1957-11-19

Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table copies in English and French of a report which I received yesterday from the chairman of the tariff board. It is the board's report on reference No. 124, fruits and vegetables. The report is accompanied, as is usual, by a transcript of the evidence received by the board at its public hearings.
I know there will be widespread interest in the contents of this report, both on the part of hon. members and on the part of fruit and vegetable growers, processors, and others concerned. For that reason the tariff board, with my approval, gave priority to the completion of this report and a special effort has been made to avoid any delay in tabling it. In that connection I wish to thank my colleague, our gracious Secretary of State (Mrs. Fairclough), for facilitating the prompt printing of the report despite the fact that the Queen's printer was heavily committed on other work.
The tariff board reference arose from the fact that in recent years there had been representations from producers pointing to important changes in techniques of production and methods of distribution, as well as in prices, of fresh fruits and vegetables. It had been suggested that the system of seasonal tariffs was in need of revision. The tariff board was therefore asked to make a study of the items in the Customs Tariff covering fresh fruits and vegetables of a kind grown in Canada and, if such study indicated that amendments to the Customs Tariff were desirable, to prepare a revised schedule of tariff items, with recommendations as to rates of duty. The board was asked also to indicate any consequential amendments which might be required in the tariff items covering the same fruits and vegetables in processed form.
As I have so recently received the tariff board's report, there has not been time for my colleagues and me to make a thorough study of its analysis of the situation and its recommendations as to future action. I am, however, in a position to give the house at
this time some indication of the nature and extent of the proposals contained in the report.
The tariff board received briefs from the Canadian Horticultural Council, processors' representatives, the Canadian Association of Consumers, and others. It held public sittings in Ottawa for three days in July and two days in September. In formulating its recommendations the board appears to have taken account of representations included in the briefs and evidence placed before it at the sittings.
The board's recommendations follow the council's suggestion for the continuation, in principle, of the present statutory provisions for fresh fruits and vegetables. These provisions are intended to give greater protection during the Canadian producers' main marketing season than in the off season. They consist of a basic ad valorem rate of 10 per cent for which may be substituted seasonal specific duties. These seasonal rates have generally a considerably higher ad valorem incidence than the 10 per cent offseason rate. The duration of the application of the in-season rate varies from product to product, depending on the length of the Canadian marketing season.
The tariff board had before it requests from the Canadian Horticultural Council and processors' representatives for 45 changes in the tariff. The requested changes included increases in seasonal specific and other duties, extensions in the periods of application of seasonal duties, the dividing of the application of such duties into two separate periods, and combinations of these forms of tariff protection. The board in its report recommends the adoption in full of the council's proposals in respect of potatoes, asparagus, cauliflower, corn on the cob, lettuce, parsnips, sour cherries, cranberries and prunes. The board further recommends the adoption in part of the proposals in respect of brussels sprouts, cabbage, carrots, celery, cucumbers, mushrooms, onions, peppers, apricots, peaches and pears. Consequential amendments are recommended in the duties on canned and frozen asparagus, frozen brussels sprouts, canned mushrooms, canned apricots, canned and frozen cherries, cranberry jelly or sauce, canned and frozen peaches, and canned prunes.

Inquiries of the Ministry
In its report the tariff board notes that at the public sittings there were suggestions that there should be recourse to the principle of fixing values for duty purposes. The board, however, made no recommendations on this matter, as being beyond its terms of reference.
The Canadian Horticultural Council submitted a request that an additional duty be charged on vegetables imported prepacked in consumer-size polythene or cellophane bags. In making the request the council stated that the bags, if imported alone, would be dutiable at 20 per cent ad valorem whereas for prepackaged vegetables they were dutiable only in so far as they added to the gross weight of the vegetables. Another reason for the request was that the shipping of vegetables in this form led to a greater degree of trimming and preparation, thereby reducing the ad valorem equivalent of the specific duty.
In the light of its study of these representations the tariff board recommended that an item be inserted in the Customs Tariff to provide that an additional duty be charged on certain vegetables when imported during periods of seasonal specific duty in packages weighing five pounds or less. The vegetables to which this provision would apply are green beans, brussels sprouts, carrots, beets, cauliflower, lettuce, peas, parsnips and corn on the cob.
As I have said, the government has not yet had an opportunity to consider the recommendations presented in the report which I have just tabled. I can, however, assure hon. members that the report will be studied carefully, and that the government will give serious consideration to the tariff board's recommendations. If we decide to take action along the lines of these recommendations we would expect to take the necessary steps in conformity with the general agreement on tariffs and trade.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to announce that the price support on first grade creamery butter has been changed by adding butterfat in any form which the agricultural prices support board may specify. At the same time the government has added to the list of products under import control, butter oil and any other form of butterfat containing 55 per cent or more of butterfat. Butter oil imports have been increased during the past few months, and it has been deemed advisable to control


the imports so that the butter price support program will not be affected.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I notice that he is not in his seat. If his parliamentary assistant will take this as notice it will be satisfactory.
The press of this morning carries the news that the Department of Citizenship and Immigration have served a deportation order against one Callahan charged with attempted murder and assault with attempt to maim the returning officer in the constituency of Laurier. The question I would like to ask the minister is whether he will assure the house that the deportation order will not go into effect until such time as the trial of Callahan has been held.


Mr. John B. Hamilton (Parliamentary Assistant to the Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that according to the same press report it was indicated that there would be an appeal in connection with the order in question. Therefore I do not think I should make any comment on that aspect of the order; but I do understand, sir, that any order of this type remains in abeyance until the trial on the charges takes place before the criminal courts.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg Norih Cenire):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. I wonder whether he is yet in a position to answer my question of last Thursday regarding suspension from service a week ago today of members of a Canadian Pacific Railway switching crew in the Winnipeg area who felt that they could not cross a picket line. When he answers that question will he also say whether he is aware of the press report in last night's Ottawa Citizen that a strike vote has been called among members of the brotherhood of locomotive engineers on the Canadian Pacific Railway, western lines, as a result of picket line incidents of this type?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that we are

still investigating in order to get a full report on the matter which he brought to my attention in the house last Thursday.
As to the second part of the question, I say that I am not aware of what has happened in the matter to which he referred.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister's investigation include an inquiry into that matter as well?



TRANS-CANADA PIPE LINES    ENTRY PERMITS FOR U.S. EMPLOYEES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour, similar to the previous question I asked on behalf of the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher), of which notice has been sent to the minister. Can the minister inform the house whether his department has made any recommendations to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration regarding the length of time covered by the entry permits to be given to American pipeline construction workers who come to this country for the next season's work for Trans-Canada Pipe Lines?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. The reply is that the Department of Labour has made no recommendation to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration regarding the length of time covered by entry permits to be given to American pipe-line workers who come into this country for next season's work for Trans-Canada Pipe Lines.
The present procedure is that before entry of pipe-line workers from the United States is permitted the Department of Citizenship and Immigration consults the national employment service as to the availability of Canadian workers for the particular jobs. If Canadian workers are available for the jobs in question, then entry of American workers is not permitted. Where there are no qualified Canadian workers for specific jobs, then entry of American workers is permitted.
The entry forms issued by the immigration authorities are temporary permits. The time of each permit assigned varies according to the contractor's estimate of the length of time required to do the job. These estimates are approved by the national employment service. Thus, from this point of view, the national employment service is continually making recommendations as to specific cases and specific jobs, but no general recommendation has been made by the department as such, since none has ever been considered necessary.
Inquiries of the Ministry



STATEMENT ON STRIKE OF RIVER PILOTS, KINGSTON MARINE DISTRICT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Yesterday the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) referred me to a report that three foreign ships had rammed the canal locks at Iroquois, and asked for a further report on the walk-out of the Kingston district pilots.
I am glad to inform the hon. member that the press report to which he referred was apparently erroneous. The canal is continuing to operate and ships are continuing to move through the canal in substantial numbers, although in one or two cases minor damage has been caused to canal walls by ships passing through.
As far as the pilots are concerned, I have again assured their representative that my earlier offer that a scheme guaranteeing them reasonable security of employment would be worked out, if they so desired, still holds good. I also assured them that my officials are prepared to meet with them further at any time to discuss these matters. The district has not been cancelled nor is it intended that the district will be cancelled this autumn, although this course of action was at one stage requested by the pilots themselves.
I have again urged the pilots to return to work, and I understand they are meeting again today to consider their position.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a supplementary question. The press report I sent over to the minister states that five ships have now rammed the locks. Is that report still erroneous?


George Harris Hees: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the latest report.


Lionel Chevrier: I sent it over to my hon. friend yesterday.


George Harris Hees: I made inquiries of my department and the answer I have given is the one prepared for me by my officials.



NEW WESTMINSTER, B.C.    STATEMENT ON LAY-OFF ON DREDGE NO. 322

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: Yesterday, the hon. member for New Westminster asked me about the rumoured lay-off of one shift of the crew of dredge No. 322 at New Westminster which he thought was to take place at the end of November. In reply may I say that there is no intention of laying off any shift.

Inquiries of the Ministry TRADE



STORAGE FOR SURPLUS GRAIN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. A. Tucker (Roslhern):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Was the minister enunciating government policy when he spoke to the Saskatchewan wheat pool annual meeting in Regina last week and said that farmers should not be expected to provide the storage for surpluses? If so, what steps has the government taken, or does it propose to take, to carry out this policy?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minisier of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, when I was speaking to the Saskatchewan pool organization in Regina on Friday I said I was sure that in the house on Monday-I was out by one day-someone would rise and ask me whether or not I had been making a statement of government policy, and my prediction was correct. I do not recall the actual words the hon. member has used; I do not recall having used them at all. Could he pin it down a little more closely in my statement?


Walter Adam Tucker: It is reported in the Leader-Post that the minister made that statement in his speech, and that he also made it in a room in the Saskatchewan hotel to a reporter.


Mr. Pearkes:: The Fort Garry hotel?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Did you have a microphone in it?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have the speech here and if I can get the paragraph-


Mr. Pickersgill:: Not this again, surely?


Gordon Minto Churchill: -to which the hon. member is referring


Mr. Sinclair:: It would be easier to make those statements in the house rather than in the country.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I would be very glad to make them in the house; I have no objection at all.


James Sinclair: Let us have the budget.


Mr. Stick:: Is this one of your first-class speeches?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I cannot find the actual paragraph but I said this. There is no question about it being first class.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: Let others say it.


Mr. Bourgei:: Who prepared it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Which button was pushed?


Gordon Minto Churchill: What I said was based on a reproduction of the speech at Winnipeg of which my hon. friend from the C.C.F. is so enamoured. I used this paragraph there and what I said in Regina was a repetition of it. I was dealing with the general wheat situation, having made a survey of it, and I said: ... it would seem wise to take a long-range view of our wheat problem rather than living just from crop year to crop year. I think it is wrong to consider our surplus wheat production as a millstone around our necks. Rather, we should be deeply grateful that such an abundant food supply is available.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I continue:
Canada has been in the wheat business now for two full generations and our wheat production is a permanent feature of our economic history.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is just one of C.D.'s
old speeches.


Pierre Gauthier: Your best speech.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This is a decided improvement upon Liberal policy and Liberal speeches in the past.


John Whitney Pickersgill: At least he used to know what was in them.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Then I went on to say that in times of surplus production it would be wrong to place the whole burden of that surplus carryover on the farmers, and I think it is that to which my hon. friend has referred. It is not right that the farmer alone should bear that burden under circumstances over which he has no control. Consequently I suggested, so far as our top grade wheat supply is concerned, that in times of surplus the nation as a whole should bear a greater responsibility than that of the farmer.


Walter Adam Tucker: May I ask a supplementary question. Do I take it the minister was just enunciating what had been done by the previous government and not suggesting that some of the burden should be taken off the farmer who has to store so much of his grain on his own farm? I took it from the statement the minister made in his hotel room, as reported in the Leader-Post on the 15th, and also from the report of his speech, that the minister was saying that the farmers should not be expected to provide storage for surpluses. There is as much surplus wheat on the farms as in the elevators.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I do not quite understand-


Walter Adam Tucker: What I am getting at, Mr. Speaker-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Why don't you ask your question?


Walter Adam Tucker: Was the minister just stating what the previous government had done and not indicating that they intended to do any more, or was he saying that they were going to do something more?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have been at pains to point out that the previous government did very little and that we have provided a program that will improve the situation.


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Walter Adam Tucker: I want to know what the government is doing in this regard in addition to what the previous government did. That is what I am asking the minister.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I will enlighten the hon. member. I have what I said here and I shall read it. I went on to say:
Despite the fact that wheat is grown in practically every country in the world, our top grades of Canadian wheat are in a class by themselves and command a premium in the world market. These top grades should be considered a national asset, and, in years of surplus supply, the country as a whole should bear the extra cost involved in storage and carrying charges rather than have that cost become a burden on the farmer. For similar reasons we should resist the pressure to dispose of our top grade surplus wheat at bargain prices. The result of this serves only to dislocate the international trade in wheat.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I have a supplementary question arising out of the minister's statement that in times of surplus supply farmers should not be called upon to bear the whole carrying and interest charges for wheat. Would the minister say whether the government has given any consideration to making this very laudable policy apply to surpluses of oats and barley?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am glad to receive praise, Mr. Speaker, from my hon. friend who is so knowledgeable with regard to all these problems. The surplus supply of oats and barley has not been quite the problem that we are endeavouring to solve with regard to wheat. We are quite prepared to consider reasonable means or schemes to help with that problem as well.


Hazen Robert Argue: Would the minister not say that the carrying charges levied against income from oats and barley is one of the contributing factors to the very difficult position at the present time, in that there is no surplus likely to accrue from the sale of these commodities at present prices?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That may be.


Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: I have a supplementary question, too. I should like to refer to this most interesting speech-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Which one?
Inquiries of the Ministry


William Moore Benidickson: -to which the minister has referred; the one he made in Regina.
I take it that there he said, within the last six months-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member has a question based on the speech I shall permit it, but I do not think he ought to endeavour to read this speech which the minister has refrained from reading.


William Moore Benidickson: The minister did read it to the house. I think I have to make some reference to it, and I shall do so briefly.


Mr. Nowlan:: No; ask your question.


William Moore Benidickson: The minister having said in Regina that our exports of flour-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


William Moore Benidickson: -to Trinidad, Barbados and British Guiana, having been reduced very substantially in the last six months- for five months of which they hold responsibility-is the Minister of Trade and Commerce offering any policies that would not do what was asked yesterday, exceed the policies of the United States government in subsidization, but equal the policies of the United States government in meeting this kind of competition?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member is suggesting that we subsidize our wheat which is turned into flour at the same rate as the United States government does, and that amounts to about 90 cents per bushel of wheat. If the hon. member thinks that is a suitable policy to follow he should advocate that in the house and see what support he gets for it. We are facing extraordinarily difficult competition from the United States due to that subsidization of their flour, and it is for that reason we have lost sales in those areas mentioned.


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Speaker, on the question of subsidies on wheat exports, I would ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce to what extent subsidies on wheat exports in the form of flour are involved in the answer given to my question as recorded on page 1098 of Hansard, where he said;
The price at which wheat is sold to the mills for domestic purposes is the same as the price basis for export, with the exception that on flour sales to specific areas (excluding the United Kingdom, Europe, the United States and its territories and possessions) an adjustment in the purchase price of wheat is granted by the board, to enable Canadian mills to compete with suppliers from other countries in specific flour markets.
Do I understand from this that the wheat grower is subsidizing the export of flour to compete with flour exported from the United

Inquiries of the Ministry States, which millers may get at subsidized prices?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am not clear about the
last sentence of the hon. member's question, but there is some assistance given by the wheat board for the export of Canadian flour. It amounts to about 12 cents per bushel.


Walter Adam Tucker: A supplementary question,
Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister would get exact information as to the extent to which our wheat growers are subsidizing the export of flour, in order that we may suggest that consideration should be given to the government bearing that expense instead of the wheat grower.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question
of the Minister of Trade and Commerce supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for Assiniboia, referring to the well advertised speech in Regina. I would ask him why in his answer he accepted praise for the policy of the country as a whole bearing the cost of storage-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


William Moore Benidickson: -on western grain rather than having the cost become a burden on the farmer, when that was a policy of the previous government?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We have had a fairly
extensive discussion of the speech or speeches made in the west.


An hon. Member:: The west wind blows.


Mr. Speaker:: We are about to engage in
the continuation of the debate on the motion to go into supply, when there will be ample opportunity to air grievances, which I think have been sufficiently debated this afternoon. [Later:]


Mr. Jacob Schulz (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. How long has this policy of subsidies on flour exports, paid by the producer, been in effect, and what was the reason for instituting such a policy?


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the hon. member's question refers to the discussion-and I call it "discussion" advisedly-that took place earlier today. If so, I would ask him to accept the ruling I made when the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) referred to it.


Jacob Schulz: That applied only to speeches; it did not apply to the answer the minister gave.


Mr. Speaker:: I regard it as a supplementary question, and in my opinion there have been ample supplementary questions on that subject today.



IMPORTATION FROM THE UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. What action does the government intend to take with regard to the importation of United States honey into this country, when we have sufficient honey of our own to supply the Canadian market?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his intention to ask this question. I may say that in the letter accompanying the notice he indicated that he wanted an answer in considerably more detail than the question itself would perhaps call for, and thus I must apologize to the house for the length of the answer which I give.
Official honey production figures for Canada are not yet available, but the 1957 crop is presently estimated at 31,200,000 pounds as compared with 24,272,000 pounds in 1956 and 25,031,000 pounds in 1955.
Imports of honey from the United States into Canada for the first seven months of this year, January to July inclusive, totalled 2,958,741 pounds as compared with 1,590,341 pounds during the same period for 1956. Of this total, almost 2,500,000 pounds entered Canada during the first five months. Despite the increase in imports early in the year, stocks of honey on hand in Canada as at June 30 of this year were about 450,000 pounds less than the stocks on hand at June 30, 1956.
Honey imports during the months of September, October and November, 1956, totalled over 1,200,000 pounds as compared with an unofficial total of less than 300,000 pounds during the period September 15 to November 15, 1957.
Prices paid for bulk honey imported at Toronto are in line with prices quoted by the United States department of agriculture, and the delivered duty paid price is approximately 17 cents per pound, which is the same as the price for domestic honey f.o.b. Toronto. Domestic honey prices have remained practically unchanged for the past year or more.

As there is no indication that either the volume or price of imported honey is depressing the domestic market, no action appears to be warranted or is contemplated at the present time. The department is, however, continuing to watch closely both the volume of imports and market conditions in the United States and Canada.


Mr. T. J. Irwin (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture arising out of a question asked by the hon. member for Selkirk. Can the minister tell us how much Canadian honey was exported in the last two years, specifically to the United States?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, this is a question which I think should be on the order paper. Naturally I cannot answer it on the orders of the day without statistics before me.


Mr. Speaker:: I agree with the minister. If the minister does not wish to take it as notice, then I suggest the hon. member should put it on the order paper, where it properly belongs.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Algoma East):: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he has any comments on a report which has been received that the Secretary of State of the United States told his weekly press conference that nuclear weapons were now being stockpiled in NATO countries.


Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that this question relates to two departments, the Department of National Defence and the Department of External Affairs may I suggest that the Prime Minister be permitted to answer the question.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, according to a press report this morning Mr. Dulles allegedly made a number of statements. I think I have to refer to those statements in order to answer my hon. friend. The first statement purported to have been made by him is that the United States has nuclear warheads in Canada along with missile bases to back up the early warning radar system. Mr. Dulles went on to say that the United States was studying the possible formation of several stockpiles of atomic weapons in Europe.
Inquiries of the Ministry
When these statements were brought to my attention I could only conclude that Mr. Dulles had been misquoted or misinterpreted. It is interesting to note that a press dispatch has just come in in which Mr. Dulles' statement about warheads being stationed in Canada is somewhat reduced or obliterated. The further statement is made that the opinion was apparently based on information that he received from the Pentagon. Apparently we shall have to wait until we find what Mr. Dulles said before any comment can be made on the question. But in order to make it perfectly clear, I might say that the earlier portion of that statement as to nuclear warheads being stored in Canada has no other basis than the newspaper report.


Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, might I ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister. Is there any agreement at all between Canada and the United States for the stockpiling of atomic weapons on Canadian soil?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Does he know of any arrangement, understanding or agreement between Canada and the United States providing for the stockpiling of atomic weapons on Canadian soil?


Mr. Speaker:: That question has already been asked and answered today.


STATEMENT ON REMOVAL OF ARMS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Sidney Earle Smith: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, November 14, before I came into the house, the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Pearson) addressed this question to the Prime Minister:
May I ask the Prime Minister whether consideration has been given by the government to the removal of the prohibition on the export of defence equipment from Canada to Israel, and if so, what is the result of the consideration?
In reply to that question the Prime Minister on November 14 said:
I think it-
That is the question.
-is of sufficient moment to demand a rather complete reply, and it will be given in due course.
I now give this answer to the question. Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the export of defence equipment to Israel is only one facet of the broader question of arms export in general, which is under constant

Inquiries of the Ministry consideration and continuous review. The role of the Canadian government in this matter is to receive applications for export permits and to deal with each on its merits.
As regards applications relating to the area in the Middle East in which hostilities occurred last year, there are two governing considerations. First, the United Nations in its resolution of November 2, 1956, recommended, in the light of the military action then taking place in the Middle East, that member states-and I now quote-"refrain from introducing military goods in the area of hostilities". This United Nations recommendation lent international authority to the decision which had already been taken on a national basis by the Canadian government of the time to withhold permission to export to the area any significant military equipment.
It is our view today that developments since the inception of that policy have not been such as to warrant the government in adopting a new policy. We intend therefore to continue to act in conformity with the spirit of the United Nations resolution unless circumstances should dictate a change.
Then there is a second factor which must be kept in mind. In view of the obligations Canada has undertaken through its participation in the United Nations emergency force now stationed on the Egyptian-Israeli frontier, the government is bound to avoid any action which would render more difficult the peacekeeping function of that force or increase the risk of hostilities which might involve its Canadian members. The government is satisfied at the present time that the policy I have described here is the best one and the one that is most conducive toward these objectives.
I would add, Mr. Speaker, that since the decision taken by the government at the end of October, 1956, there have been no shipments of military equipment to Israel. At the time of that decision, permits that had been issued and were still valid were suspended, and no new permits have since been issued.


Mr. L. D. Cresiohl (Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the statement made earlier by the Secretary of State for External Affairs I would like to address this question to him. Can the minister tell the house whether any member states of the United Nations have violated or are violating the request of the United Nations not to send military equipment to the Middle East?


Sidney Earle Smith: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice. I am unable to reply adequately at this stage.



CANADIAN NATIONAL STEAMSHIPS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport this question. Did the Minister of Transport have any prior knowledge of the intention of the Canadian National Steamships to send back the aircraft carrying West Indian crews to Canada? I wonder if I may also ask him to give the house some explanation of what is happening with reference to this change of flag from Canada to the West Indies. What I was going on to say was this-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Lionel Chevrier: We had a number of questions on the order paper, and the information given was certainly not conducive to our knowing what was happening. I should like to have now, over and above the answer to this question, if I may, an explanation from the minister as to what is actually happening with reference to the transfer.


An hon. Member:: Continued next week.


Lionel Chevrier: There are two questions which I have asked; one which I should like to have answered, and the other asking if the minister would be good enough to make an explanation.


George Harris Hees: I am not quite sure what the hon. member wishes me to explain. In answer to the first part of his question, which I believe was-the question was started so long ago that perhaps the hon. member would repeat it.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, I gave the minister notice of this question.


George Harris Hees: I will be very glad to answer the part of the question of which I had notice, which was whether I was aware of a decision-


Lionel Chevrier: Of the intention of the Canadian National Steamships-


George Harris Hees: -of the intention of the Canadian National Steamships-would the hon. member mind-?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. Did the Minister of Transport have any prior knowledge of the intention of the Canadian National Steamships to send back the aircraft carrying West Indian crews to Canada?


George Harris Hees: The answer to that question is yes, Mr. Speaker.


Lionel Chevrier: May I, then, ask this supplementary question. Having regard to that answer, does the minister not think he should give some indication to the house as to what has transpired with reference to the transfer of the flag, because in his statement to the house he indicated that it had the approval of the government, and later he said it was a decision of the Canadian National Steamships. I should appreciate it, and I am sure the house would, if the minister would take the house into his confidence and tell us what actually happened with reference to the transfer of the flag.


George Harris Hees: It is a very simple story. The flag has been transferred.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: What part did you have in it?


George Harris Hees: It was a decision of the management of the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships.


Paul Joseph James Martin: With your approval.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not want to pursue this matter unduly, but yesterday the minister said we could obtain all the information we wanted from the Canadian National Steamships, but the Canadian National Steamships, on being approached, said they had nothing to say, nor did they intend to say anything about it. That is why I am asking the minister to give us this information.


George Harris Hees: I said yesterday that the time to ask these questions would be when the management of the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, Limited, appears, as it does every year, as the hon. member knows, before the special committee on railways and shipping, owned, operated and controlled by the government.


Lionel Chevrier: Is the minister in a position to tell the house now if that committee is going to be set up?


George Harris Hees: It will be set up as soon as it is practicable to do so.


Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Since C.N.S. is a crown corporation, I wonder if he could tell the house what rate of salary was to be paid to those labourers who were being brought in from Jamaica to replace our own Canadian seamen?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest I am not aware that any labourers were brought in from Jamaica.


James Sinclair: Those whom you tried to bring in.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Charles Edward Johnston: I said "were being brought in". Of course they were turned back, but certainly there must have been some agreement with them before they left Jamaica. What was the agreed rate of salary?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any agreement that was made with any such people.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Why not?


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister if he could make inquiries of the officials of C.N.S. and advise the house at a later date?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should be glad to.


James Sinclair: There must have been some offer of pay.


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. I will admit that my question has been answered in part by the answer given by the Minister of Transport, but not fully. Was the Minister of Labour consulted by the Department of Transport or the Canadian National Steamships before a decision was made to bring in Trinidad seamen to man the strike-bound ships?


Michael Starr: No, Mr. Speaker.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the reduction in interest rates announced by the industrial development bank, will the government indicate whether it will arrange to have the interest rate reduced on loans made pursuant to the National Housing Act?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The rate of interest under the National Housing Act, Mr. Speaker, does not come under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Finance.


Frank Howard: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. Maybe I could direct the question to the Minister of Public Works, if he is the appropriate minister. I see he is in consultation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Would the hon. member repeat his question?


John George Diefenbaker: I do not know of any reason for that observation to have been made by the hon. member for Skeena. The question was not directed to the Minister of

Inquiries of the Ministry Public Works, and I was telling him what the question was.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I was waiting for. I thought the Prime Minister was informing the Minister of Public Works-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Why did you make the observation you did, then?


George Clyde Nowlan: Why did you ask the wrong person in the first place?


Lionel Chevrier: Keep your temperature
down.


George Clyde Nowlan: What about yours?


Lionel Chevrier: Oh, mine is away down now.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member has a further question to ask, would he please put it?


Frank Howard: Well, I have the same question to ask of the Minister of Public Works, apparently. In view of the reduction in interest rates announced by the industrial development bank, will the government indicate whether it will arrange to reduce interest rates on loans made pursuant to the National Housing Act?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, now that all the flurry is over, may I say that at the moment there is no intention to make any such reduction.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Notice of this question was sent by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) who unfortunately had to leave the house, and I wish to submit this question on his behalf. Could the minister inform the house whether there is any provision or plan in relation to the contracts announced by Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation for the trans-Canada pipe line for any of the preliminary work to be done this winter? If not, has the minister any word on the likely starting date of construction?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I was grateful to receive notice of this question. The answer is that the contracts provide that clearing of the right of way must be commenced within two weeks of contract award and must be completed, including the disposal of the brush, on or before April 1, 1958. That means, Mr. Speaker, that work on that section of the line will be commenced very soon and will continue throughout the winter.


Mr. Mclvor:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is that not the same answer you gave to me personally less than a week ago?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes.



NEW BRUNSWICK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, and in his absence to the minister responsible. My question is this. Is the Beechwood power project in New Brunswick nearly completed, and is any part of it operating?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I would have to inquire from the power commission of New Brunswick in order to get the answer to that question. I shall be glad to do so and produce it for the hon. member at a later date.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, whilst I am on my feet I would like to reply to a question which the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) asked yesterday and which I took as notice, concerning a press report of a statement made by the deputy minister of northern affairs and national resources with regard to the construction of a railway line and roads for the development of certain areas of the Northwest Territories. I have now had an opportunity to read the address to which the report referred and also to ascertain the context in which the remarks were made.
Mr. Robertson, in his capacity as commissioner of the Northwest Territories, was asked by Carleton University to provide the final lecture in a series of four lectures sponsored by the extension division of the university on the subject "The New North". In dealing with the possibilities of future economic development in the north Mr. Robertson stated: "The main factor in the high costs of economic development in the north is transportation" and went on to deal with the inadequacy of present transportation facilities. The particular reference in the press report to which the hon. member

referred is one in which Mr. Robertson stated as follows:
A railway to Great Slave lake will cost about $65 million. It is essential if we are to get anywhere in that region. Basic resource roads to start the development of the area around Great Slave lake and north to Great Bear lake will cost perhaps $20 million.
The statement that the railway is essential is, of course, a statement of opinion. It does not constitute a statement of government policy, but I may say that the government is very much aware of the importance of developing better transportation facilities in the north and, as hon. members know, the two Canadian railways have this summer been jointly undertaking certain investigations into the problems involved in a railway to Great Slave lake.
The hon. member also asked about a reference in the press report that the cost of the railway and of development roads would constitute "a trifling amount relative to the national wealth to be expected in this region". The statement, as reported in these terms in the press report, does not represent the actual text of Mr. Robertson's remarks. Referring to the figures of $65 million and $20 million Mr. Robertson said:
These are substantial figures-but proportionately they are a trifle compared with the public cost of the C.P.R. that was assumed by 3,000,000 Canadians in 1885.
The population figure should actually have been 4,500,000. However, this does not affect the point. The point Mr. Robertson was making was that while $85 million constitutes a substantial amount, it is not nearly as large in relation to the population and wealth of Canada in 1957 as was the public portion of the cost undertaken by a much smaller and poorer population in 1885 in relation to the construction of the C.P.R. I am advised that the value of cash and land subventions to the C.P.R., in 1957 dollars, amounted to $71 per capita in 1885. The costs Mr. Robertson mentioned amount to $5 per capita.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE INQUIRY AS TO LETTER FROM PREMIER OF MANITOBA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Louis Denisel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister regarding his answer to a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill). Has the Prime Minister now received the letter sent to him recently by the premier of Manitoba regarding the agenda of the federal-provincial conference? If so, will he table the letter now, as he said he would?
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: May I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is he in a position to tell us when he may announce the personnel of the new harbour commission in the city of Windsor?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, we have been waiting for some time for the nomination from the mayor. That has arrived, and we shall make an announcement very shortly.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I shall be glad to help my hon. friend with the nominations.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he is going to make any comment on the incident that took place in the Supreme Court of Canada yesterday morning, to which I drew his attention yesterday on the orders of the day?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, yesterday my hon. friend asked me a question in regard to Mr. Justice Locke having withdrawn from a case after counsel had suggested that he should do so. The question was:
Has the minister any comment to make on what is reported to have happened, and could he say whether this is a precedent which might be followed in other courts in the future?
I think it is traditional that ministers of the crown make no observations on the conduct of judicial proceedings or on anything arising out of those judicial proceedings, except in the manner provided for under our constitutional practice. As to whether or not this will be a precedent, may I say that will be for successive courts to determine on the basis of the circumstances that exist in the case before them. I need hardly add that, having regard to what took place in the court, Mr. Justice Locke's reputation as a great jurist has not been impaired.

Health Insurance



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS NATIONAL CROP INSURANCE    INQUIRY AS TO DISCUSSIONS WITH PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. S. Zaplitny (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister had discussions with any of the provincial governments or with any of the ministers of provincial governments on the question of a national crop insurance plan? If so, can he inform the house as to the result of such discussions?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, when the provincial
ministers of agriculture were here to see me some two or three months ago this was one of the subjects discussed. No decision was arrived at in regard to the matter. I assured the provincial ministers that I would have the matter investigated and studied in the economics division of the Department of Agriculture, and a study has been going on in that division since that time. I have had one or two interim reports, but I have nothing in the way of a final report nor have I any recommendations to make at the present time.

The house resumed, from Monday, November 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fleming for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).



HEALTH INSURANCE


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, the amendment moved yesterday by this group asks that under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act money should be made available without delay to any province that has a hospital plan in operation. As has already been pointed out, this is of great importance to at least three provinces in this country at this time. The thing that disturbed me in the discussion yesterday, having in mind the historic attitude of the Conservative party toward the whole problem of health insurance and hospitalization insurance, is that there is a growing body of evidence that the government is now attempting to evade, to postpone-


An hon. Member:: How silly can you get?


Hazen Robert Argue: -and to retreat from the attitude and the position it took during 1957 both in the house and in the recent election.
[Mr. Diefenbaker.I
As evidence for that statement I refer first of all to what has already taken place during this session, when there was a discussion as to the interpretation of the words "in force" and "in operation". Only last evening did we get a categorical statement from the minister that when six provinces have acts on their statute books in force, in the sense that they have been proclaimed the law of the province, those provinces that have plans in fact in operation will then be eligible for payments. After its initial retreat the government, by that statement, seems to have come up at least to the position taken by the previous administration.
But I am going to point out that this is a long way from the position taken by that party in the house during the session just before the election. How strongly, vigorously and adequately did so many leading members of the opposition of that day appeal to the government of the day that money under this scheme and under a hospitalization scheme should be made available immediately to any province that had a scheme in operation, even though there should be only one province. At that time the official opposition went so far as to move an amendment asking that that be done. Today the government is not only not prepared to make money available immediately to a province or group of provinces that have schemes in operation, but they are asking that the act be left as it has been, with the result that at least six provinces must have legislation in force on their statute books.
There is another instance in which the Conservative party has retreated a great distance from the stand it took in the house last spring and during the election. I refer, of course, to the strong plea and categorical statement made that people in mental institutions and in tuberculosis sanatoria should be covered under this act by making the provinces eligible for payments on their behalf. That position was taken by leading members of the Conservative party, and in the statements they made in the house last spring they left no doubt as to their position.
The Minister of Finance, who in those days at any rate was noted for direct and forthright statements, had this to say on that point as recorded on page 3381 of Hansard of April 10, 1957. In speaking on a motion to refer back to the committee, he said:
I put before the house the ground that there can be no justification in good sense or in principle or in humanity or in the existing facts of life as applied to the financial difficulties of the provinces and municipalities of this country, for this government to try to drive a wedge between general hospitals on the one hand and tuberculosis hospitals and sanatoria and hospitals and institutions for the mentally ill on the other hand.

That was a very strong statement by the present Minister of Finance. He went on to say:
I ask the house, therefore, to send this back in order that this clause, unworthy of the Canadian parliament, unworthy of the pretensions of the government that this is a comprehensive scheme, should be reconsidered and that its shortcomings should be remedied and that the scheme should in fact be made what the minister improperly pretends it to be, a comprehensive scheme of hospital insurance.
Surely those words are just as true now as they were on April 10. Surely they are much more pertinent today than they were on April 10, since the hon. member who used those words is now on the treasury benches and in a position to make moneys available, and as a member of the government is in a position to have the legislation amended so that tuberculosis sanatoria and mental hospitals can be included under the act.
At that time the hon. member for Eglinton was not speaking as an individual member of the Conservative party. He was not speaking on his own initiative. He in fact was stating party policy because, shortly after making his statement, he was supported by no less a person than the present Prime Minister. The Prime Minister of today, the leader of the opposition of that time, had this to say as recorded on page 3386 of Hansard of April 10, 1957:
This legislation which is designed to bring about the beneficial results which were pictured in such lucid language by the minister just before the dinner adjournment should not remain incomplete by denying to these institutions equality with the hospitals qualified under this legislation. The legislation as it is in its present form, beneficial as it will be, acceptable as it is to members in all parts of the house, is a step in the right direction. But the goal that all of us have in mind will not be achieved until the two types of institutions to which I have made reference are included within the provisions of this legislation.
I ask why the government has not provided legislation at this session to amend the act so that mental hospitals and tuberculosis sanatoria can be included. That was part of the position taken by the Conservative party in the house at the last session. It was not, I may say, a position inconsistent with the stand taken by the Conservative party during the election. It was not a position confined only to this house. As a matter of fact it was a position that was enunciated in the election campaign itself. The hope and the promise were held out to the people of Canada that a Conservative government would correct this very serious omission.
I have in my hand a report taken from the Winnipeg Tribune of May 14 of this year referring to a statement made by the Prime Minister. It is in these words:
The Conservatives, he said, would repair a "serious omission" in the federal health plan 96698-82J
Health Insurance
which does not include tubercular and mental institutions.
Then, as if to underline that statement and to show that it was a correct statement, the Toronto Globe and Mail of May 28 of this year carried this further report under the date line of Saskatoon, May 27. It is as follows:
Noting that the Canadian Hospital Association was meeting in a nearby hotel, Mr. Diefenbaker reminded that the Conservative party had consistently advocated health insurance.
The main reason that the plan is so far advanced today, he added, is because Ontario's Premier Frost, a Conservative, forced the federal government to place it on the agenda of the 1956 federal-provincial conference.
Mr. Diefenbaker said the Conservative party still believes that hospital insurance should cover patients in mental and tuberculosis institutions.
I ask if the government still believes this statement by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker). Does the government intend at this session to fulfil its very definite commitments to the electorate of this country? Are we to take it now that the Conservative party is in power this definite commitment is going to be relegated to the waste paper basket, the same as similar promises have been relegated over so many years by the previous administration?
Well, Mr. Speaker, we in this group are consistent in the attitude we have taken towards national health insurance. We believe in an over-all national health insurance program, but we are interested in the meantime, before that time arrives, in getting the government to act by proceeding as rapidly as possible. We are suggesting by this amendment that payments should be immediately available to any province that has a scheme in operation. In the field of hospitalization insurance Saskatchewan has led all the provinces in Canada. As far back as 1947 the government of Saskatchewan provided an over-all system of hospital insurance for the people of that province. I can well remember the hopes of the members of the government of that day, namely that the federal government would provide for an over-all health insurance program whereby the people of Saskatchewan could obtain money under that legislation.
Saskatchewan has waited now for over ten years. According to the attitude of the government we are going to have to wait a further period of time before any moneys are paid into our hospitalization plan. The plan has already cost the people of Saskatchewan from 1947 to 1956 a total of $147 million. The people of Saskatchewan believe the federal government had a responsibility in this field over those years. They believe that they have been shortchanged by approximately $70 million by

Health Insurance
the governments in office during that time. They do not look kindly on the suggestion that they are going to have to wait another year; that in 1958 they will be denied, under the probable effect of this legislation, as much as $10 million or $11 million for their hospitalization plan.
I suggest that during this session the government should amend the act in keeping with the statements of the Conservative party when in opposition and provide that any province with a plan in effect could immediately obtain its share of the money provided by the federal government for such a scheme. The premier of Saskatchewan is on record many times in this regard. According to the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of May 14 he made a statement that Saskatchewan was disappointed in the attitude of the government because it appeared certain that money would not be available for at least another year. The people of Saskatchewan believe that they have been short-changed; that they should not have to wait another year. They did not agree with the attitude of the former government that under the provisions of this legislation six provinces must have a scheme in force before federal moneys would be available. What does that mean? It means that one province, the sixth province, could hold up moneys going from the federal treasury to the provinces that are prepared to implement such legislation. If Prince Edward Island were the sixth province I can understand there would be a tremendous amount of pressure that might be brought to bear on such a government to provide legislation, since they would be the roadblock preventing moneys from being paid under such an act as this to the five provinces that had systems in operation.
I do not believe any province should be placed in such a position. I do not believe the provinces themselves want to be placed in that position. I think the premiers of the various provinces, in any event the great majority of them, agree with the premier of Ontario that money should be made available immediately to any province that has a system in operation. I make a plea to the government that in this session they introduce legislation to amend the act along lines suggested in the amendment now before the house, that any province including the province of Saskatchewan shall immediately be entitled to money from the federal treasury. I think that is a stand that is consistent with the stand of the Conservative party. I think it is a stand that is consistent with the stand taken by the premier of Ontario. I think it is a stand that is supported by all logic and all reason. I suggest it is a stand

which will lead to the earlier implementation of a national health insurance plan.
We know that when you say there must be six provinces with plans in force and that within those provinces there must be a majority of the population of this country you delay the time at which federal moneys can go to the provinces and hence delay the time when the people in many of the provinces will have a hospitalization plan in operation. In other words this provision in the act, as the members of the opposition in the previous parliament earlier this year so ably pointed out, was placed there as a means of stalling, postponing; a method of delay and procrastination. The same arguments that applied to these provisions relative to the hospitalization insurance are equally valid relative to national health insurance. I suggest that not only should the federal government be prepared to pay money to a province that has a hospitalization plan in operation, but the federal government should be prepared to pay money to those provinces that might wish at this time to embark on a system of comprehensive health insurance. I am convinced in my own mind of this, although I have had no consultation with any member of the Saskatchewan government, that if the federal government would make moneys available immediately to Saskatchewan under this act Saskatchewan will not use those moneys as a method of saving money for some other department in its budget.
Rather Saskatchewan is more than likely to say, "Now we have an opportunity to expand our own health program in Saskatchewan and to include other important health services, and this money now available from the federal government will allow us to provide a more adequate system of health care for the people of Saskatchewan".
I know that there are in this country forces which are opposed to health insurance. In the mail just today we as members of parliament have received a statement by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in which they state they are opposed, directly and definitely, to a national health insurance program. I do not think they speak for Canadians generally. I do not think they reflect in any way the spoken word of the Conservative party over the last number of months. I suggest that the government should pay no attention to these people. I suggest that the government, instead, should maintain the faith of the Canadian people in the commitments and the statements it made, both in this house and during the election campaign, by proceeding now to include mental hospitals and sanatoria in

the provisions of this act and to make moneys under this act immediately available to any province that has a system in operation and to proceed quickly towards the time that Canada shall have a national health insurance program that I believe is supported by the vast majority of Canadians at this time.


Mr. E. L. Morris (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, when the bells rang yesterday afternoon to summon us to this house, I confess that I came in trepidation for I had been forewarned that the supply motion which was to be introduced would give way to a freewheeling debate in which the opposition might raise any number of subjects. Of these we would have no advance warning. We now know that we are launched into a debate on health insurance. As I sat last night and listened with some degree of affection to the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), who was in fact speaking on the first occasion when I came into this house as a spectator, I must confess that my mind went back to that afternoon early in March, 1939 when, as an under-graduate university student, I came to Ottawa. I remember the scene very well. This morning I went to the library to consult references and to check my recollections of what happened. Mr. Speaker, on that afternoon of March 6, 1939, as reported at page 1573 of Hansard of that year, one of the hon. members who is now in this chamber moved:
That in the opinion of this house, the government of Canada should try to secure amendments to the British North America Act, to provide periodical health examinations and provision for suitable treatment for all those suffering from disease.
That was, Mr. Speaker, in 1939. What did the hon. member say about his motion? He said this:
I know the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Power) will give it his fatherly approval just as soon as the means are at his disposal.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who introduced that motion on March 6, 1939 was the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) who again today sits in this house, 18 years later, and listens to demands for immediate action on health insurance.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Thank you.


Edmund Leverett Morris: What answer did the minister make? Later in the day as I sat in the spectators' gallery the then minister of pensions and national health said this as reported at page 1587 of Hansard of March 6, 1939:
This and similar resolutions that have been placed on the order paper during past years-I
Health Insurance
may say in increasing numbers in more recent years-indicate that the people of this country are more and more taking an interest in public health, and so far as I am concerned that is absolutely all to the good. . . .
There has come to a very large number of people in this country the belief that every citizen is inherently entitled to as much right to protection from sickness and disease as to protection from the more violent, if often less hazardous, attacks of those who wish to steal his property or injure his person. ... I believe we have placed behind us the view held in days gone by that sickness, disability and illness were each man's individual concern.
I have been quoting the Liberal minister of pensions and national health of that day, as reported in Hansard. On that day in March, 1939, the hon. member for Fort William was seconded by another member who recalled that he had in fact introduced a resolution on health insurance in this house in 1931. That was one of the predecessors of the present hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Deniset).


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: That was Doctor Howden.


Edmund Leverett Morris: He then on April 27, 1931 introduced a motion in this house:
That, in the opinion of this house, a measure of federal state medicine would be in the best interests of the Canadian people.
He went on to say this:
If the greatest need of the state is health, then the greatest effort of the state should be directed towards securing the health of its people. Surely the provision of an adequate measure for the control and direction of the health of the Canadian people would be in the best interests of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, on February 16, 1928, one of the predecessors of the present hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)- I refer to Mr. Heaps-introduced in this house a motion:
That, in the opinion of this house, the committee on industrial and international relations be authorized to investigate and report on insurance against unemployment, sickness and invalidity.
He said this:
Mr. Speaker, last year I introduced a motion almost identical with the present resolution. I was extremely pleased with the very hearty support which it received.
That was in 1927, 30 years ago. This particular matter, he said-
-is not by any means new. It has been debated in this house on several occasions and it has also been discussed by several of the provincial legislatures. In the platform of the Liberal party in 1919, one finds a reference to this very important question.
What do we find in the Liberal party platform of 1919, a document which is surely receiving some of the attention of the hon. member for Essex East in these trying days? We find a resolution:
Whereas human life and physical efficiency are the nation's greatest assets;

Health Insurance
And whereas the conservation and improvement thereof should be the country's first care;
Therefore this gathering of Liberals in convention assembled, August 7, 1919, pledges itself to a vigorous prosecution of the measures best calculated to conserve the life and improve the physical standards of our Canadian citizenship.
Mr. Speaker, this motion was passed, by an earlier Liberal leadership convention, four years before I was born. Last night we heard the hon. member for Essex East say in this house that he was afraid this matter of hospital insurance was going to be very considerably delayed; after five months in office we are now to be "considerably delayed" in the enactment of a measure promised by the Liberal convention of 1919.
Specifically, and without intending to divert the house from consideration of the amendment now before it, I want to refer to three matters raised by the hon. member for Essex East. In his remarks last night he dealt at some length with an unsuccessful mission he made in Nova Scotia by which, I dare say, he meant to refer with some grace to his election campaign in that province. He said, as reported on page 1261 of Hansard:
I can say that the negotiations I had with Premier Stanfield resulted in marked progress, and I had reason to believe that there was a likelihood of that province coming in.
Later he said:
We do know, however, that the government of the province of Nova Scotia has set up a second body to study from the point of view of Nova Scotia the advantages of this particular hospital insurance proposal of the federal government-
And so on. From all of which I think, even on a careful re-reading this morning, one can only assume that the hon. member for Essex East meant to imply that the government of Nova Scotia had come up against some obstacle to its implementation of health insurance or hospital insurance, and that it had therefore set up a second body.
What are the facts? The facts are that under a previous administration, under a Liberal provincial administration, a body had indeed been set up, but upon the assumption of office by a new Conservative government in Nova Scotia it was discovered that that first body had in fact made no report because it had not met, and it was therefore disbanded and replaced by a royal commission which is now examining the Nova Scotia case on hospital insurance and, as the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) said, and as all Nova Scotian members on this side of the house know perfectly well, the chairman of that commission spent some time in this city only a few days ago consulting with the federal government and its authorities. The hon.

member for Essex East also said, as recorded on page 1263 of Hansard:
We developed a plan of financial assistance which took into account the needs of the poorer provinces. Assistance in the case of Nova Scotia would amount to well over 70 per cent and in the case of New Brunswick close to 70 per cent.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have in Nova Scotia what we refer to as three kinds of inexactitudes; quite large prevarications, extremely large prevarications, and Liberal statistics. That is what we have here. This has been repeatedly denied by the minister of health for Nova Scotia and by the premier of that province. It is 70 per cent, perhaps, of what the hon. member for Essex East in his capacity as a minister of the crown offered to Nova Scotia. Mr. Speaker, the position of Nova Scotia in respect to hospital insurance has been made perfectly clear on numerous occasions. The premier of Nova Scotia, if I understand him correctly, has said repeatedly that that province will introduce a system of hospital insurance not later than January 1, 1959, with or without-this is what he said prior to the election-an agreement with the federal authorities.
The Nova Scotia government wanted some consideration to be given to the sharing of costs for tubercular and mental patients. Mr. Speaker, as of last March, I believe, there were nearly 9,000 more mental patients in Canada than all other hospitalized patients put together, which simply goes to show that more people had gone crazy under the Liberal administration than ever before in Canadian history. We wanted some sharing of the cost of caring for mental and tubercular patients, for administration and for depreciation. So the figure may, in fact, have been 70 per cent of an offer, but it was less than 40 per cent of what the province of Nova Scotia wanted from a joint hospital insurance program.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, let it not be thought that I infer that the hon. member for Essex East does not believe in hospital insurance. I am too young a man to have lost all my belief in other people's ideals. I am one of the Conservative members-and there are very many-who wish to see introduced at the earliest possible date a comprehensive system of hospital insurance to protect our people from dire want. Yet, last night, when my friend and colleague the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. Muir) had the temerity to interject a remark into the speech of the hon. member for Essex East, that hon. member wheeled on him and, with a long forefinger-the most overworked forearm in the House of Commons-said to the hon. member for Cape Breton North and

Victoria: "Do you mean to tell me that perhaps your government is not now anxious about this?" He said at page 1264:
He sits on the government side. He is now indicating that this government has some doubts about this hospital insurance bill. If that is the case, then I hope the government will soon acquaint us with an intention, which apparently the hon. gentleman has just now revealed.
I want to say, as a young man and as a newcomer to the house, to the hon. member for Essex East, without violating any of the rules of my party caucus, that we do not operate in that way on this side of the house. The hon. members on this side of the house do not state government policy. Government policy comes from the cabinet. We are supporters of the government because by personal conviction, and the record of this government in assistance to Nova Scotia since the election, and by the wish of our constituents, we support, in a majority of cases, this government.
To have it said that when a private member on this side of the house on the back benches rises and raises some point, to have it said that he is stating government policy, may be true of hon. members who sit on the opposite side, but it is another clear case of the continuous capacity of those who now occupy front benches across the floor of the house that in their vision, now limited by the 20 feet across that floor, they will suppress every word spoken by their back benchers. We do not state government policy, and we do not come here to be rubber stamps, either. We have a perfect right to urge upon this government, while supporting it, measures which we think are of benefit.
Finally, the hon. member for Essex East was asked by the Prime Minister: "If the answers he receives are not satisfactory or adequate, does he still intend to follow his leader in a vote of confidence in this government?" The hon. member for Essex East did not, of course, reply to that, but he said that if he accepted the amendment under discussion all it would mean would be that the right hon. Prime Minister "would no longer enjoy the great luxury of being Prime Minister of Canada". That struck me, on re-reading Hansard this morning, as a remark which was unnecessary and, in fact, unseemly.
Mr. Speaker, during the unsuccessful mission which the hon. member for Essex East paid to Nova Scotia before the election, a circus came to town the same day and the Liberal party hired the front elephant in the circus, and along the sides of this front elephant, lachrymose and morose, were hung two large posters. The right flank was inscribed "Vote for so and so"-I will refrain
Health Insurance
from giving the names-and on the left flank was inscribed the legend "The best is yet to be".
I remarked in a radio broadcast at that time that the architect of this slogan had apparently little knowledge of English literature for it came from Robert Browning's "Rabbi Ben Ezra" and the Liberal party had neglected to put in the first line. The full quotation from the poem reads:
Grow old along with me!
The best is yet to be


Paul Joseph James Martin: Ha, ha, ha!


Edmund Leverett Morris: Well, Mr. Speaker, when we found that the Liberal campaign committee was so diligent in the hiring of elephants we went to the proprietors of the circus who were themselves good Liberals. However, having seen some of the handwriting on the wall they consented to rent us the stern elephant. This was a very small elephant with only residual tusks and drooping ears. Over its flanks we draped a sign which I think answers the hon. member when he said that our Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) would be deprived of the luxury of his high office. Coming down the sunlit street in Halifax, as the hon. member for Essex East wined and dined and tried to sell us into a hospital insurance plan we did not want-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh?


Edmund Leverett Morris: -on the stern elephant as it stomped and whistled along hung one sign bearing four words which are good enough for us, "John Diefenbaker never forgets".


Paul Joseph James Martin: A funny place to put that.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we are all very much aware of the importance of the question that has been before us yesterday and today. On many occasions we have debated questions having to do with the material well-being of the people of Canada and without question those problems are extremely vital and important but I am sure we all agree that one of our greatest assets individually and as a nation is health. Therefore, when this matter was raised yesterday as a grievance we wondered just how much good would accrue from a debate of this matter at this time although we did recognize the fact that it was a very important issue that was before us.
We have listened to debate after debate on the matter of health insurance and we have listened to question after question directed both to the previous administration and now to the present administration on this same subject. When the announcement was made during the last session by the former minister of national health and welfare that a measure

Health Insurance
was to be introduced providing for a system of health care we looked forward with some anticipation to the introduction of that measure and when it was introduced we were both pleased and disappointed.
We were pleased that the government had finally come to the point where it was prepared to take action on this important matter. I am not going to go back into history as some hon. members have done and try to indicate the first time this matter was dealt with and recommended. I think sometimes we are prone to spend too much time in looking back and considering what has taken place or what has not taken place in previous years. I think the most important thing is what are we prepared to do at the present moment and what does the future hold with respect to these important matters we discuss?
Last session when the Liberal government brought forth the hospital insurance act we were glad it had finally taken the action. We were pleased as well that the people of Canada could now be assured of some measure of assistance in the event of illness in their families. I am sure we are all aware of the tremendously increased costs of hospitalization and health care. It seemed as though it was getting to the point where one could not afford to be ill unless one was pretty well in the millionaire class. The ordinary individual simply could not afford the high costs of hospitalization and medical care. When this measure was brought in by the previous government I thought it offered a ray of hope, some feeling of security to the people of Canada that now they would be able to face eventualities confident that after all there was some one interested in their welfare and willing to assist in the meeting of these responsibilities. However we were disappointed that after the passage of such a length of time and the repeated assurances of the then minister of national health and welfare to the effect that the government was as interested as any member of the opposition in the maintenance of the health of the Canadian people the proposed measure fell far short of what we had anticipated.
Those hon. members who have been in this house for a long time have, I suppose, waited for years for the introduction of that legislation and although the legislation has been introduced they are still waiting. The provinces are still waiting, too. As pointed out on several occasions by different hon. members, a number of the provinces already have hospital insurance programs in operation and those provinces are waiting for some decision and positive action. I do not know, but it is possible they may have to

wait for a few years yet unless some action is taken to expedite the matter and bring it to a successful culmination. The Canadian people are still waiting for this scheme to go into effect. A great many people are under the impression that the national hospitalization program is already in operation and of course they base their assumption on what transpired last session when the hospital insurance act was passed. However, hon. members are aware that it has not come into operation and the people are still waiting and wondering.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) made a statement last evening and clarified some of the points and questions that had been raised not only in this debate but on previous occasions. He gave us the assurance that the government intended to implement this project.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When?


Alexander Bell Patterson: You answer that. But he did say the government had no intention of backing away from this project and intended to carry it through to a successful conclusion. We appreciated that statement. I believe the minister went farther than the government had gone on previous occasions and many in fact were wondering at one time whether or not the government actually intended to carry through with the proposition. The minister also outlined some of the negotiations that had been proceeding not only with the provinces but with various health associations. We were pleased to receive that assurance because many of us wondered what, if anything, was being done to try to bring this matter to a head.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare assured us last night that everything possible was being done to encourage and to assist in working out the details of this particular measure. He referred to the spirit of co-operation which exists between the federal administration and the respective provinces in the consideration of this important matter. I am sure we all recognize the fact that this is something that has to be implemented in co-operation with the provinces. That has been emphasized in times gone by and, of course, I do not think any one of us-I know none of us in this group, anyway-feels that it can be implemented in any other way. It must be done by co-operation between the federal and provincial authorities.
In this connection I should like to say that if the Minister of National Health and Welfare had made his statement some time ago it would have been of tremendous assistance

to us in consideration of the matter. Questions were asked; the answers were evasive. Hon. members endeavoured to secure some information but we could not get it. I suggest that if the Minister of National Health and Welfare had made his statement some weeks ago we would have a better appreciation and understanding of the situation as it exists. Therefore, I think he must accept some responsibility for the fact that this particular amendment has been moved at this time.
We in the Social Credit group have supported the principle involved in this amendment. I have said that there are several provinces that already have hospital insurance programs in operation. Alberta has one, Saskatchewan has one and I know that my province of British Columbia has a very fine hospital plan in operation.
It will be recalled that at the time of the dominion-provincial conference on this particular matter the province of British Columbia was prepared to go much farther than the plan which was finally adopted. British Columbia, through the provincial minister of health and welfare, Mr. Eric Martin, stated that the government of British Columbia endorsed the principle of an all-inclusive national health program. At that time the provincial minister of health and welfare from British Columbia stated that the services that should be included in that plan should be hospital care for both acute and chronic conditions, including laboratory and X-ray diagnostic services to in-patients. He also stated that it should include laboratory and X-ray diagnostic services to out-patients as well. It should include home nursing services, medical care services and dental care for children during the early stages, certain drugs, prescriptions, artificial limbs and appliances. He suggested that all of these things should be included in a national plan.
He went on to outline the government's views with respect to the financing of this particular matter but I am not going to refer to that at the moment. In this connection we also recognize that possibly some of the provinces and the federal government were not prepared to go ahead with such a comprehensive plan as was outlined by the minister of national health and welfare from British Columbia. I do not know that they have any particular objection, possibly apart from the fact that the plan was too ambitious for initial introduction, and it may be that later on some of these things would have been considered. Anyway, following that conference, a telegram was forwarded from the minister of health and welfare of the province of British Columbia to the then minister of 96698-83
Health Insurance
national health and welfare. The content of the telegram is as follows:
The government of British Columbia has studied the initial and limited proposals submitted by the government of Canada for a national health program and regrets the restricted nature of the plan presented. Nevertheless, British Columbia is ready to sign an agreement forthwith and strongly urges that an expanded program be instituted without delay.
As far as a national health program is concerned, I think that indicates clearly the position of the provincial government. It was desirous of seeing a greatly expanded program and yet was prepared to sign an agreement to go along with the plan that was presented by the federal administration.
Some of the restrictions or limitations in connection with the program have been referred to already. For instance, there was the requirement that six provinces, representing over 50 per cent of the population, must have signified their intention of entering into the plan. We have before us the amendment which urges that immediate steps be taken to facilitate the payment of grants to the provinces when they are ready to enter into the program and when they have a plan in operation. But I believe that this matter which is now before us, and the question of the six provinces representing 50 per cent or more of the population, should be given a very thorough study and something worked out whereby the provinces which now have plans in operation should be able to receive some assistance in the financing of their plans.
Another question which was raised was the question of those who had been disqualified, the medical and tubercular patients. After all it seems to me that if we are going to take care of sick folks we ought to take care of sick folks and not draw a line and say that we shall look after this one or that one but not the other one. I think the plan ought to be comprehensive.
Another question was raised by the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke (Mr. McLeod). Perhaps some hon. members considered it a minor objection, a minor point. His point was that because of the limited equipment or facilities that some hospitals had at their disposal they would not be able to render service under this particular measure. The then minister of national health and welfare assured us that that matter could be and would be taken care of by negotiations with the provinces. These are some of the points that were raised and discussed. I think possibly these are some of the points that were in the mind of the mover of this particular motion when he brought it before us.
We are advised, Mr. Speaker, that a dominion-provincial conference is to be held in

Health Insurance
Ottawa. The Minister of National Health and Welfare stated in his address in reply to questions-perhaps I should give the direct quotation as I criticized the Minister of National Health and Welfare on one occasion for misquoting me and I had better make sure that I have the quotation right or I may hear about it. I am quoting from page 1265 of Hansard. The Minister of National Health and Welfare said:
On November 13 in reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) said in effect that if the premiers of the provinces wish hospital insurance matters to be discussed at the forthcoming conference on November 25 and 26 an opportunity would be given to discuss these matters fully.
I should like to ask if up till now any of the provinces have made representations to the effect that they wanted this matter discussed at the dominion-provincial conference.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is a matter of public record. Manitoba and Saskatchewan have done so.


Alexander Bell Patterson: If they have, that is just fine. I know that statement was made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and I wonder whether we could have the assurance-we may have it on record but I did not catch it-whether or not this matter will be on the agenda for the dominion-provincial conference.


Mr. Monteith:: I could not say any more than I did last night.


Alexander Bell Patterson: The matter will be discussed if the provinces wish it? Is that right?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Maybe it has to be six representing a majority of the population again.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Not necessarily.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Good.


Alexander Bell Patterson: If the government is so anxious to expedite the matter and get the plan into operation, would the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) himself place this subject on the agenda and say definitely that it will be discussed at the dominion-provincial conference? If that were done it might put a different light on the whole matter. I believe that the present government wants to see this being implemented but I think they could help us a little bit if they would be more precise in some of their statements and give us a fuller understanding of the situation existing at the present time. I believe that the intent of the amendment moved is to speed up things. I think that is what its purpose is.
[Mr. Patterson.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Its purpose is to get the matter rolling, to get the whole plan into operation as soon as possible so that the people of Canada can be assured that in the event of illness and hospitalization they will be able to receive some assistance even if they do not live in the provinces of Alberta, British Columbia or Saskatchewan.


Jacob Schulz: Health Insurance


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just as useless as the Tories.


Jacob Schulz: They are even useless as an opposition, as they showed yesterday. I cannot see how this government can go out into the next election campaign without implementing this plan. As a matter of fact there is one very encouraging thing upon which I am absolutely depending, and that is that the government group now includes some ladies. I always find that ladies are more softhearted and have a more humane attitude. There is a saying that women are wiser than men because they know less and understand more. I hope that will hold true in this case.


Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, the h'on. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), in moving his amendment has taken advantage of the peculiar situation in this house to try to gain some cheap glory for his party. It is cheap glory because it is taken without risk. He has said that if the Liberals abdicate their responsibility and their right to oppose this government his party will take up that job. If he really means that I wonder what he would do if the Liberals and Social Credit voted first against this government on this amendment. Would the C.C.F. support their own amendment?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Absolutely, and you know it.


Ernest James Broome: Everyone knows that this is a minority government and that we are carrying on by permission of the opposition parties. Repeatedly members of the C.C.F. group have stated that there is no reason for calling an election; that this government, in its program, has the support of all opposition parties. Then what is the reason for this lack of confidence amendment? I think I have indicated what that reason is.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Because the government is not going ahead with the hospital insurance plan.


Ernest James Broome: The C.C.F. are safe from the consequences of their own actions, Mr. Speaker. There is no question of opposition parties abdicating their right to oppose. They will certainly do that when they think they have something that will make a good issue upon which to go to the country. From what I can see of what this government is doing, the opposition certainly has not got a good issue yet. The C.C.F. opposes for the sake of opposition; it obstructs for the sake of obstructing, and I am coming to the point of thinking that it talks for the sake of talking. I think the effectiveness of members of the C.C.F.-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is
the hon. member reading for the sake of reading?


Ernest James Broome: -is measured by the numbers of pounds of Hansard they have contributed over the years.
The hon. member has made a great to-do, as have other members, in regard to this booklet which I believe is entitled "Underwriting Canadian Health; An Economic View of the Welfare Program", compiled by the firm of consulting economists, William Lougheed Associates of Toronto at the request of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and the Canadian Life Insurance Officers' Association. Hon. member after hon. member has tried to intimate that this government is a tool for one section of the economy of this country, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this government represents all classes in Canada, all people in Canada, rich and poor alike and that if there is any class party in this house it is the party to which the hon. member belongs.
I was very much taken with the speech delivered by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) in which he quoted from a booklet entitled "Industry", another publication of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, as reported at page 1256 of Hansard for November 18, 1957. The quotation reads:
Government-sponsored hospital insurance is coming because most Canadians have indicated that they want it, because all the national political parties profess themselves in favour of it-
Then the hon. member said, "I like that phrase, 'profess themselves in favour of it' ". Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that it ill becomes any hon. member of this house to intimate that his party has a corner on sincerity or a corner on service to the Canadian people or that only his party speaks for the little man. Mr. Speaker, this is just plain common sense. The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), the leader of our party, captured the hearts and minds of Canadians from coast to coast by his obvious sincerity and his obvious concern for all Canadian citizens but particularly by his manifest desire to help the little man.
Mr. Speaker, this party has representation from one end of Canada to the other. We reflect a national viewpoint. We reflect responsibility in government as well as responsibility to the people. The fact that the C.C.F. party consider that finance is something to be lightly brushed off indicates to me their absolute irresponsibility. It is the ordinary person in Canada who pays taxes. We do not get the money as a gift. We take it from the people and it is our job

to distribute that tax money in the best manner to aid and to help all the citizens of this country.
Mr. Speaker, I have been in this house for about six weeks and I believe that the Canadian people will say that this government, under the greatest provocations and obstructions, has done more for the people of Canada than any previous government has ever done. We have seen the question period-I have looked up back Hansards- grow from what was customarily 15 minutes or 20 minutes to over an hour, most of which time has been taken up by hon. members of the C.C.F. party. In fact, today we had duplication in questions. They are even running out of questions to throw at the ministers. I have seen the ministers answering questions and doing their very best to give this house all of the information they possibly can give. In the minds of reasonable members there is no question that the ministers are doing a terrific job and I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that in the minds of the Canadian people there is no doubt that the ministers are doing a tremendous job.
I have been in this building every day, except the first week including Saturdays and Sundays and there has not been a Saturday nor a Sunday when I have not seen four or five ministers here. I left the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) at 10.30 on Sunday night. I was talking to the Postmaster General (Mr. Hamilton) at ten o'clock. These men are working hard for the good of Canada. Our hon. friends over there on the other side of the house are doing as much as they can to harass the government; that is all it is; it is just straight harassing tactics-and to obstruct the operation of government. I remember the cash advance bill on which they talked for a full week in order to say yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would remind the hon. member that we are speaking on an amendment which has to do with health.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: May I also say that I do not consider it to be according to the best parliamentary practice to impute motives to hon. members and say that their actions are simply to obstruct. I would ask the hon. member to revise that statement.


Ernest James Broome: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to hon. members. They are not obstructing. They are simply taking up a lot of time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It
is obvious that is the end of your speech; you will not take up much time.
Health Insurance


Ernest James Broome: We have used up two precious days in debating this amendment which, as far as I can see, has served no useful purpose whatsoever. In good time this government will be bringing forward legislation which the Canadian people want.


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Brassard). As it is almost five o'clock, perhaps the hon. member would prefer not to be interrupted and to call it five o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe we interrupt the business at five o'clock when a supply motion is being debated.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry. I call upon the hon. member for Lapointe.


Mr. Brassard:: Mr. Speaker, may I call it five o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: No. The clerk reminds me quite properly that we do not interrupt the business of the house today in order to deal with private and public bills.
(Translation):


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to take only a few minutes to state politely to the government that my constituents are at a loss to understand its attitude with regard to family allowances and hospital insurance.
I have received a great many letters asking me to give the reason for the puzzling, not to say ominous silence which the speech from the throne observes with regard to these two matters. Obviously, because of the rules of the house, I can only speak at this point on hospital insurance.
The constituency which I have the honour to represent in this house, Mr. Speaker, is mainly made up of workers and farmers. I need not stress the point that the people of the constituency of Lapointe are most interested in the hospital insurance plan. It is a well known fact that the average Canadian can hardly afford to be sick or to undergo hospital treatment, without mortgaging his salary for months, even years ahead. It is therefore hard for anyone to understand how the present government, whose candidates were so lavish with promises in the last elections, should show such little concern for legislation which could mean so much for the great majority of Canadians.
Every time I return to my constituency, men come to me and tell me of the serious financial difficulties they are experiencing as a result of someone in their family having needed medical or hospital treatment. Up to the time the speech from the throne

Health Insurance
was delivered, I would explain that the hospital insurance plan which had been prepared with such skill and devotion by the former minister of national health and welfare would bring about a happy solution to their financial problems of hospital treatment. But I confess that we are much concerned with the government's stand in connection with this plan. If another national convention of the Conservative party were held, the party might perhaps find an easy way out of the situation by passing a resolution to the effect that it is in favour of the principle of a hospital insurance plan as well as of family allowances, as it is no doubt in favour of the great principles of chemistry and physics. I admit that it is an easy and not too embarrassing way of avoiding a definite measure; however, the public does not benefit very much from such statements of principle.
I therefore urge the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) as well as the government to give some throught to the average citizen who so urgently needs hospital insurance, and to take action to put such a plan in operation as soon as possible.
(Text):


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, it seemed to me a paradox when I heard the former minister of health get up in the house last night and, with almost impassioned oratory, cry out that the hospital insurance plan should be instituted without delay.
However, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) at least realizes that, today, all emergency cases at least in the province of Ontario, and I would say across Canada, are admitted to hospital. No one can be denied hospital care under the public health acts of the various provinces. A great number of people, the majority of people, are covered at the present time by one plan or another of hospital insurance.
Naturally my hon. friends across the floor should realize that the crying need across Canada today is for hospital beds; many people have to wait a week to six weeks or even more to get admission; many of these cases require surgery, some have conditions that worsen as time goes on, and for many who suffer malignancy, which accounts for one in eight of all deaths, delay in admission to hospital may make the difference between recovering or receiving treatment too late.
I was interested to check up on the waiting list of one group of practitioners, and I found that of those waiting for admission
[Mr. Brassard.)
for surgery or medical care over 70 per cent were fully covered in respect of the necessary treatment. Some of them would likely have to take rooms and services less costly than those they were paying for, because of their inability to get the service for which they were paying. The great majority of patients on these waiting lists have been waiting a month or more for admission because there were no hospital beds available to accommodate them.
This then, is the plight of the Canadian people and of the doctors who are looking after them. We need more hospital beds, which means more ward beds, more semiprivate rooms and more private rooms.
Mr. Speaker, I think you will agree with me that it has been borne out by experience that under any general comprehensive insurance scheme there will be a sharp increase in the number of beds required as soon as a hospital plan becomes effective. No one will deny this. Where will these beds come from? In my opinion, for the proper care of the sick today we need a realistic building plan which will lead to the provision of the necessary hospitals together with beds and equipment, to meet this problem. The municipalities today find themselves in no position whatever to finance such an undertaking because over the years more and more money has been taken from them by both levels of government.
We also need more out-patient diagnostic services to save hospital beds for people who are really ill. In other words, we need to curtail our admissions to hospitals in the case of those who with proper facilities could be treated as out-patients. Free diagnostic outpatient services would be of prime importance in treating diseases in incipiency, and in protecting patients from morbidity, long hospitalization or even, perhaps, mortality. This has been well recognized by our governments, as shown by the provision across the country of travelling health clinics which provide X-ray examinations free of charge.
I am concerned about costs. As I understand it, I regard Premier Frost's original ideas on hospitalization as being very sound, when he included those who for health reasons could not purchase any plan and those older people who did not have the wherewithal to pay for one. I think this plan would have been a good staircase on which to build, step by step, a full plan. But this, I think, was refused by the previous Liberal government on the grounds that it must be all or nothing.
Costs are an important factor in any plan. Roughly, as I understand it, the cost of hospitalization would be covered by payment of

one-third from the insured, one-third from the federal government and one-third from the provinces. In the records of most provinces which I have been able to check, hospital costs have been doubling about every eight years. The economy has been advancing at the rate of about 35 per cent over the same period of time. Even in Saskatchewan, where they have a health plan which is quoted as one of the most successful, costs have doubled in less than eight years.
Let me say this. Hospital beds must be provided, and must be provided at the federal and provincial levels because of the inability of the municipal taxpayer to accept any more on his already over-taxed shoulders. This fact must be recognized. All this must be added to our consideration of any hospitalization plan, because beds are the first necessity and must be available before any plan can be successfully carried out. I realize that grants are now being made, but these are totally inadequate to supply those beds.
Therefore, in conclusion let me say that anyone who feels that all this can be done in a few months or in a few days is not facing the facts, and I doubt very much if those beds can even be provided as early as the date the premier of Ontario has set. Provision of these facilities must be an integral part of all discussions, and it must be agreed on by federal and provincial governments before any plan of health insurance can be effective.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there is little I can add to the discussion which has taken place during the last two days on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). It is well to recall the wording of that amendment, which is to the following effect, namely:
this house is of the opinion that the government should consider the advisability of taking immediately whatever steps are necessary so that federal payments under the provisions of the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act will be available without delay to any provinces with hospital insurance plans in operation, as a further step toward the achievement-
And so on. Now, sir, I think it is perfectly clear that this amendment was moved, not with the purpose in mind of achieving that which has already been achieved by the legislation placed on the statute books at the last session of parliament and accepted by hon. members in all parts of the house but that it has as its purpose placing the party represented by the hon. gentleman in the position of having brought about that which was achieved at the last session of parliament, namely the provision of a national hospitalization plan.
Health Insurance
The law is on the statute books. It was the Conservative party, through the action of the premier of Ontario, which forced upon the government of the day the inclusion of discussion on the subject of hospital insurance, which brought about the legislation at the last session of parliament. There is no question about that. My friend the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) recently made a radio speech and also sent an epistle to his constituents both of which were designed to leave the impression that the party represented by him had a monopoly on social legislation.


Pierre Gauthier: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I go back to 1935 and
point out that it was the government of Mr. Bennett which brought in unemployment insurance, that it was the government of Mr. Bennett which brought in labour legislation to provide for holidays, minimum wages and the like,-


Pierre Gauthier: Twenty cents a
day.


John George Diefenbaker: -and that it was the party now sitting in opposition that having achieved power, through the instrumentality of the courts,-


Pierre Gauthier: That is out of order.


John George Diefenbaker: -and with the assistance of eminent counsel representing the government of Mr. King was able to establish that that legislation was beyond the legislative competence of parliament.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: That was the position of those sitting in opposition in 1935 and 1936. The law is on the statute books today providing for the setting up of hospital insurance and it is the worst kind of red herring and political opportunism that my hon. friend introduces an amendment such as has been placed before this house. The minister last evening stated clearly and unequivocally, as it had been stated over and over again, that this government is committed at the earliest possible date and in co-operation with the provinces to bring this legislation into effect and thereby provide something that every political party in this country has supported. I think it is only proper and fitting to point out that in the few weeks parliament has sat this government has shown its interest in human betterment and its belief that there is a necessity to maintain a high standard of social security in this country in the increases provided for old age pensions and blind and disability payments. This was action taken on the part of the government to assure

Health Insurance
that the policies which it recommended in opposition would be carried into effect. I go farther than that in connection with social security and say this. After all, hospital insurance is within the ambit of this matter and we in this government and party intend at the earliest possible date, in addition to the present pension systems, to give full consideration to investigating the insurance system in the United States to the end that we will bring about in Canada a rounded and effective contributory social security system over and above that which already exists.
What stand are we going to take in regard to hospital insurance? At the dominion-provincial conference this coming week we shall place before the various premiers of the provinces the opportunity to present their viewpoints, their desires and their wishes rather than to follow the course of the former government of appearing before that conference and in a cut and dried manner saying. "Take it or leave it". That is not the intention of this government. We intend to permit, indeed to encourage the discussion of any matter connected with the fiscal policies of this country which in the spirit of confederation will bring about something of a new relationship as between the federal government and the provincial governments, and as far as hospital insurance is concerned every opportunity will be given for a discussion of this matter.
Then following the considerations of this conference decisions will be made as to those changes which inevitably will have to take place if, in a spirit of co-operation, the discussions take place and opinions are given on the part of the various provinces. We are going to give the province an opportunity to provide their best counsel and advice to the end that something of the spirit of confederation will be restored to this country, a quality that has been lacking during the last several years when the federal government approached the provinces in a spirit of dictation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: As far as hospital insurance is concerned, after hearing from the various provinces-those that have already consented to join the scheme-we shall bring before parliament either at this or the next session such changes, if changes are to be made, as will to the greatest possible degree implement the legislation and indeed bring it into effect at the earliest possible date.
This brings me to discuss this session because the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent) did so. I was thoroughly in agreement with the viewpoint he expressed that to a major extent this session is a continuation of the one before the election and that the major responsibility of this session is to

consider those matters of an emergency kind and nature but in particular to deal with those estimates which were not dealt with prior to the election. As the right hon. gentleman has said-and I think the words might be taken to heart by some of those who are potential leaders of the party represented today by that venerable gentleman-


Leonard T. Stick: We will take care of that.


John George Diefenbaker: -as his words appear at page 1233 of Hansard of November 18:
We realize that this is not an ordinary session for which the rules were intended to have ordinary application.
Then he went on to say:
The year for which these estimates have been prepared is well advanced and at a not too distant date we will be reaching the time when consideration will have to be given to the submission of estimates for the following year. I do not think it has ever been the experience of parliament to have two successive years' estimates under consideration at the same time.
In other words the major responsibility of this session is to implement those matters of an emergency nature as well as to pass the estimates that to a major extent have been expended and were even expended in large portion before this party came into power. The right hon. gentleman has adopted an attitude of reason but it does not represent the attitude of those associated with him. The debate thus far has indicated-and I take it that my friend the hon. member for Essex East speaks for the party of which he is a member-a most interesting paradox: the opposition party, a party that barks but does not bite.


Leonard T. Stick: We will bite you when we are ready to bite you.


John George Diefenbaker: A party that in its pride-


Leonard T. Stick: And it will be a good bite, too.


John George Diefenbaker: A party that in its pride says this government has not the confidence of either the house or the country. They say that out loud and then when the vote comes they silently steal away and vote support for us. What a course! The hon. member for Essex East called it courage in a television speech. He said:
We must plan ahead,-
He was speaking of us but I am applying his philosophy to the party he represents. I continue:
-not timidly but boldly, imaginatively and courageously.
What an example, Mr. Speaker. He says we are wrong. He says the reason they will not move a vote of non-confidence is that it might bring about an election. He says

we are not carrying out our promises. He speaks loudly, sonorously, and he votes so silently. But there is some co-operation between the official opposition and the C.C.F. I think the hon. member for Essex East used some striking words last night. He said, as reported at page 1259 of Hansard:
If this amendment has the faults which I believe it possesses, it nevertheless serves the purpose which I am sure really was in the mind of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, namely to join with the Liberal opposition-
I do not know whether the hon member for Winnipeg North Centre agreed with that co-operation but the hon. member for Essex East said:
-to join with the Liberal opposition in bringing to the attention of the government the importance of doing something about this matter.
What a weird situation, Mr. Speaker! They criticize; they sneer; they scoff, but later tonight they will be voting confidence in us. Why do they follow this strange and tortuous course, Mr. Speaker? Is it frustration? Why is it? Is it mere opportunism at a low level? Everybody knows the answer. They are afraid to vote against us, Mr. Speaker. They whistle in their own graveyard; they fill the record with questions; they make speeches and then, Mr. Speaker, when the chips are down, to use a colloquialism, where will they be found?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Under the table.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: In bed with the Tories.


John George Diefenbaker: I asked the question and I stopped to give my hon. friends the opportunity to say they are going to do that which nobody expects they will.
What about my friends of the C.C.F.? They are courageous; they take a stand because they have already heard from the Leader of the Opposition that the Liberal party is not going to vote non-confidence in the government so they are in a position to speak valiantly and criticize fearlessly because they know there is no risk. Mr. Speaker, what a parliament it is-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are
you sure of your own members?


Pierre Gauthier: Seals in training.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the reason for it, then? I think the person who let the cat out of the bag is the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Schulz). He said he believed that we were going to carry out hospital insurance absolutely.


Paul Joseph James Martin: One day.
Health Insurance


John George Diefenbaker: What they are trying to do, Mr. Speaker, is to endeavour to pretend later on that it was this non-confidence motion that forced the government to act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the Prime Minister permit a question?


John George Diefenbaker: I did not bother my hon. friend; I let him proceed and I want to refer now to what I think is the confidence of political wisdom on the part of my hon. friend. He knows very well-at least one of those sitting with him knows very well -that the government intends to proceed, as the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) said yesterday and a few days ago, and bring in health insurance at the earliest possible date.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When?


John George Diefenbaker: And that does not mean anything like what the Liberal party meant in 1919 when they said they were in favour of health insurance. Mr. Speaker, that at least gave us some indication of the meaning of eternity.
Why does the Liberal opposition take that stand? I have a great admiration for the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill). He has had a wide experience. It remained for him, though, to produce the greatest excuse of all for this tortuous course. Do you know what he said? Well, he said the NATO meeting was going to take place in December and there was some difficulty on the railroads. Here it is, as reported at page 1252 of Hansard:
The incidental damage I was thinking of-
That is the damage in moving an amendment which you support. I continue:
-the incidental damage I was thinking of would be having no effective government at a time when this great NATO meeting is going to be held; at a time when things look rather dark.
He was not speaking about political matters in his own party; he was speaking about the international situation. He continued:
I was thinking also of the possibility of being in the midst of an election at a time when, as we know, there is a very serious matter in dispute between the railways and their employees.
The matter in dispute was in dispute at the time of the last general election. There was a commission sitting at that time. He continued:
It seems to me, sir, that this is not a time to be talking frivolously about defeating governments and about having elections.
As far as this government is concerned, we intend to carry out the fundamental promises that we made.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Fundamental.

Health Insurance


John George Diefenbaker: We have already proceeded in that direction. It is a sorry picture when those in the official opposition who sat here on the government side less than six months ago do not carry out the suggestions of the leader whom they follow. Indeed the diversity of the tactics of the Liberal and C.C.F. parties gives some indication of how hopeless it is for the House of Commons to carry out its functions with the present unhealthy lack of a working majority on the part of the government.
My hon. friends opposite preach co-operation. Read their speeches in the house. Read their speeches outside the house. There is one thing about which these two parties are unified. They follow different tactics but they achieve the same end. The official opposition are afraid to move a vote of nonconfidence. They are afraid to vote according to their voices. The C.C.F. pretend they are not afraid because they rely on the fact that the Liberal party is afraid. Yes, Mr. Speaker, they achieve the same end, a double standard in public affairs.
It is a looking both ways policy. The Liberals look to the C.C.F. to carry the ball for them and move amendments. They criticize but they dare not vote. The C.C.F. look to the Liberal party to assure that the government will be sustained against the criticism of both.
There, Mr. Speaker, is the situation today. I believe that the Canadian people appreciate the degree to which the government is carrying out its promises and endeavouring to discharge its responsibilities in a way that will meet the high responsibility that is ours. We are going to do that. There are further matters of legislation to be brought before this session which I believe will be of benefit equal to those already placed before the house. I am looking forward to the vote not with keen anticipation, and I say this more in sorrow than in criticism-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Don't cry.


John George Diefenbaker: They interrupt, Mr. Speaker, they condemn, but to use the abiding words of the hon. member for Essex East in his radio speech-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Television.


John George Diefenbaker: -they talk like lions, they will vote as lambs.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before the Prime Minister sits down, would he answer a question? Will he tell the house by what date he anticipates that federal payments under the Hospital Insurance and
[Mr. Pearson.)
Diagnostic Services Act will be made available to any of the provinces?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: It is a perfectly proper question. I intend to discuss this matter fully with the premiers of the provinces which have accepted and not desiring to anticipate what their decision will be, if it is reasonably unanimous it will bring about hospital insurance at a far earlier date than has been anticipated.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the Prime Minister permit another question? In view of his objection on April 10 of this year to the veto in the present legislation, that is the requirement that six provinces sign agreements, why does he in what he said just now require unanimity among six provincial premiers before he will decide when payments are to be made?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that is in keeping with the argument that was advanced the other day by the hon. gentleman. At no time has there been any suggestion to the effect that he has now suggested. When we meet on Monday and Tuesday next, this and other matters will be discussed with the provinces to the end that in co-operation a determination will be made to bring about hospital insurance at the very earliest possible date. The hon. gentleman can read into that statement exactly what I have in mind to place before the conference, but before placing it before the conference and having the view of the provinces I do not intend to go further at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about the rights and the supremacy of parliament?


Walter Adam Tucker: May I ask the Prime Minister a question? Is he not pleased that we are ready to vote to keep him in office to carry out his promises?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that is not the purpose they have in mind.


An hon. Member:: No answer as usual.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.

William Hector McMillan: 
would save hydro users in Ontario millions of dollars and would tend to reduce hydro rates for all our people in that province.
Over the last few years hydro rates have gone up very substantially, and I find in Ontario that people are very conscious of the increase in these rates. After all, this suggestion would not cost the dominion government anything, because, as the Prime Minister said, this money would be loaned at cost plus i of 1 per cent for handling charges. I feel that the premier of Ontario will be out to help the people of Ontario with regard to the carrying charges on their hydro debt, and to give Ontario anything less would be discrimination against the people of Ontario. I am not registering an objection because the people of New Brunswick will be getting this money for the Beechwood project, but I do think that unless this principle is extended to people in other provinces, it is certainly discrimination.
This may be outside the scope of this particular discussion, but I do not see why, in extending this principle, the provinces should not advance money to the municipalities in much the same way. I think the municipalities would get much cheaper money if this were done, and would be able to finance their education, highway and other programs much more easily. Certainly, in Ontario at least, we have a municipal board, and before any debentures are issued the municipal board looks over the capital expenditure proposed. In educational expenditures, at least, the province could withhold its educational grant against any debt which a municipality incurred under such a scheme.
(Translation);



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION- PROTEST AGAINST &quot;THE PLOUFFE FAMILY&quot; PROGRAM

Mr. Raoul Poulin (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the rules of the house are such that they provide me with this opportunity of stating a grievance and of voicing a complaint which has been made to me by a large number of people-of the very best people- of the constituency I represent. This grievance has to do with a television program carried over the French network of the C.B.C. under the title La Famille Plouffe (The Plouffe Family).
I wish to go on record as being in favour of state control of radio and television. The control we have in this country is far from perfect. Being a human institution, the C.B.C. certainly deserves the severe criticism we have to level at it on a number of scores. Yet how much worse things could be if the

only guarantees we enjoyed in this regard were provided by a syndicate of private interests actuated by no other motive than making money.
In spite of its failings, its mistakes, its slowness in getting things done or in reacting, its sins of omission or commission, the C.B.C. has nevertheless, on occasion, given evidence of its good faith. It is precisely because I believe in the good faith of the officials of that organization, then, that I would like to lay before the house a very unfortunate situation which they will no doubt set about to correct. Moreover, any sustained and persevering effort on the part of the Canadian taxpayer would make it possible to bring about the improvement and even the disappearance of certain programs which, in their present form, are far from being acceptable. Among these is La Famille Plouffe. What is the explanation for the fact that a writer who is not devoid of talent, and actors who should show some respect for their public, lend themselves to the presentation of scenes which are so definitely improper, off-colour, slanted and at times immoral and degrading.
I am no prude. I do not believe in going about this world of men with my eyes shut. I know that evil exists, that it has always existed ever since the unfortunate lapse of Adam and Eve, and that we are all exposed to it. But is that sufficient reason to display evil for all to see, to give it the appearance of acceptable and even commendable behaviour, and often to surround it with enticing artifice which tends to allay or dispel the natural repulsion it should induce? Anyone who has the responsibility of raising a family and who takes this duty seriously, will sometimes wonder what attitude to take towards his children when such scenes come into the home, almost forcibly, and violate its privacy. For want of a better explanation, teen-agers can be told that the TV set should remain off at those hours-I would call them tragic hours-or some attempt can be made to make them understand the impropriety and the utter stupidity of certain scenes. But what can you say to children of six, eight or perhaps ten? How can you reason with them? How can you explain those scenes to them? How can you let them play with fire and pretend they do not risk getting burned?
Therefore, as taxpayer and head of a family, and for the sake of moral rights and education, I must protest against the bad taste and insanity of certain episodes of that program: the trip to Florida, the paternal benediction, the visit to hell, the flagpole sitting, the sunbathing on the roof, all of them scenes in which the censor could have made wholesale cuts.
C.B.C.-Program "The Plouffe Family"
As member for Beauce county, however, I have another protest to make here. In the same program, impudence is carried to the point of trying to make the population believe that the flightiness and the vulgar manners of a certain character are representative of the degree of education and the behaviour of the population of one of the most beautiful counties of the province of Quebec. This disgusting type of propaganda has reached such proportions that a large American magazine, in its issue of November 4, felt it should give publicity to that character's reputation and thus give colour to an inaccurate and altogether unfair representation of the lives of the people whom I am very proud to represent in my country's parliament.
Let Mr. Lemelin, the author, and Uncle Gedeon, the actor, labour under no delusion. In Beauce county, in the province of Quebec, we have kept the fine tradition of the paternal blessing on New Year's day and, for my part, I am proud to continue that sacred tradition in my own home, but that benediction is not given in the stable, among the cows. There are some people from Beauce who, no doubt, go to Florida during the winter but it is no lustful junket requiring personal priming up with pep pills. In Beauce county, people still believe in the dogma of hell, and still have enough faith to pray God that those who deride us on television be spared from hell-fire. In Beauce county, as elsewhere, but not more than elsewhere, immorality sometimes makes unfortunate victims, but even they have enough sense of decency to try to hide instead of lying in full view on the roof or verandahs.
No, let Uncle Gedeon go astray, as he himself claims to be doing, on TV or elsewhere in Montreal, but let him take care that, in doing so, he does not go to the dogs for good. Let him keep on spitting on the floor, and puff on his big curved pipe as he talks to the womenfolk, with his hat pulled down over his ears, and do it all, I must say, with amazing naturalness; he can let or induce Time magazine to write, and I quote:
Impersonating a farmer from backwoods Beauce county, he has become Quebec's top nightclub and TV star.
At least I hope he will not have the public believe that the scenes he is interpreting and the degree of education he displays faithfully portray the way of life in the wonderful homes, and worthy population of the constituency of Beauce. And it is as a representative of Beauce that I wish to protest tonight with all the vigour I can muster.

Unemployment
Let the C.B.C. put a stop to these sordid, false and monstrous displays.
If Uncle Gedeon were a genuine native of Beauce, if he actually had spent the main part of his life in that riding, instead of just happening to live for a few years in a nearby parish, he would have learned to know us as we are, and would realize that the part he plays in that program is a travesty of truth and an insult to our people. He would also know by now that our good housewives, our good mothers of Beauce county do not leave rags that have become useless lying around the house, but just throw them into the fire.
Let the C.B.C. do likewise! If it is possible to correct the gross errors of this program,- which otherwise contains much that is good, -it should be done, so that something new and clean, genuine and honest may be shown.
If that cannot be done, let the program be scrapped, and the sooner the better.
(Text):



LABOUR CONDITIONS


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the subject that I wish to introduce at this time this evening was not cleared with the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker). In his public statements, particularly the one made at the great convention of the Conservative party in Ontario, the Prime Minister said that for members of parliament to speak about unemployment is to lead the country into a fear complex that could lead to a depression. If the country is being led into a fear complex it is because the Conservative party is in power and we have no responsibility for bringing that about. One statement made by the Prime Minister has appeared in almost all of the papers in identical words. I believe this came from the Gazette. The Prime Minister said:
We do Canada no good, the free world no good, in conveying a false impression which might have the effect of panicking the Canadian people into a depression.
He continued:
There are no words to express what I think of those who, for political purposes, endeavour to talk the Canadian people into a complex that might bring about the realization of their fears.
I am sure that all of us are quite aware of the fact that the Prime Minister is never short of words, and if he has words to describe that situation I wonder why he did not use them in the spring of 1954 when the

Conservative party vied with the C.C.F. party for the opportunity to move an amendment deploring the fact that the then Liberal government were not taking steps to alleviate a serious unemployment situation. This was in the spring of the year when the unemployment situation was becoming less apparent and work was becoming available. As I have said, they did vie with the C.C.F. party and the Conservative party was able to get the floor ahead of the C.C.F. and the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fair-clough) moved an amendment. This amendment was discussed for about a week and during the course of the discussion the Prime Minister spoke for his full 40 minutes. If anyone was attempting to create a fear complex it was the Prime Minister who was then the hon. member for Prince Albert. But what a change in concept; what a change has taken place in his thinking since that time.
After speaking, as I have said, for about 40 minutes, this is the way the Prime Minister wound up his speech. He was endeavouring to get the then prime minister to express the opinion that there was a very serious unemployment situation in Canada. He kept prodding; he took every conceivable method to try to get the government of the day to indicate that there was a very serious unemployment situation. I quote from Hansard of March 15, 1955, at page 2039, where the present Prime Minister, obviously speaking to the then prime minister, said:
Will he not state that he realizes that if we continue to deliberately delude ourselves concerning the unemployment situation we shall bring about a fear complex in this country which will have serious results in the future?
If that is not a direct and absolute reversal of thinking for his own political purposes I should like to know what it is? I have heard the term "Honest John" used rather loosely over there. I do not think we should hear that too often again. What did he offer in the way of a solution to the problem? It was rather nebulous, but here is one rather important suggestion.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What is the grievance?


Mr. Proudfooi:: Unemployment.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Does the hon. gentleman not consider the fact that there are 300,000 unemployed today and that we are facing the possibility of having some 700,000 to 800,000 unemployed this winter, with the government obviously not taking any action whatever, a serious situation?


Douglas Scott Harkness: One would never know what your grievance was until this moment.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Whether or not the minister calls it a grievance is for him to decide.


Mr. Maloney:: Did the hon. member express it as a grievance in 1954?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: With the hon. member
mumbling in his beard it is difficult to know what he is saying. This is the remedy the then hon. member for Prince Albert had at that time:
Professor J. K. Galbraith, professor of economics at Harvard, advocated reductions in personal income tax as a means of restoring a weakened economy. I believe that there must be a reduction in taxation. Today, company taxation is placing too great a load on initiative and in addition is taxing Canada out of the markets of the world.
The throne speech says that there is to be a tax reduction. We hope it will be brought in soon and that it will have the desired effect that the Prime Minister hopes for. Of course, the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) also had some suggestions at that time. Perhaps he went a little bit farther than did his colleague. I quote from Hansard of January 14, 1955. By the way, this was not in the same debate but it is quite obvious from this quotation that the then members of the opposition spent much of that session spreading fear and gloom. He said, as reported at page 218 of Hansard:
I believe the government would do well to study the program about to be undertaken by the government of the United States.
He suggested that we undertake a large road-building program and went on to say:
I am not suggesting for one moment that the government should embark upon a highway-building program.
He did suggest that the government should advance large sums of money to the provinces to carry on such a program. Then, he went further and said:
The government should also provide employment for many thousands of Canadians for several years ahead by making it possible for more people to buy new houses.
He had another good suggestion with respect to the purchase of new homes. He thought that the amount of the down payment should be reduced from 15 per cent to 10 per cent. That is certainly a remarkable suggestion and the minister is in a position where he can make the recommendation. He had some further recommendations. As a matter of fact, there was no end to his recommendations to the government as to what could be done to alleviate the unemployment situation.
Unemployment
But it was not only the members of the Liberal party who began to note that a serious unemployment situation was developing. Innumerable representations have been made to us and every day the newpapers are indicating what the situation is. Unemployment insurance commission officials apparently have discussed the matter with certain officials of the Canadian Congress of Labour. In that regard I should like to refer to a report in the Toronto Star of October 18. It refers to a Mr. Gargrave who, I hesitate to say, is a member of the political education committee of the steelworkers' union, I believe. Apparently he had a discussion with unemployment insurance commission officials and they indicated to him that unemployment may reach as high as 900,000 this year.
I have a letter here from the construction and general labourers union of Vancouver,
B.	C., dated October 15, 1957, the day after the house opened. The letter is signed by
C.	H. Savage, secretary-treasurer, and reads in part as follows:
We would therefore request you to put the unemployment situation on your agenda for a thorough discussion as soon as parliament opens. May we say that our officers are besieged daily by men in search of employment-*
Should we not have met the wishes of this construction union? Should we have gone to the Prime Minister in confidence and whispered to him very carefully that there is a serious unemployment situation in British Columbia? Some of the British Columbia papers are becoming quite concerned about the attitude of the government with regard to the unemployment situation. They are urging that the government face up to the situation rather than try to sweep it under the rug.
British Columbia may be particularly hard hit. As to that, I do not know. I do know that the revenues of the province from the forest industry have dropped by 30 per cent. One-third of the revenues of the province come from the forest industry. It has been hinted by some columnists writing in British Columbia newspapers, men who are very close to the government at Victoria, that there is a possibility of an increase in the sales tax in order that the government may carry on. That would be disastrous because our industries are already hard hit by a 5 per cent sales tax and other general taxes which are having the effect of driving industries out of the province.
We hope that some action will be taken soon to alleviate the situation. It was pointed out the other day that some 1,400 men have been laid off at Kitimat. There is also the danger of the Britannia mine closing down which will put approximately 800 more men out of work. Then there is the construction

Unemployment
industry which has already explained its position and the forest industry where there is approximately a 30 per cent reduction. These are very serious facts which have to be faced and I see no other way to deal with the matter. Simply to attempt to make it appear that there is no serious problem is not to face up to the facts at all.
We face another problem which may have an even more serious effect on the mining industry of British Columbia. Over the last few days it has been pointed out that the copper mines are in a very serious predicament. If the United States should go ahead with its proposal to impose a higher tariff on lead and zinc our mining industry will be almost wiped out. Something must be done in that regard. The government will have to take a stronger and firmer position with the United States authorities to make sure that nothing will be done that will put us in the position of having to try to export lead and zinc to the United States market in the face of a tariff rate that will be prohibitive.
While no action was taken by the last congress, it is quite obvious that strong forces are at work, and I believe that only today hearings began again in the United States and the lead and zinc producers of that country will be coming forward with very strong arguments. There is every danger that before long, probably by the first of the year, higher tariffs will be imposed unless the federal government takes very strong action to prevent it.
Since there is no further stockpiling in the United States it is obvious that necessarily there will have to be some curtailments of production, but the United States economy requires large amounts of imports from other countries, particularly from Canada. It is realized by Canadian producers that they will have to reduce the amount of their production and, so far as lead and zinc are concerned, the very large company with which I am more familiar has reduced its tonnage by some 20,000 tons over the past few months. They are playing their part.
It is up to the government to face up to these issues and do what they consider necessary. If necessary, they should continue this session on into the new year, but let us have something done that will provide for the unemployed by putting them to work. Then, too, let us hear that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) is going to do something about increasing the benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act for those who will have to maintain their families during this winter on the meagre amount that is allotted.


Mr. T. S. Barneit (Comox-Alberni):: Actually, Mr. Speaker, I am a little bit hazy as to just what subject matter the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) raised. However, I believe what I wish to say is related, at least in part, to the matter he raised. I took it that he started his grievance from the point of objecting to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) suggesting that we in this house were somehow doing a disfavour to the Canadian people if we attempted to bring before the house a true report of the conditions existing in the parts of Canada from which we come, in respect to unemployment or other related matters. Certainly, on that point I find myself in agreement with the hon. member for Kootenay East.
I noticed that he started out by suggesting that the Prime Minister had taken a different view when he was in opposition. I am not particularly concerned about that quarrel between the hon. member for Kootenay East and the Prime Minister, now that the hon. member for Kootenay East finds himself on the opposite side of the house. However, I certainly consider that it was a little improper for the Prime Minister, when no more had been said than has been said in this house about some of the symptoms of unemployment that are arising in this country, to make the suggestion that we should, in effect, "pipe down" and not report to the house conditions as we find them.
In my own constituency, for example, I know that one of the large logging and forest products companies recently announced the closure of seven of its logging camps. I know that there are several hundred plywood workers in British Columbia who have recently been laid off because of a lack of orders for plywood products. Actually I do not know whether or not the hon. member for Kootenay East would agree with me, but I believe the real grievance we have to bring forward is a grievance on behalf of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr). So far as I can see this government is doing exactly what the previous administration did. They are putting the Minister of Labour out on a limb by expecting him to shoulder the whole burden of dealing with the various questions that relate to unemployment as they arise from time to time. I would suggest, therefore, that the Minister of Labour is really the person who has the legitimate grievance in this connection. I realize that being a member of the government he cannot speak for himself in this connection in the house, so I am sure he will appreciate it if one or two of the members on this side speak for him.

We understand, of course, that within his own jurisdiction the Minister of Labour does have the authority to introduce amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. Several of us have suggested that this might be an appropriate time for him to do so. We realize that under the unemployment insurance commission comes the operation of the national employment service. I, for one, have already expressed some dissatisfaction over the fact that apparently all the Minister of Labour has done in connection with the national employment service is to issue some sort of a directive. He has been very hazy to date as to what results may have been achieved as a result of the issuance of this directive. I would suggest that if the operation of the national employment service is going to be more effective in this country than it has been in the past it requires much more than a directive. For one thing, there will have to be a great deal more use made of it by many of the large employers in this country than has been the case up until now.
There has been, I feel, a tendency on the part of many of these large employers to go to the national employment service when they are seeking workers with certain specialized skills. The practice throughout Canada as a whole, which I feel is all too prevalent, is for many of these employers to pick up their new employees from the line at the plant gate whenever they have an opportunity of doing that in periods of slack employment.
I would suggest that this matter of unemployment, when it arises, is really one for the concern and attention of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), as well as the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill), and that it is not altogether fair for people like the Minister of Finance to leave the Minister of Labour on his own to cope with unemployment problems. As the hon. member for Kootenay East was speaking, I recalled that when we were engaged in the debate on the last budget introduced in this house some of the problems which are coming to the fore today were brought out in discussion by some of the members. I said something in that connection myself at that time.
When one recognizes, as those of us who come from British Columbia do, that this winter is going to be a rather gloomy one for a good many of our constituents who are not going to be able to find work, we cannot but recall that during the last budget debate a great deal of the discussion centred around the inflationary pressures on the economy and upon the tremendous construction boom. So far as I am concerned, the situation that now is developing in the province of British
Unemployment
Columbia, according to all reports, is something for which the provincial administration has to take a great deal of the responsibility. During the budget debate I made some reference to the last budget speech in the provincial legislature by the minister of finance, Mr. Bennett. I had this to say, as recorded on page 2580 of Hansard for March 21, 1957:
As far as he can see,-
That is Mr. Bennett.

the only solution seems to be to go on spending and spending in the field of capital construction without giving any thought to what may happen if that capital spending should stop.
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we are now beginning to see what some of the results are in the economy of British Columbia when the period arrives when this extremely rapid capital expenditure begins to slow down. I went on to say this:
When he talks about industry adjusting from time to time and taking the steps necessary for the consolidation of gains, the only meaning I can take from that is that sooner or later industry is going to stop this rapid expansion of plant and equipment.
Once that is done, then some of these thousands of people who have been attracted to our province may not be such welcome citizens as they are at the present time.
I made those remarks on March 21 of this year and they will be found at page 2580 of Hansard of that day. That is not very long ago. Yet already, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that some of the possibilities that I suggested then are coming to pass within our province. It should be of real concern to the members of this house that this is taking place. Undoubtedly and quite legitimately it should be brought to the attention of the government at this time.
The major industry in the Comox-Alberni area is, of course, the forest products industry. In that speech to which I have made reference I had something to say about conditions in the lumber industry. I pointed out that the great lumber corporations of the Pacific coast had over a period of years been able to make tremendous profits, a large part of which they had been plowing back into an expansion of the industry and into production facilities. In this connection I said on March 21:
Sooner or later this program of rapid capital expansion will have to come to an end, and when that happens, particularly if it should be that the existing market has temporarily or permanently declined, then our province is going to be in a very grave situation, and many thousands of workers who have been working at what, compared with the national average, are quite good wages, are no longer going to have that sort of job.
Mr. Speaker, I think that enough may have been said in the house, and certainly enough

Unemployment
press reports are appearing to demonstrate that the fears, if you want to call them that, which I expressed last March are actually becoming the realities of the situation as it currently exists in the province of British Columbia. In that speech I also suggested the possibility that a time would come when we would have built more pulp mills than necessary having regard to the amount of pulp we could sell and that when that situation developed we were going to have these various concerns competing for a larger share of an existing market or a contracting market, a situation which would result in instability of employment and in some of the lay-offs that in point of fact we are now experiencing in the province of British Columbia.
I think it is and would be ill-advised action on the part of anyone having the responsibility of government or of anyone supporting the government to suggest that when a member of parliament rises in his place and attempts to draw this situation to the attention of the house he is thereby being an alarmist, or is crying "blue ruin" or that by so doing he is aggravating the situation. As the hon. member for Kootenay East suggested, the Prime Minister on former occasions put into words the idea that if we do not rise in our places here and speak the facts we are deluding ourselves and are doing a disservice to the Canadian people. What else are we here for, Mr. Speaker, than to bring to the attention of the government, which has at any particular time the responsibility of looking after the welfare of this country, the facts of the situation as we see them?
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, as I said previously, I really feel that in rising to speak on the grievance raised by the hon. member for Kootenay East in this context I am really speaking on behalf of the Minister of Labour to his colleagues in the cabinet and asking them not to leave him out on a limb to cope single-handed with the solution of some of the problems that obviously are not entirely within his jurisdiction.


Mr. F. C. Christian (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I have a grievance and it is related to this question of unemployment. We are well aware of the fact that one of the first immediate things that was done by the government was to see to it that $150 million was provided for the purpose of constructing low-price homes. At the present time approximately $130 million of that sum of money has been allocated for that purpose and the government has intimated that when further moneys are required they will be made available. That particular effort on the part of the government was commendable and no

doubt as time goes on a great deal of additional money will be required.
At the present time we are fully aware of the fact that there are in this country about 250,000 unemployed people. Various estimates are given and it is suggested that the number of those unemployed could rise to half a million or three quarters of a million this winter. In our own province of British Columbia the number of unemployed persons has doubled as compared to the number one year ago. That situation today applies in the Okanagan Boundary area from which I come where we have a number of industries such as mining, logging, ranching, fruit growing and others and where people at this particular time of the year are faced with the problem of seasonal unemployment.
I have heard various members of this parliament suggest that the government should face up to this situation. I suggest that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) has a very difficult problem in this matter of unemployment and that if we, as members of parliament, can make suggestions to him, so much the better. However, thus far, after sitting in this house during the last five weeks, I have heard hardly any suggestions made for the purpose of minimizing the problems of the Minister of Labour. I should like to suggest that the federal government initiate an all-Canada work project.
At the present time the situation is favourable for that project because I believe that on November 25 and November 26 of this year there is to be a meeting between the various officials of the federal government and the premiers of the various provinces of Canada. I am more particularly concerned at the present time with those men in our country who are in destitute circumstances. What is going to be done in the next six months, twelve months or eighteen months to help those men who, through no fault of their own, cannot find employment? As you know, Mr. Speaker, unemployment is not a good thing for the country. It leads to increased crime. It means a waste of manpower. Not only that, but men who are not working suffer both mentally and physically.
I would suggest that the federal government initiate a works project and that men who are in destitute circumstances be given the opportunity to work on roads, to work on parks, to work on bridges and to work wherever they can serve a useful purpose for the country. It might be that when the government gives consideration to this matter it will say that these men who are in destitute circumstances should be paid a sum of money by way of a wage that is slightly in excess of the average amount paid to

people who receive unemployment benefit. That would, indeed, be a great step forward. As the house knows, in times of war and national disaster there is never any trouble about getting money, and in this time of peace, when we have in our midst people who are in poor circumstances financially I think the least we could do is to look after our own citizens and give them employment.


Mr. Ambrose Holowach (Edmonion East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join with my fellow members in the Social Credit party in stressing the urgency of alleviating the serious and growing unemployment situation in Canada. I should also like to point out the necessity of creating conditions in which all these willing and able people in our great country will have ample opportunity of finding gainful employment. The question arises: what does this new government intend to do with respect to this serious situation? It is a basic question, since we have heard no statement from the government with respect to what their plans are, and there is no suggestion in the speech from the throne that they have an answer to this problem.
Across this country unemployment and lay-offs are growing alarmingly. Being broke, hitting the financial bottom, being without work, are situations which confront hundreds of thousands of our people at this very moment. I can understand their feelings of anger; I can sense their feeling of unhappiness as they wait impatiently for some exercise of judgment with respect to solving the difficulties which face them. Unemployment involves more than human tragedies, it involves a very serious loss of production for our country, because unemployment is never isolated, it is felt right across the board of our economic life. So, we repeat: what does this Conservative government intend to do with respect to this very serious situation? Responsible leaders and economists have predicted that this winter may see the greatest number of unemployed in postwar years. To substantiate this claim, I refer to a memorandum to the government of Canada dated October 21, 1957 issued by the Canadian Labour Congress, where on page 6 the following appears:
The economic situation is causing us some anxiety. The August figure of persons without jobs and seeking work was 174,000. This is almost 69 per cent higher than last year. Even allowing for the increase in the total supply of workers available for work, unemployment in August was almost 64 per cent worse than last year. And the position is getting steadily worse. June this year was 31 per cent worse than June 1956; July was almost 55 per cent worse than 1956, August almost 64 per cent. There is every indication that September will be even worse.
Unemployment
The proportion of unemployed to the labour supply in August was still not very high. But August is always one of the lowest months of the year for unemployment. With this big increase in the summer, what will unemployment be like at the peak next March?
From August 1956 to March 1957, the number of persons without jobs and seeking work rose by 240,000. The same absolute increase this year would mean a March 1958 total of 414,000. But we shall be agreeably surprised if the figure is not considerably higher, unless the present trend is arrested or reversed. A very much smaller percentage increase than took place last year would bring the March 1958 figure up to the postwar peak of 9.5 per cent of the total number of workers. This winter may well see the worst unemployment since the war, perhaps as high as 450,000 persons without jobs and seeking work, and 700,000 unplaced applicants at N.E.S. offices.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I hope that those predictions are wrong. Nevertheless, there are several things, historical and economic, which bear repeating because they are true. I want to say this at the outset: I am not critical for the sake of being critical, but I say what I am going to say in order to emphasize the need of correcting this persistent problem seriously. What are the facts? During every session of parliament in the past the question of mass unemployment has been debated and discussed thoroughly. The answer, as presented in the case of the Social Credit party, involves the government's monetary and fiscal policies. By its very nature, unemployment involves monetary considerations. The federal government alone possesses the right of monetary correction. That is why we stand for, and demand, a new financial deal for Canadians.
The former Liberal government kept putting off the solution. Instead of action they adopted the attitude of letting the years bring what they may. Today we are again debating the unemployment situation. We deeply regret that the spokesmen for the new government seem to be meeting that situation in exactly the same manner as the previous administration. The same pattern appears. The only difference, as far as I have been able to see, is that on the one hand the Liberals openly mourn their loss of power, while on the other the new Conservative government has difficulty in constraining itself from showing its jubilation at being in power.
Unless the government announces without delay a new and dynamic monetary policy to meet the problem our suspicion will be confirmed that both the old-line parties have failed to devise policies which will create those conditions which I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, namely conditions in which all our peoples will be able to find gainful employment.
I think it is a very sad commentary on the intelligence of this and previous administrations when we consider that when it comes to war or preparation for war they can use

Unemployment
the techniques of finance to accomplish what is virtually impossible, yet as soon as the emergency is over we find the paradox of poverty in the midst of plenty, the paradox of our people having produced abundance of goods and services and then being unable, through lack of purchasing power, to acquire what they have been able to produce.
I admit that the problem of unemployment is not a simple one and it is equally true that the solution lies not only in increased production but in a greater consumption of our goods both here and abroad. Referring specifically to the domestic field, it is obvious that we need financial policies which will more equitably equate the earning power of our people with the productive capacity of the nation. At the present time our gross national product is well over the $30 billion mark, yet the total of all purchasing power in our country is many billions of dollars less. The claim is made that unemployment is seasonable, that it is unavoidable and normal. That is one of the phony arguments that has been used by the two old line parties as an escape clause because they have not got an answer.


Mr. Baskin:: What is your answer?


Ambrose A. Holowach: I will tell you right away.


James William Baskin: Let us have it.


Mr. Hahn:: You will learn in a while.


Ambrose A. Holowach: Our answer, Mr. Speaker, as I indicated before, is to make sure we reform our economic system and equate the purchasing power of our people with the productive power of this nation. We believe that parliament should have the power to determine a financial policy that will make it-


James William Baskin: What have we got now?


Ambrose A. Holowach: -obligatory for the banking system of this country to monetize the real wealth produced by the people of Canada so that the total income of our people will automatically be sufficient to equal the total market value of their production. That is our answer.


Charles Edward Johnston: What is wrong with that?


James William Baskin: What is right about it?


An hon. Member:: The fact that you smile about it, that is what is wrong with it.


Ambrose A. Holowach: With respect to whether or not unemployment is normal I would say the only thing normal about unemployment in a country such as Canada is that it is a normal consequence of faulty monetary policy condoned by the old line parties.
(Mr. Holowach.]
Let us look at the facts. Across this country homes are desperately needed. We are falling further behind in the job of providing Canadians with decent and low-cost homes. Let us face up to the fact that shortages in housing are causing many crises in family life. Just how stupid can we be? We have the unemployed manpower, the materials and the skills to fulfil the housing needs but under the prevailing tight money policies of the previous Liberal administration as well as the new Conservative government home starts are dropping sharply and layoffs in all fields of the construction industry are on the increase.
Roads and arterial highways are desperately needed across the country. Some 16 years ago we commenced constructing the trans-Canada highway, one single road across the nation and it is still in process of being completed today. How long do we have to wait before we start to build the other highways that are essential to the economy and defence of Canada? On repeated occasions I have drawn the attention of the government to the need of constructing additional trans-Canada highways and in particular a highway that would run from Winnipeg by way of Saskatoon, Edmonton, Jasper park and the Yellowhead route to the west coast. It is about time we did something in that regard.
Right across Canada there is the need of vast national undertakings and projects essential to the national interest which are physically possible and desirable. Let us consider for a moment the backlog of essential public facilities at the junior or municipal level of government. This backlog includes hospitals to restore the health of our people, schools to relieve the shortage of classrooms and sewerage and sanitation projects to meet the requirements of expanding communities. In the light of these needs it is nonsense to suggest that unemployment in Canada is unavoidable or inevitable. In fact the most amazing spectacle in our country today is that of underemployment.
May we ask this question: will this government which prides itself on being a new deal government possess the courage to implement fiscal policies which in their objectives will aim to make financially possible what we know is physically possible and desirable? If we are able to do this Canada can be built into a leading nation within our lifetime. The remedy calls for a full recognition of the role of comsumption in our economic system. If this is so, then we must overhaul our tax structure which has reached excessive and crushing proportions and is destroying

the buying power of the dollar as related to the consumption of goods. The government must also help in meeting the credit and mortgage needs of our people in order that they may acquire homes at reasonable terms. Furthermore, the needs of small and mediumsized businesses must be recognized by reducing the crushing tax load and loan restrictions which face them. These are the shots in the arm which our country needs if we are to expand production and alleviate unemployment.
In this discussion of labour and unemployment problems I feel strongly there is one problem perhaps more worthy of our attention than any other. I have in mind the problem of older people seeking work and the difficulties they encounter in this connection. These difficulties are compounded not only by the barriers that are set up against them in industry but also by the neglect in legislation. Many of these older people are healthy and active but because of their age the opportunity to earn is denied them. Whether business is good or bad no one wants to hire the older worker.	Finding a solution to
this important problem of jobs for older people is a task for parliament, for industry and for the Department of Labour.
As a start I suggest the establishment of a fund and the institution of a program in the Department of Labour to help these people in the meantime by inducing priority in placement and to reduce the barriers erected against this worthy element of our society. I believe that to do this little bit is to do something that would at least give all of us a sense that we are participating in a positive action against manpower wastage as well as	one of special humanitarian
significance.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. A. R. Smith (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I would not have the opposition feel that a member of the government party did not have a grievance with the government.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: We are sure that yours will.


Arthur Smith: What I have to raise is a grievance which I think affects every constituency but perhaps I may apply my particular reference to the area I know best if the house will grant me that liberty. I intend in a very few words to make reference to air regulations and bilateral agreements but not necessarily to air carriers. My grievance is, if I may state it at the beginning, the lack of proper consideration for Canadian landing points which of course are subject to the international bilateral agreements. I do not blame Trans-Canada Air Lines; in fact
Air Transport
I think I might even pay them a compliment to a certain extent. We have heard on a number of occasions in this house severe criticism of Trans-Canada Air Lines and even the question of its proposed sale has been raised, with which view I do not agree. As an active pilot and one who has flown on most airlines on this continent I would say that in so far as aircraft servicing and airline practices are concerned there is no finer airline in the world, bar none.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Arthur Smith: Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I do agree with those who believe that it suffers from a rather sheltered position; and which very seriously affects its public relations.
In a paragraph or two I should like to urge upon the government the necessity of giving consideration to the problem of a number of communities which today are not serviced by any north-south connection and which, by their very nature, as I said initially, is regulated under the bilateral agreement and are influenced by what we regard as the cat-and-mouse game. The fact of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is that if you wish to initiate any possible landing right in one country or another you find that it involves a rather complicated agreement. The situation in Calgary is such-in fact, in the entire western area between Winnipeg and Vancouver- that we are not serviced to our southern cousins by anything other than one milk route. The net result is that a passenger- and there are a great many of them-who uses the south connection, such as it is, is forced to undergo a very lengthy layoff in one of two cities. In fact, it is nearly as fast to go by motor car or mule.
We in Calgary are in this position, and since it is applicable to a number of other centres, I would suggest that consideration be given to inviting the United States to reopen negotiations which admittedly have to date been conducted on a rather horsetrading basis in the past. I suggest that we point out to them that very large metropolitan centres are being denied free access by either Canadian or United States carriers. I am not concerned what carrier it might be purely because we are frightened to sit down around the negotiation table for fear that what we might gain on the one hand we would give away on the other. In the meantime those who are in the less populated areas have not the same influence and they suffer disastrously.
The city of Calgary is an example. It is a metropolitan centre which is naturally

Broadcasting Service
the headquarters of the oil industry. Because of the location of Calgary those personnel who wish to visit United States centres of industrial importance must go through Calgary. We have no airline route which would conceivably get them there directly unless they go into the city of Edmonton and take the northern route, or unless they take the bus in many instances and go to Lethbridge. It is interesting to note that 80 per cent of loadings for U.S. points from Alberta originate in Calgary, yet we have no service south. The net result is we have built up in the city of Calgary one of the biggest centres of private aviation of executive type aircraft that it is possible to have. Unfortunately, many of those people cannot afford this luxury and they have no hope of carrying out their business in an effective manner.
Therefore, my grievance, simply expressed, is this. Let us recognize that we are going to have to re-open the bilateral negotiations soon. Let us say that we are prepared to recognize that many of those areas-and particularly the constituency which I represent-have no service at all. Let us say to the United States that one of two carriers -two in particular in the United States- who are prepared to service Calgary should be permitted to come in unless some Canadian airline is permitted to give the same service. I hope, sir, that the government will consider this as a grievance because the problem is perhaps one of those which, from a convenience standpoint, is certainly most urgent.
(Translation):



REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF BROADCASTING SERVICE

Mr. C. N. Barbes (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I have a grievance to put before the house. With your permission I would like to speak about radio and television service more particularly as it concerns the area which I represent in this house the constituency of Chapleau.
A number of listeners in the Abitibi area have expressed the wish to be provided with certain religious broadcasts such as Sunday mass and morning devotions at 7.30 each morning, through the private stations at La Sarre and Amos.
Radio is a social service which should satisfy the tastes and the needs of the public. As the people of Abitibi are 90 per cent French-speaking and Catholic, it would be well for the C.B.C. to insist that the private stations associated with the government network, such as those of the Radio-Nord Inc.

chain, provide their listeners with a good many additional broadcasts originating with the C.B.C. I make that suggestion also on behalf of listeners who are in poor health, old, crippled, or invalids. I know too that a great many people who have to look after numerous small children are unable to attend mass every Sunday because of the distance they live from the churches.
My request is also justified by section 21 of the Canadian Broadcasting Act (chapter 32 RSC). The broadcasting licences are defined as being a temporary and conditional alienation of an important and precious element of public wealth to the benefit of a group or a company.
The C.B.C. is empowered to set the periods during which a private station must carry network programs. Licence holders, especially those in private networks, who are thereby the sole broadcasters in an isolated area such as ours, have a duty to supply to the whole of their listening public the best programs of the French network.
As regards the radio program called "Morning Devotions", it is so varied and of such high quality that our people would like to enjoy it every day. It must not be replaced by songs or by music sometimes of a dubious if not bad taste. Would you agree, Mr. Speaker, to replace the daily prayer in the house by discussions relating to rock'n roll? Certainly not.
Private radio stations should at all times show themselves worthy of the licence that has been granted to them, and of the privilege of the exclusive use of the air, which is part of public property.
An effective way for the government to encourage a better standard of radio service in a given area consists in supplying that area with the additional service of the C.B.C., thereby giving listeners the opportunity to choose whichever program they prefer.
I favour private enterprise as long as it maintains for the benefit of the public a service always worthy of commendation.
I would like to add a few words, if I may, on a related subject. I assure you that, in the Abitibi area, we have long wanted to view the programs which the French television network has been broadcasting for the past five years in Canada. According to official reports supplied to us, 86 p. 100 of this country is now well covered in this field. We should like to have the same treatment in

the Chapleau constituency. We should like the advantages of French television service because this service would only be normal, I believe, in an area where the population is almost 90 p. 100 French-speaking. It is only fair to ask the government to offer us at least the French programs if it is too difficult to give us the benefit of both networks as is already the case for many other areas.
A private station, CKRN - TV in our neighbouring county of Villeneuve, should soon start its TV operations but will not cover the whole of my area. For that reason, I ask the government to supply us with the services of the national network in Chapleau. At Rouyn, in the county of Villeneuve, CKRN - TV will assign 50 p. 100 of its time to French programs. But this is not enough. What we want is a transmitting station for the benefit of the eastern part of Chapleau, Barraute, to Clova and Parent, an area more than 200 miles long which will not be reached by the Rouyn station.
Everywhere in Canada, the population insists on getting numerous programs of an irreproachable quality. People who know have said that C.B.C. compares favourably with other richer and more extensive networks. Canadians may no doubt be proud of the C.B.C., and it is exactly because we are 125,000 Canadians proud of the progress made by our country that we insist and wish to see, in our own homes, with our own eyes, the gigantic growth of Canada through the medium of radio and television. We need a service of this type for our entertainment but still more, no doubt, for education purposes. We need television, for instance, for all our bush workers and our mine workers who live very far from the cities and have no other means than radio to witness the gigantic growth of our country. We must open a window to children and our fellow citizens so that they may know each other better and have more reason to love Canada, a country of more than 16J millions of citizens who should have closer relations in order to achieve their goal, that is to live in good understanding, from one part of the country to the other.
To reach that goal, Mr. Speaker, it would be as necessary to supply all our fellow citizens with adequate radio and television services as to defend ourselves from external enemies who sometimes spread subversive propaganda.
Broadcasting Service
We recognize that our radar systems of warning, those for example of Parent and Senneterre, which have been set up at great cost, are useful even if one day we find that guided missiles could fall on us before the signal is given by telephone to the prime minister's office.
And as far as we are concerned, Mr. Speaker, we believe that the requested radio and TV service is as urgent and more important, for several reasons, than the broadcast of numerous international programs in sixteen or seventeen foreign languages to serve the Norwegians, the Swedes, the Danes, the Finns, the Dutch, the Italians, the Germans, the Austrians, the Czechs, the Russians, the Ukrainians, the Poles or others. It would be more urgent to offer this service to the French Canadians of northwestern Quebec who have none at all than to the peoples of Europe or Latin America who do not pay any taxes in Canada. Canadians have to pay for that. May the government then give, without any more delay, complete broadcast service in French or in the two languages so recently spoken by our very gracious sovereign, Her Majesty the Queen, when she visited Ottawa.
Admittedly the government finances an important part of television. Such being the case we would like the C.B.C. to set aside a part of the money it receives to create a system of relay towers which would bring T.V., by microwave over the Laurentians, beginning at Ottawa or Montreal, and reaching northward as far as the constituency of Chapleau. This should be done even at the expense of reducing broadcasts beamed towards Europe.
Let the C.B.C. create a high power station to serve Canadians in Chapleau. Some of the larger centres enjoy the two networks at the same time, which is all to the good. But, Mr. Speaker, we would at least like to have French language television service throughout our home area. I could add at this point that my constituents have already begun, in large numbers, to pay towards the cost of establishing such a telecommunication service by buying receiving sets which are liable to a special 15 per cent sales' tax the proceeds of which are handed over to the C.B.C. which uses them to establish new services.
If the government were to decide that the development in question would cost the C.B.C. too much at this time, do not forget that it would be in a better position to justify the maintenance costs of the radar system passing through Parent, Senneterre, and along the "Pinetree" line, if a picture transmission service were added to the latter. If the government really wishes to economize as claimed,

Broadcasting Service
it would be easy for the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes), the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) who has the C.B.C. in his care, and the other members of the government, to direct that the "Pine-tree" radar line be modified to transmit television pictures as far as Parent and Senne-terre, where radar stations are located and enable our people to receive the telecasts thus relayed. Some say that our defence and radio and television services are more or less kept in watertight compartments. Well, those are the very compartments which the government must open. Let us therefore hold a conference at the Parent station or, if it is preferable, at Senneterre, where the Gordian knot could easily be cut.
On behalf of all the people of my constituency, I therefore urge the federal government to take immediate action to achieve in the near future the two improvement and development suggestions which I have explained too rapidly here concerning radio and television broadcasting, particularly in the eastern part of my constituency.
After witnessing several days ago all that was done in order that our royal visitors could appear at the same time on the Canadian and American television networks, I am sure that, if the government will only give favourable consideration to our requests, everything will be in operation very shortly.
In a few weeks the C.B.C. has done wonders, and I commend those who have directly or indirectly taken part in this gigantic operation, which made it possible for us to see Her Majesty the Queen of Canada, and thus admire and respect her the more.
Unfortunately, the children of my district have, generally speaking, not been able to see Queen Elizabeth. We should not wait any longer; it is time to act and the whole population of Chapleau is anxious to see this project carried out.
It is true that the networks have cost many million dollars last year; five million people have seen live broadcasts of our great hockey games. And, as soon as the winter season begins, we, in my riding of Chapleau and elsewhere, also want to see all the hockey games and all the educational programs, which the C.B.C. may broadcast every day. The project is feasible, if the government really wants to give us the improvements I request and which the people of my county of Chapleau entirely approve.
(Text):


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my grievance is the same one in principle as that of the previous speaker but

with a different locale. I rise to protest the continued denial of satisfactory radio reception to some 5,000 of my constituents and the denial to those constituents of the opportunity to hear the excellent programs of the C.B.C. We have had radio operations in Canada for over 30 years. One would hardly credit that in one constituency there are over 5,000 people today who have not had the opportunity to enjoy the programs of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation except on very rare occasions in daylight hours. During the evenings they have to rely entirely upon United States programs which many of them do not enjoy to any great extent.
I speak from personal experience, Mr. Speaker, because my little log cabin is situated in this considerable area that is isolated from the general communications of the C.B.C. To show how difficult it is, I remember that one Sunday evening one of my daughters came and said, "The member for Macleod is speaking, daddy." We twiddled with the radio and could hear a squeak and a burp and finally we heard a voice say, "This is San Francisco; you have been listening to Charlie McCarthy." Anyway, Mr. Speaker, that is the sort of radio reception we get in our district. I know the department concerned and the C.B.C. have been interested in correcting this situation for some years. Some years ago studies were made with respect to installing a somewhat higher powered station somewhere in the interior of British Columbia. After various tests were made, it was found that even the expenditure of quite a large sum of money would not guarantee satisfactory radio reception to the area in my constituency to which I am referring. I understand from the engineers and technicians that this difficulty is caused by the mountainous terrain and the very small amount of soil over a large section of the mountains themselves at the higher levels. I understand it is a condition that also exists in some other parts of Canada.
Anyway when that was discovered I was informed the only way to correct this situation and bring the programs of the C.B.C. to these 5,000 people denied them was to go in for the erection of low-power relay stations. Naturally, I was all for that suggestion. I have been urging that for some seven years in this house, Mr. Speaker. We required some five stations, I understand, to satisfactorily serve the areas particularly mentioned. We had two stations installed, one at Castle-gar and one at Kaslo. The one at Kaslo serves a population which is delighted to

have the opportunity of listening to the C.B.C. and other Canadian programs. Naturally, this improved radio reception at Kaslo has caused an increasing ferment amongst those who have been denied radio reception for a period of 30 years, while at the same time we are spending many millions on bringing television to the majority of the Canadian people.
This situation is of such concern to these constituents of mine that the farmers' institutes, women's institutes, chambers of commerce, boards of trade and other organizations have dealt with the question at various meetings and have adopted resolutions and forwarded them to me as well as to the appropriate persons in the various government departments. In addition to that, at the last convention of the chambers of commerce of southeastern British Columbia a resolution was again passed asking the government to give consideration to the correction of the situation so far as radio reception is concerned in those areas of southeastern British Columbia denied it.
Now, Mr. Speaker, after we had the two stations installed, the one at Castlegar and the one at Kaslo-which incidentally is the birthplace, I believe, of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) and I know he is interested in this question so I expect him to support me on it-I have been informed that the others could not be erected because of a lack of funds and the expense in developing television. In order to service the district properly a low-power relay station should be erected at Balfour to serve the Kootenay lake area and the communities of Queens Bay, Kootenay Bay, Proctor, Crawford Bay, Gray Creek, Port Crawford and Boswell. There should be another one erected on Slocan lake, possibly at Roseberry. There is one required at Nakusp to serve the Upper Arrow lakes and south.
As I said before, I have urged the installation of these stations for seven years, then suddenly we were faced with the fact that there was insufficient funds owing to the increased expenditures of the C.B.C. on the extension of radio and television in other areas, but particularly with respect to television. Then I was told the matter would have to lay in abeyance until the report of the royal commission on broadcasting and television was received. Well, Mr. Speaker, that commission reported this year, March 15, and in its report dealt with this very important question. I have made many representations in this house and the matter has been brought to the attention of the special committee on broadcasting and television on several occasions. I had considerable correspondence 96698-84
Broadcasting Service
with the various ministers, the governor of the C.B.C. and his technical and engineering Staff in British Columbia. I hope we are getting much closer to the time when the situation I have mentioned will be corrected.
I want to quote for a few minutes from the report because it mentions that this is a situation that has been experienced by other communities in Canada and certainly it should not be allowed to continue in this day and age. There is a chapter in this book entitled "Improvement and Extension of Coverage". I am quoting from the report of the royal commission on broadcasting, 1957, and this is what is stated at page 209:
It came as something of a surprise to us that as much as 74 per cent of our total population is within reach of four or more radio stations during the daytime. At night, this percentage drops to about 43 per cent due to an increase in interference from distant co-channel and adjacent channel stations. The following table shows the percentages of population capable of hearing one, two, three or four or more Canadian radio stations.
At first glance, it would appear that radio coverage in Canada is very good. And indeed it is. Yet there are still almost half a million people in this country who cannot, except under freak atmospheric conditions, receive the signal of even one Canadian station. After considering every aspect of this question with our financial advisers and the C.B.C. management, we have come to the conclusion that a limited plan for the extension of radio coverage is desirable.
Then, at page 210 the commission had this to say:
The most important single element in this plan is the erection of the 97 low-power relay transmitters and the four new transmitters which is contemplated in our six-year forecast at a total capital cost of nearly $2 million. These new facilities, particularly the low-power relay transmitters, are to be located in remote areas of every province except Prince Edward Island which, for obvious reasons, does not give rise to as difficult problems as her sister provinces. The over-all capital investment in the extension plan will be about $3.3 million including a contingency of $1 million to provide for future growth and shifts in population.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do urge the government, when it is considering this report and preparing its estimates-I am now speaking to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees), the Minister of Public Works for sympathetic purposes, and I trust the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) will read what I have to say tomorrow morning as he usually does- to give consideration to the fact that radio services should be rendered to these people who are producing a lot of wealth in the isolated portions of this country.
Incidentally, I might mention in this respect that I represent the constituency that pays the highest income tax per capita in Canada and has the highest wage income per capita in large sections of the constituency as a result of the operations of the smelter, mining industry and lumbering industry.

Beet Sugar Industry
This constituency makes quite a contribution to the national revenue, and on that basis and in view of all the circumstances and the fact it is working to pay its own share, I hope my representations will engender a favourable response from the ministers concerned.



BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY

["Order. It being ten o'clock p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to section 4 (f) of standing order 56, to interrupt these proceedings and forthwith put the question on the motion now before the house. Accordingly, the question is the following one:\nMr. Fleming, seconded by Mr. Churchill, moved that the Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of supply.\nIs it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?\nMotion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Courtemanche in the chair.\nThe estimates of the following departments were first taken up and entered for consideration:"]
Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Leihbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice a grievance in that the Canadian sugar industry appears to continue to be dangerously exposed to Cuban sugar producers. May I draw to the attention of the house a number of important facts concerning the beet sugar industry of Canada. The beet sugar industry does help, and could and would help Canada, first, to deal with her serious adverse trade balance problem; second, to ameliorate her wheat surplus problem; third, to make highly beneficial use of her fine irrigation districts in Alberta and elsewhere; fourth, to strengthen her supply position in case of war, particularly in reference to sugar for human food and for all its many other uses, as well as to certain extremely valuable livestock feeds including wet beet pulp, dried beet pulp, beet tops, beet molasses and beet tailings; fifth, to provide employment for many Canadians, and home markets for several Canadian products of which let me mention coal, coke, lime and bags, to list only a few; sixth, to conserve and enrich Canadian soils upon which the sugar beets are grown.
The beet growing industry is a thoroughly sound agricultural industry. It is just as sound as is any other branch of Canadian agriculture such as grain growing, poultry producing, dairying or livestock raising. The sugar beet growers, like the growers of any other product in Canada, are vulnerable to dangers within Canada such as factors like a cost-price squeeze. They are vulnerable also to unfair competition from outside Canada, factors like the cane sugar producers of Cuba, the Philippines and other tropical countries with low wage scales and exceptional climatic, geographical and other advantages, such exceptionally favoured cane producers, if unhindered by special Canadian restrictive measures, being, in any normal year, able to pour into Canada enough refined sugar to ruin Canadian sugar producers, either beet sugar growers and refiners, or cane refiners.
Canadian beet sugar refiners require the Canadian federal government's care, much as do other Canadian agricultural producers. Canadian beet sugar growers ought to be shielded by the Agricultural Prices Support Act. Canada's beet sugar producers ought to be secured by a Canadian sugar act appropriately like the United States sugar act

of 1948, which act is based upon (1) quotas, (2) price adjustments; (3) extensive home production of sugar consumption.
May I give the house a few facts to show something of what Cuba has done in times past, and what conceivably Cuba might do again; facts to show also what Canada did to protect her producers both of cane and of beet sugar? During the year 1931 the price of Cuban sugar fell to an almost unbelievably low level. Tariffs could not shut it out. Canada, on January 27, 1932, passed order in council P.C. 181, granting power of fixing, for duty purposes, at $2.30 per hundred weight the price of outside sugar at place of origin. On January 30 appraiser's bulletin No. 3815 announced this fixing of sugar price. This measure shut Cuban sugar out of Canada.
The Liberal government on November 20, 1939 cancelled, as a wartime move, appraiser's bulletin No. 3815. This action left the sugar controller of Canada to take whatever means he might consider needful to exclude, or to admit, sugar from outside Canada. The Liberal government abolished wartime control of sugar on April 1, 1950.
In 1952 Cuban sugar began coming into Canada in great amounts. Apparently Right Hon. C. D. Howe had a personal promise from Cuba that she would refrain from sending Cuban refined into Canada in injurious quantities.
Will the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) look into the situation at present and, at an early date, give the house a statement upon the whole situation as regards Canadian beet sugar producers and Cuban sugar? Then will he tell us whether or not there has been anything comparable to the imposition of the $2.30 minimum at place of origin? If nothing like that has been done, I feel that our producers are in a dangerous position.
Some hon. members will wonder whether or not all of the statements I have made in making these remarks can be adequately substantiated with dependable data and other evidence. Because of the shortage of time at my disposal I have had to omit the plentiful documentary and other evidence in my possession. Those desiring to read that evidence may find much of it in a speech which I delivered on December 4, 1952, as recorded on pages 339344, volume I of 1952-53 Hansard. They will find additional evidence in a speech which I delivered on December 17, 1952, as recorded on pages 840-845 in the same volume of Hansard. Still further evidence will be found in a speech I delivered on February 11, 1953, as recorded on pages 1841-1846 of 1952-53 Hansard; and yet more in my speeches of March 5, 1953, recorded on pages 2654-2659

and of March 16, 1953, as recorded on pages 2972-2976 of 1952-53 Hansard.
In my speech of April 7, 1953, recorded on pages 3560-3565 of 1952-53 Hansard is to be found a discussion of the United States sugar act of 1948, why it was enacted, and what it provides as a solution to the difficult problem of sugar in any country like Canada or the United States. The United States sugar act of 1948 has recently been extended indefinitely with modifications.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the minister that he give the most careful consideration to the drafting and introduction of a Canadian sugar act similar to that of the United States.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being ten o'clock p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to section 4 (f) of standing order 56, to interrupt these proceedings and forthwith put the question on the motion now before the house. Accordingly, the question is the following one:
Mr. Fleming, seconded by Mr. Churchill, moved that the Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of supply.
Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Courtemanche in the chair.
The estimates of the following departments were first taken up and entered for consideration:



[Stage Direction]
94. Departmental administration, $4,880,806.
DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES General services-
139. Departmental administration, $319,700.
Business of the House
[Stage Direction]
172. Departmental administration including annual contribution of $200 to the conference of commissioners on uniformity of legislation in Canada, $543,155.
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND TECHNICAL SURVEYS Administration services-
213. Departmental administration, $530,620.
[Stage Direction]
406. Departmental administration, $264,655.
[Stage Direction]
497. Departmental administration, $2,304,705.
Progress reported.

Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask what the business is for tomorrow and whether it shall be in the order announced by the chairman of committees?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we intend to commence with the estimates of the Department of the Secretary of State, followed by the estimates of mines and technical surveys, then veterans affairs, fisheries and justice. The estimates of the Department of External Affairs will be referred to the standing committee.


Lionel Chevrier: Consideration of the estimates will be in the order just given?


Howard Charles Green: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
96698-84J
[Stage Direction]
Questions