's riding is in the downtown commercial centre of Toronto and comprises the main industrial, business and commercial sections of the city and a residential strip running about three miles north from the waterfront with Yonge street as its principal artery. It has no farmers, no lumberjacks and no fishermen as far as I know, except those who may have retired to the urban peace of Toronto or to its pleasures and facilities. However, St. Paul's does comprise a broad and representative cross-section of urban Canadians of all ethnic groups and conditions. It is perhaps a trifle overweighted with members of parliament because I claim as constituents two hon. members of this house and one hon. member of the other place.
Those who work or live in St. Paul's are engaged in a great variety of occupations. I might illustrate this by referring to a few. Legislation is represented by the legislative assembly of the province of Ontario, the seat of government, located in Queen's Park. Education is represented by the University of Toronto with its affiliated colleges having over 10,000 students, as well as a number of other schools. Communications are represented by the newest and only subway system in the country. Medication, if I may use that term, is represented by four great general hospitals. Salvation is represented by two cathedrals, several churches and the headquarters of many other religious denominations. Finally to complete the categorization, temptation is represented by some 85 licensed hotels and premises.
Housing is a principal concern of the constituents of St. Paul's, not because there is room for more houses unless one can make two houses grow where one grew before, to use the words of a colleague who spoke earlier in this debate. There has been a steady supplanting of residential properties by commercial expansion. The head offices of four large life insurance companies are now being built uptown. The construction of the subway cut a swath through some 400 houses and thereby removed living accommodation for some thousands of people.
This encroachment and the steady movement northward has meant that the residents of St. Paul's have had to find new housing in suburban areas and this is a matter of urgent and great concern. I look forward with great interest to the proposal to increase the supply of mortgage money for housing.
There is a prospect of an early supply of natural gas at prices which would make that ideal fuel available for heating purposes on a competitive basis with coal and oil. I look forward to what may be proposed in that regard. The government's proposals for mu-
392	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Michener nicipal grants in lieu of taxation, for the disabled and for veterans' legislation will be of special interest and concern to the people in this area.
The riding of St. Paul's is not an old one as it had its beginnings only in 1935. During the first three parliaments after that time it was represented in this house by Mr. Douglas Ross. In the last parliament it was represented by Mr. James H. Rooney. Both of these gentlemen will be cordially remembered by many hon. members. The latter gentleman was a Liberal and so I have characterized my recent activities, not so much as a campaign but as a mission for the second conversion of St. Paul's.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Salvation is to come later.


Daniel Roland Michener: This riding takes its name from St. Paul. As I have made reference to that, perhaps I should go further and refer to one of the admonitions of St. Paul. If I remember correctly, he said that there is a time to speak and a time not to speak. After listening through ten or eleven sittings of the house when we have heard what I estimate to be in excess of 350,000 words uttered by some 68 hon. members it seems to me that we are approaching the time that St. Paul had in mind. In any event I am sure that the law of diminishing returns is beginning to work. Although we have had in this debate many fine speeches which, I am sure, have been greatly appreciated and which will be of great value, nevertheless to my mind they are not related to any particular business of this house. Therefore they do not lead to any concrete conclusion. In those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, with so much important business of the house ahead of us, such as revision of the Bank Act and of the Criminal Code, apart from other important matters, it seems to me that if the identification speeches which remain to be made by the new members-and which I have suggested might be of five to ten minutes duration-were the order of the day, they could all be cleared off in not more than one day more of debate. Then we could proceed with the business of the house.
(Translation):
I shall conclude my remarks, sir, in the mother tongue of your colleague, the Speaker of the house, and congratulate you both on your nomination to the posts you fill. In the riding of St. Paul's we have not many occasions to use the French language but we respect it and wish to know it better.


Mr. Maurice Breton (Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm):: I am happy to join with the other members of the house in congratulating the Speaker for this parliament (Mr. Beaudoin), 

and in paying tribute to the courtesy and competence with which he performs his new functions.
(Text):
Also, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I extend to you my congratulations on the courteous and competent way in which you perform your duties.
(Translation):
I also take pleasure in congratulating the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) on the manner in which he conducted the last campaign, because he did not give in to electoral pressure which is always brought to bear upon those who go before the people; his campaign was always a clean one and he avoided making promises.
I also wish to pay my compliments to the new parliamentary assistants as well as to the mover (Mr. Hollingworth) and the seconder (Mr. Villeneuve) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. They fulfilled their task brilliantly.
I am also happy to see before me my hon. colleague from Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) who, for the past few sessions, has faithfully echoed the campaign for autonomy in the province of Quebec and has repeated in this house statements we have so often read in certain autonomist newspapers and heard more particularly on parliament hill in Quebec. Unfortunately, I believe, he has not studied them closely before submitting them to the house, because they are filled with inaccuracies. That is why I propose tonight to analyse them one by one to show the house how futile they are.
Our colleague states that the federal government is taking over: first, all taxation sources in the country; secondly, that it is draining all taxation sources thereby depriving the provinces of their revenues; thirdly, that the policy of federal subsidies to the provinces tends to destroy the spirit of confederation and is against the spirit of the confederation act itself; finally, that the federal government invades spheres which do not come within its jurisdiction. He then calls for a federal-provincial conference to settle all those problems.
Let me say, first, Mr. Speaker, that I am convinced that the great majority of members of this house are in favour of the autonomy of the provinces and of all public bodies of our country, for the same reasons that all those who live in democratic countries like ours defend individual freedom and the right that each and every one has to human dignity.
But, if it is our right and duty to defend the autonomy of public bodies, private associations or individuals, I believe, Mr. Speaker, that it is also our duty to discuss these prob-

lems in the light of truth. Furthermore, we from the province of Quebec have, as French-Canadians, special reasons to defend our racial origin which add to the other reasons why our compatriot and the other members of the house want autonomy and individual freedom.
My hon. friend repeated accusations that may be heard in the province of Quebec. He repeated more than once in this house that the federal government was taking over provincial sources of taxation and I quote:
So that it is really the government which is to blame. It has monopolized taxation rights which, since 1867, belonged to the provinces ...
These words were spoken by the hon. member for Three Rivers last year. They may be found at page 273 of the English translation in Hansard of December 2, 1952.


Mr. Balcer:: It is true, and remains so this year.


Maurice Breton: This year, on Monday, November 16, he returned to the subject and stated:
I think that the federal government departs from the principles of the constitution when it lays its hands on all sources of taxation.
Now, Mr. Speaker, even though I might be repeating here what others have already said, I think it is necessary to bring this matter up again, because many people have not read the text of our constitution. Here is the relevant part, section 91 of the British North America Act:
It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make laws for the peace, order and good government . . . the exclusive legislative authority of parliament extends to all matters coming within the classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated: (3) the raising of money by any mode or system of taxation;
Note these words: "The exclusive legislative authority" and "the raising of money by any mode or system of taxation."
Does that mean, Mr. Speaker, that we are impinging upon the field of direct taxation, as it is felt in certain quarters or as my colleague would have us believe? This text is so clear that it has never been submitted to any ruling of the courts. Before the abolition of the appeals to the privy council, we had the right to appeal to England, and yet the legal right of the federal government to tax this way or that way was never disputed. Why? Because there was no doubt about it. When legislation is clear it is not necessary to ask a court to rule on it; the opinion of a court is sought when there is a doubt or a disputable point.
The Hon. Maurice Duplessis, the premier of Quebec, who declares himself to be the protector of the provincial autonomy, came here in 1945, 1946 and 1950, at the time of the federal-provincial conferences on taxation 83276-26
The Address-Mr. Breton matters, and he never said a word on such occasions about the federal government encroaching upon the taxation powers of the province of Quebec. More than that-for my colleague perhaps is not satisfied with the silence of the hon. premier of Quebec when he came to Ottawa-I will quote to him this time a statement by the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Drew) himself. In 1945, on the occasion of the federal-provincial conference held in Ottawa, the latter said:
The provinces were empowered to levy taxes in the field of direct taxation . . . whereas the dominion government was authorized to raise money by any form of taxation.
These words are to be found at page 11 of the report of proceedings of the dominion-provincial conference, 1945.
Shall we admit, as my colleague does, that the federal government, while exercising its fiscal rights in every field, has exhausted all taxation fields to the point of supplanting the provinces? Alas! I feel bound to tell my hon. colleague that a more serious study of the facts leads one to conclude that the federal government has not exhausted the fields of taxation for, since confederation, the revenues of the province of Quebec and all the other provinces have increased in the same proportion as the revenues of the federal government.
Do you want details? I have studied the matter in order to find out whether the federal government was really draining sources of revenue. Here is what I have found:
Revenue in millions of dollars Percentage
Provin-	Provin-
Year	Federal cial Federal cial
1867	
$	13-6	$ 1-8	88-4	11-61874	
21-6	2-8	88-5	11-51896	
29-9	5-6	84-5	15-51913	
135-2	44-9	75-6	24-41937	
464-3	173-8	74-7	25-31949	
2,411-2	730-8	76-8	23-2
In 1949, federal-provincial agreements were signed which, at the present time, enable the federal government to pay the sum of $300,000,000 to the provinces. Unfortunately Quebec was the only province that refused to be a party to those agreements.
An examination of those figures shows that the sources of revenue of provincial governments have increased year after year.
Through the tapping of new wealth in the province of Quebec, and the amazing development of that province, there has been an increase in provincial revenues. As a matter of fact, provincial revenues, which in 1939 amounted to $60,000,000, today exceed $300,000,000. Meanwhile, the federal government is forced to devote 50 per cent of its budget to war appropriations, while the prov-

The Address-Mr. Breton ince of Quebec was able to considerably increase its expenditures for civilian purposes. We therefore find that the province of Quebec is still in a better financial position than the federal government. On the other hand, the province of Quebec was never deprived of taxation fields. I will go much further and say that the province of Quebec did not suffer any fiscal encroachment on the part of the federal government, but the reverse is true. Section 92 of the British North America Act allows the provinces to levy direct taxes, and nothing else, in order to raise money. And yet indirect taxes are absolutely reserved to the federal government, a fact which is denied by no one. At the present time the Quebec government raises $57,000,000 by indirect means, that is to say in a manner which should be the absolute prerogative of the federal government under the constitution. Last year the Quebec provincial government raised $43,400,000 by means of a gasoline tax of 13 cents a gallon levied at the wholesale level. This was indirect taxation. And it is the same thing with regard to the 10-cent tax on tobacco which is levied indirectly on wholesalers. Consequently, if impingement there is, it is not impingement by the federal government but by the provincial government whose taxation methods are modelled after the federal system of taxation.
I do not say that the provincial government is wrong in acting that way, but I believe that if there were to be amendments to the constitution-and I am one of those who believe that amendments should be made to the constitution-such amendments should allow the levying of taxes by the provinces, indirect taxes, on the sale of certain consumer goods.
I understand that the province of Quebec might like the federal government to withdraw from certain fields of taxation, as it did in the case of gasoline. Hence, through this vacuum created by the withdrawal of the central government, the province of Quebec entered upon the scene without the public noticing it. If the same thing happened in the case of direct taxation, the provincial government might benefit therefrom, without the public noticing anything. But that is not a constitutional problem. It is a purely political problem and there is no need to discuss in this house the merits of the case.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, the provincial government has at its disposal all the necessary resources to fulfil the obligations for which it was set up, and if it wanted to give $10 million to the universities tomorrow, it has the constitutional right to levy an income tax, or to increase succession duties, or to levy any tax it wants to, direct and


even indirect, because the federal government has never wanted to interfere or to quarrel with the province of Quebec on that score.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I come to the question of subsidies. It has been said again and again that subsidies were destroying the constitution or that they were against the spirit of the constitution. Is that true? Here again nothing is more untrue. Let us see what took place between 1867 and today; we shall see that confederation is based on the distribution of subsidies.
In 1864 the fathers of confederation met in Quebec and examined what powers could be granted respectively to the federal government and to the provinces. They held that the central government should look after railroads, customs, excise, postal services and so on. Once these diverse powers had been distributed they established what revenues it meant. What did they find? That through this distribution of powers, the federal government would have a revenue of $12,000,000, while the provinces would have $1,500,000 only. The fathers of confederation saw no other way to maintain the balance between the different powers but the system of subsidies. At that time the subsidies were estimated at $2,500,000 on a per capita basis. The amount paid in subsidies during the first year was about 100 per cent higher than the income of the four provinces. And this situation existed until 1896; so from 1867 to 1896, half of the income of the provinces, and more in the beginning, consisted of federal subsidies. Could it be said that subsidies are against the spirit of confederation and that the fathers of confederation were opposed to them? No, Mr. Speaker, it has been realized that a perfect federal-provincial balance could not be established without a system of subsidies. And now a word about those who accuse us of encroaching upon matters coming strictly under the jurisdiction of the provinces. The wisest autonomists are those who study the scope of constitutional texts. They dare not claim that the federal government impinges upon the taxation field, but it will be said, for instance, that the federal government encroaches upon provincial rights when it pays subsidies in fields belonging exclusively to the provinces. With regard to this point, Mr. Speaker, I have again consulted the texts and have wondered what to think of this more subtle accusation. This is what section 91 says:
It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada, in relation to all matters not coming within the classes of subjects by this act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces.

The Address-Mr. Breton
Now, what do we find in section 93 of the constitution?
In and for each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to education . . .
Education is what we are interested in. Let us consider the matter. Evidently, under section 93, the federal government could not set up a system of education in the province of Quebec or in any other province: it could neither create boards of education nor establish school curricula. All such things come strictly under provincial jurisdiction.
But does the wording as written mean explicitly that the federal government is not authorized to intervene, even in the interest of public order and good administration of the country, and give, without restrictions and unconditionally, to a public body in need the necessary grants to enable it to attain the purpose for which it was set up?


Léon Balcer: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Maurice Breton: Yes, surely.


Léon Balcer: Do you thereby contend that
the federal government is entitled to make grants to school boards in the provinces?


Maurice Breton: I do not want to pass judgment on that matter in the house, because I think it is a litigious matter. I see only two solutions:	settle the matter through an
amendment to the constitution, or submit it to the courts. For if the constitution allows the payment of grants, the province of Quebec is wrong in refusing large sums of money; on the other hand, if the constitution does not allow the payment of grants for education, that is an injustice to my province, which pays taxes thereby permitting the giving of grants to the other provinces.
Let it be known that I am not against the idea of amending the constitution. I believe in fact that the constitution is getting old and no longer meets our present needs.
But I do think that any amendment should require the unanimous consent of the provinces, with regard to federal-provincial relations.
(Text):
On motion of Mr. Breton the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
83276-26i
[Stage Direction]
Friday, November 27, 1953