November 26, 1952

LABOUR CONDITIONS

REPORTED LAYOFFS AT ELDORADO REFINERY


On the orders of the day:


CCF

Joseph William Noseworthy

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York South):

I

should like to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production, now the Acting Prime Minister. Will the minister give the house a statement concerning the reported layoff at the Eldorado Mining and Refining company plant at Port Hope? Will the minister tell us also whether further layoffs are contemplated, and if so where the uranium mined in Canada is to be processed?

Topic:   LABOUR CONDITIONS
Subtopic:   REPORTED LAYOFFS AT ELDORADO REFINERY
Permalink
LIB

Clarence Decatur Howe (Minister of Defence Production; Minister of Trade and Commerce)

Liberal

Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Defence Production):

Mr. Speaker, a telephone call was received in my office requesting this information, and I tried to reach the president of the company but found that he was in the Northwest Territories. The facts as I have them are that the fire which destroyed the mill at Port Radium is primarily responsible. The mill which was burnt was an old mill designed chiefly for the recovery of radium ore. Since the fire it has been replaced by a more modern mill which gives a greater degree of concentration of the uranium recovered. This means there is a smaller tonnage of ore to be treated at Port Hope, and therefore instead of a three-shift operation the refinery will, in the future, operate on a two-shift basis.

A further factor is that part of the staff at Port Hope were engaged in experimental work in designing a new refinery. It has been decided to defer the building of a new refinery for the time being. The staff engaged in that particular problem, numbering some ten or twelve, has been dispensed with. The employment, as of July 31, which was the peak employment, was 227 people. At present there are 199 people, and on December 15, when it is expected the two-shift operation will commence, employment will be between 150 and 160 people.

In answer to the second part of the question, I might say that all the uranium that is being mined in Canada is being refined at Port Hope.

Topic:   LABOUR CONDITIONS
Subtopic:   REPORTED LAYOFFS AT ELDORADO REFINERY
Permalink

LIGHT AND ROADBED AT C.N.R. WHARF, CHARLOTTETOWN


On the orders of the day:


?

Mr. W. Chester S. McLure@Queens

desire to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister received a petition from the labourers protective union, No. 9568, at Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, asking for the supplying of light at the Canadian National Railways wharf, and also asking for a proper roadbed for the labourers while pushing their hand-loaded trucks to load the cars or boats for shipment at the Charlottetown warehouse? If so, what action will be taken?

Topic:   LIGHT AND ROADBED AT C.N.R. WHARF, CHARLOTTETOWN
Permalink
LIB

Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport)

Liberal

Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):

I do not know, Mr. Speaker, that this is a matter of great urgency, but if it is in my hon. friend's mind I can say to him that I have no recollection of having received such a petition. It may be that one has arrived in the office, and I shall inquire.

Topic:   LIGHT AND ROADBED AT C.N.R. WHARF, CHARLOTTETOWN
Permalink
PC

Gordon Graydon

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Graydon:

You are too busy with the Winnipeg communications, of course.

Topic:   LIGHT AND ROADBED AT C.N.R. WHARF, CHARLOTTETOWN
Permalink
LIB

Elie Beauregard (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

Probably the hon. member for Queens (Mr. McLure) could put his question on the order paper and the Minister of Transport could answer it in the ordinary way.

Topic:   LIGHT AND ROADBED AT C.N.R. WHARF, CHARLOTTETOWN
Permalink

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY


The house resumed, from Tuesday, November 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. J. L. Deslieres for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Cold-well.


SC

Frederick Davis Shaw

Social Credit

Mr. F. D. Shaw (Red Deer):

When speaking in the house yesterday, and as recorded at page 73 of Hansard, the hon member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) had this to say:

It becomes clear from the speech of the leader of the official opposition and the speech of the leader of the Social Credit party that today the C.C.F. is the only party in this house which is prepared at this session to support legislation for the inauguration of a national health insurance program.

Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for York South completely misunderstood the

102 HOUSE OF COMMONS

The Address-Mr. Shaw

hon. member for Peace River

What the hon. member for Peace River asserted was that we are in favour of a national health insurance scheme, to commence at the earliest possible time; but he cautioned the house against any overeager effort on the part of anyone to catapult this nation or the state into any comprehensive scheme of health insurance or hospitalization before the means are available or the facilities are ready for it. The Social Credit leader indicated that the kind of health insurance scheme which we envision would first ensure that we have sufficient doctors, dentists, technicians, clinics and hospital beds available in order to provide the services for all our people under a national health insurance scheme.

The hon. member for Peace River then went on to list what he considered to be five essential features to be embodied in any national health insurance scheme. They were, first, that we have a fair measure of individual responsibility; second, that the patients will be guaranteed the right to have their choice of doctors and that the program must guarantee that there will be no regimentation of patients, doctors, nurses and hospitals; third, that emphasis must be placed upon preventive medicine or, in other words, keeping the people well; fourth, joint co-operation on the municipal, provincial and federal levels, with administration by the municipalities and the provincial governments working in co-operation; and then finally, provincial and federal subsidies to keep costs down.

Such a stand, Mr. Speaker, does not represent opposition to the establishment or the inauguration of a national health insurance program at this session. What we are opposed to, as my leader stated, is being catapulted holus-bolus into a complete scheme where we have not the necessary facilities in order to guarantee the services to our people. But surely a step can be taken now, along with steps that have already been taken, to establish health services with the idea in mind that this is a part of a national health insurance scheme. We say that this represents a common-sense, practical approach to this extremely important proposition. I hope it will not be said again that we are opposed to the inauguration of a national health insurance scheme at this session.

During this debate several hon. members who have spoken have made reference to agriculture and the present position of agriculture in our national economy. I hope to devote only a few moments to this subject, because I do desire to bring before the house one important matter which I think is deserving of immediate and serious consideration. It is true-and I have said this here upon many occasions-that my constituency

embraces one of the finest mixed farming areas in Canada. The livestock produced in that area, along with other farm products, have been consistent winners at fairs in this country. That is a fact which testifies, of course, to the excellence of the agricultural products which are produced in that area. More than one world title has gone to the Red Deer area.

We all know, especially when we live in a mixed farming area of that kind, that livestock prices, in the main, determine the degree of stability or instability of the basic industry. Last spring, as I pointed out in this house, the closed markets resulting from foot-and-mouth disease had a most disastrous effect upon livestock producers in that area, especially upon those who were feeding cattle and preparing them for the markets. The existing floor prices for hogs and for cattle, quoted invariably f.o.b. some other place except that where the commodities are produced, leave much to be desired as far as our agriculture is concerned. Apart from the most exceptional cases, the floor prices for those products are absolutely meaningless as far as our producers are concerned. All one has to do is to examine the returns which the farmers are receiving for cattle and hogs. Too frequently-and I feel it necessary to mention this matter-the cost-conscious tax-burdened consuming public regard excessive resale prices for farm products as an indication of undue profits accruing to the farmers iand what they would think to be a generally prosperous agriculture.

It is my conviction, Mr. Speaker, that the consuming public should be made to understand that, despite high resale prices for farm products, the net position of the farmer today, under excessive production costs, leaves a good deal to be desired and leaves the agricultural industry-especially that aspect of it relating to livestock production-in a precarious position in many instances.

In my estimation price spreads should be the major concern of any government, and every government should make every effort to find out the facts, to make those facts

FMr. Shaw.]

known to the public, and in short to interpret the position of the farmer to the consuming public of this country.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
SC

John Horne Blackmore

Social Credit

Mr. Blackmore:

Accurately.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
SC

Frederick Davis Shaw

Social Credit

Mr. Shaw:

Yes, accurately, as the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) interjects.

With regard to agriculture and matters relative thereto, I should like to devote just a moment to the question of prairie farm assistance, particularly as prairie farm assistance applies to an area such as mine where farmers do not qualify as a consequence of crop losses resulting from drought but rather as a consequence of crop losses resulting from hail. In 1951 disastrous hail storms swept across that area. Losses were heavy. For almost the first time in thirteen years, during which time the farmers have been compelled to pay into the fund under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, they looked to the P.F.A.A. for some compensation as a consequence of those losses. One of the first things we learned, Mr. Speaker, was that the P.F.A.A. was originally designed to take care of crop losses resulting from drought. The same regulations are carried forward today, in the main, and the endeavour is made to apply them to hail areas. As a result, the act becomes almost impossible of administration, and the unfairness which develops as a consequence is causing the farmers of my area to charge the government with the rankest kind of discrimination. I am telling the house only exactly what the farmers themselves are saying. Regardless of their politics, in every part of that area they are issuing that charge.

I should like to underline the fact, Mr. Speaker, that for twelve to thirteen years those farmers have been paying one per cent of the price on all grains which have been marketed, through the recognized channels of marketing, of course. In the first place, I should like to know why with respect to an area such as the Red Deer area, where actually little wheat is grown, the main crops being coarse grains, they should persist in using wheat as the grain to determine eligibility. In the second place, in contrast to drought, hail cuts narrow swaths through the area. Hail will hop, skip and jump through an area. In a good area where production is so heavy, where hail does not strike, it is virtually impossible for 60 per cent of the farmers to qualify, because part of that township can be devastated, but because production is so high in the other part of the area it brings the average up above that which is used to exclude the township.

The Address-Mr. Shaw

In the third place, the six section block which must exist, the block in which production is less than eight bushels to the acre, is unreasonable and altogether too high as far as hail is concerned.

When farmers proposed that the unit of eligibility be lowered below the six-section block they were told that it would encourage poor farming. Poor farming has been encouraged in the dried-out areas ever since this act came into effect. The farmers in my area claim that there is no reason in the world why the unit of eligibility under P.F.A.A. in relation to hail should not be reduced at least to the one-section basis.

The farmers have indicated to me that they are willing to pay more than the one per cent; but if they are going to pay they would like to be in a position where they would have a reasonable chance to qualify under the act. We find situations like these. I think of one where twelve sections in a solid block were hailed out a hundred per cent. They paid P.F.A. on sections one to eleven. Section twelve was part of the block that was hailed out a hundred per cent, but because they are able to drag it in with five other sections alongside of an ineligible township, they excluded the area wholly and completely, leaving those farmers with devastated crops but yet not a cent available under the act.

There is another aspect of this which is causing quite some concern. While farmers with 100 acres to 200 acres under cultivation lose everything as a consequence of hail and get nothing from P.F.A., yet we find a policy under which the government will pay a $200 flat award on farms where the actual acreage under cultivation is less than 25, categorizing such farms as a farm in the development stage. I have no objection to these farmers getting $200, since they paid for it, but it is hard to reconcile that with the situation where farmers lose 200 acres of grain and qualify for absolutely nothing. I am not criticizing the inspectors; I am not criticizing the men in the district offices who administer P.F.A.A. They are trying to do the best possible job with an act that is, as I said before, almost impossible of administration, if you want justice, equity and fairness, and the absolute removal of anything which appears to be discriminatory in character.

Let me point out that this has caused a lot of criticism. It has caused a lot of unhappiness. In my view, this act should be referred to the agriculture committee and a complete study should be made of P.F.A.A. in relation to hail, because, and I repeat, the regulations, originally designed to compensate

The Address-Mr. Shaw farmers who had lost their crops as a consequence of drought, do not make sense when they are applied to these hailed-out areas.

During this debate, Mr. Speaker, considerable attention has been given to national defence. It is to national defence and defence production that I desire to devote my attention for a while. We Social Crediters have been wholly conscious at all times of the grave dangers confronting this nation. As a consequence of that, we have supported appropriations for defence. When these estimates have come before the house we have invariably questioned and sought information, and we have supported what the government considers to be essential appropriations for national defence. We are absolutely convinced that Canadians are fully prepared to bear whatever burden is necessary in order to ensure that we shall have the best possible and most adequate defences.

We have also supported the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the provisions made by this parliament for Canada's share of the costs of NATO. We have gone considerably farther than any other group in this house in urging compulsory service in Canada's home defence units, and we have at all times urged the establishment of realistic trade practices to strengthen Canada economically and to strengthen the commonwealth. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think we have displayed through our actions that we have supported and that we will support all appropriations, as I said before, even though they may appear to be burdens, which are necessary in order to provide adequate defences. The Canadian taxpayers, however, demand one thing of us as a parliament. They demand that we give the very closest consideration to every item of defence expenditure, and that we make every conceivable effort to see to it that we are getting our money's worth out of every dollar spent in defence.

I know that during the last session of parliament this house set up a defence expenditures committee. We supported that action because we believed that such was necessary. It was said last year that the purpose of that committee was to try to effect economies consistent with the execution of policies decided by the government. It was under the able chairmanship of the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll), and although I was not a member of that committee I personally feel that he conducted himself as chairman in commendable fashion.

Between April 8 and June 12 that committee held eighteen meetings. That was a very short period of time, it is true. During the period from April 8 to June 12 the committee, so my reading indicates to me, examined into

government policy as far as defence expenditures were concerned. I noticed in reading all the reports that they gave consideration to control and accounting of materials and stores in the Department of National Defence. I also noticed that they gave consideration to write-off procedure which is followed by the government, including the write-offs resulting from theft, fire and other causes. The committee considered defence orders which had been placed between 1950 and 1952.

They gave consideration to military functions, economies and the possibility of alternative sources of supply. I believe they delved into the naval shipbuilding program. They also gave consideration to the requirements of the army, the navy and the air force. And then, shortly before the committee concluded its deliberations, the construction program of the Department of National Defence, as carried out by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and Defence Construction Limited, was given some consideration. As a matter of fact, Mr. D. B. Mansur, president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, did, I understand, make a statement to the committee.

Apparently the committee's deliberations concluded following its consideration of policy and procedure relative to the defence construction program. In my estimation the most important work they have to do is ahead of them. I was very pleased to note that the defence expenditures committee is to be reconstituted. I am going to make several recommendations to the committee that it may, when it is reconstituted, take into consideration.

The first is that I think it has given reasonable consideration to policy; now I think it should devote its attention to the practical application of that policy in the field. And it is in that respect, as I said a moment ago, that I have a few things to say. Let me point out in passing that much consideration has been given to the procurement of such things as uniforms, and it has been said that too many of this have been bought or too much of that. Well, that does not concern me particularly at the moment. I well recall that I was one of those who levelled rather severe criticism at the government back in the early forties for being so wholly unprepared when war broke out. I realize it is most difficult to say that we need just exactly this number of that commodity or that number of another commodity. I say: within reasonable limits let us make sure we have enough to meet any emergency which may suddenly come upon us. I hope we will not be unmindful

of the probability that such an emergency could be only hours away. Let us hope it is much farther away than that.

My personal conviction, one based upon a good deal of personal investigation, is that the defence expenditures committee should be instructed, or that by resolution it should instruct itself. To be more specific, I would suggest that the committee resolve to pick out one particular military establishment in Canada and examine carefully into every aspect of construction relative thereto.

To be even more specific I might go so far as to suggest that they take an establishment within my own constituency, that at Penhold -although I would not want any investigation to be limited to that air station alone. I am going to give one or two reasons why I think such an investigation should be undertaken. First, there is ample evidence-and I witnessed it over a period of months prior to coming down here to Ottawa-of growing public concern and indignation over some of the things that are going on at Penhold. Information came to me; I did not go seeking it until so much of it had come to me that I considered it essential in the public interest to satisfy myself about some of these things.

Needless to say I became absolutely convinced that the defence expenditures committee should carry out an investigation. To be even more specific, I am not satisfied at all with respect to the construction of housing for airmen at some of these establishments. I shall leave Penhold for a moment and come to Namao, in the Edmonton district, where approximately 250 houses are under construction. So far as I know there is no evidence that adequate inspection has been carried out continuously, so far as that project is concerned. There is every evidence for me to believe certain things-and I suggest the committee should ascertain the facts, first of all, about the foundations of these buildings.

On the basis of my own investigations, I feel the contractors have not carried out the specifications as laid down in the contracts.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
SC

Charles Edward Johnston

Social Credit

Mr. Johnston:

That is not peculiar.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
SC

Frederick Davis Shaw

Social Credit

Mr. Shaw:

Foundations are run sloppy, as we say. The tamping of concrete has been at an absolute minimum, and footings have been poured on loose backfill, with the obvious result that the foundations cracked and the buildings have settled until all one has to do is go up to them and place a level on the side to discover whether they are plumb or not.

There is reason to believe that green lumber has been used extensively by the contractors, with consequent shrinkage following 68108-8

The Address-Mr. Shaw the application of heat to those buildings, and that cracking in the finish has been general.

There is evidence to believe that the lumber used for framing is of a very inferior quality. It is warped, knotted and checked. So far as those houses are concerned, I suggest the committee should find out whether or not the joists were doubled, as per specifications. I would like the committee to find whether the chimney wells were doubled as per specifications, and whether the bridging of joists was carried out according to specifications.

I would like to know where the nails were that are presumed to have been used in a building that has to stand for any length of time.

So far as the general framing is concerned, the materials are highly questionable, again. The prefabricated wall sections have been left outside, some of them as far back as last winter, and have warped. Nailing appears to be at a minimum, and partition girths are hanging by nails having been driven up from underneath, again not according to specifications.

I would like the committee to look into these cracked walls, and to find out whether the inside studding has been carried out according to specifications. I would like to know whether or not in some of these buildings the centres are sixteen inches, according to specifications, or whether they are forty-eight inches. I think, too, that the single plates on the partitions are not continuous throughout.

I am not going to continue enumerating all these individual items so far as that particular station is concerned. However, I have scores upon scores of them I would be quite willing to make available to the committee. And, oh yes, I would like to know how the hardwood flooring has been put on, whether it was placed crosswise in some of the halls, or carried out according to specifications. I would ask the committee to examine the floors and see to what extent they are blocked up to the sole plates, in respect of both the exterior and the interior walls.

I should like to know whether lime mortar has been used in these chimneys or whether cement mortar was used as provided for by the specifications. I should also like the committee to find out in how many cases lime mortar froze before it was ever used. I should like the committee to examine the basement floors to see whether they were steel trowelled or whether they were properly dry finished as per specifications. I should like to know also whether these buildings all have the number of windows called for by the specifications.

On top of all this I think the committee should find out how many change orders were

The Address-Mr. Shaw issued alter the buildings were under construction. I should like to know if the change orders were carried out as per specifications and what additional amounts were paid to the contractors as a result of those change orders. I should like to know how many of those change orders were absolutely essential.

I think if the committee is to look into these things it should call in the inspectors who have been connected with this job. Not only should the committee call in inspectors who are presently on the job; it is quite conceivable it might be wise to call in inspectors who are no longer on the job.

I indicated a moment ago that I should like to see the committee go to Penhold. These things are causing consternation among the people. There are some questions which should be answered. First I should like to find out something which has to do with construction only indirectly. I should like to know what it has cost the Canadian taxpayer as a consequence of the R.C.A.F. moving families out to that area before the houses for their accommodation were even nearly completed. What allowances have been paid to airmen to house their families in an area where it is difficult to procure civilian housing, a condition which has been so for a long period of time. I should like to know what additional costs have been involved and why these families were moved from where they were quartered when they were.

With regard to heating, I should like to know the exact cost of installing the temporary heating system which was operated with boilers brought in from New York. What extra amounts have been paid to the prime contractor as a consequence of installing the temporary heating system I should like to find out also what is involved in the establishment of an overhead heating system which has never been used and which according to my information will never be used because it is intended to have a central underground heating system. We should find out the why and wherefore of this heating.

Here is another thing the committee should look into. They built some pretty good roads at Penhold. They went down as I think they should have, they scarified the surface, they moved in new dirt and spent a lot of money constructing roads with the exception of putting on a hard surface. But then they came along to instal the water and steam distribution system and their sewage system. In doing this they just cut crisscross over the roads which had just been built. Why should a thing of that sort occur? Was there a lack of co-ordination or planning? What is the reason?

People in my area are asking me why trucks moved in 48-inch cement culverts, pounding down the road with them day after day, and then turned right around, hauled them out and then hauled in 24-inch culverts. That is something that should be looked into. These were to be used for storm sewers, I presume on the runway, although I am not too certain of that.

I want to know above all else what provision is being made to repay to the Canadian taxpayers money saved by contractors who are using R.C.A.F. equipment in carrying out their contracts, who are using draglines, bulldozers, et cetera, belonging to the R.C.A.F. I should like to know if proper deductions have been made for the use of that equipment which, as I say, belongs to the Royal Canadian Air Force. There is evidence that several contractors are using government equipment in order to carry out contracts which they have entered into.

I think the committee should find out about the lighting arrangements. Is there a bulk contract with the power company, or are meters used? I have reason to believe that they are operating on meters. If they are, and I say "if they are", it must be costing the Canadian taxpayer a pretty sum because thousands of powerful lights are going day after day and night after night, in the hangars and out of the hangars, when the station is not even operating. This was true up to two weeks ago. If they are operating on meters, I should like to know what the committee thinks about that. If they are not operating on meters we should be told something of the bulk contract, if such exists.

Then about water. I am informed that International Water Wells have been in there ever since last spring. People have come to me and asked whether they were drilling for oil. Penhold was operated as an air station during the last war and adequate amounts of water were secured at depths of 150 to 200 feet to carry out the training scheme at that time. I would say that that would be adequate for any scheme which might be inaugurated at this time. I should like to know the amount and nature of the contract with International Water Wells because, as I say, they seem to be just playing around there. They could have got a lot more done if they had been drilling for oil. Let me re-emphasize that there are wells producing abundant water from 150, 175 and 200 feet, and have been right along.

The fuel contract has caused some people a good deal of concern and I think it should be examined into. The supply contract does not concern me quite so much as the handling contract. I should like to know how many times the coal is handled and I should like

to know the details o f the contract each handler has. I should like to know whether the amount paid to the final handler, as it were, is considerably in excess of what is paid at other stations. I should like to know also whether that contractor is ever around the station or did he simply let a subcontract and do very well as a consequence. I have no grievance as far as the individuals are concerned; it is simply a matter of practice and policy.

I assume that my time is almost exhausted but I do want to conclude by saying that during last summer and early fall a great many people came to me. I did not go out seeking anything. These taxpayers began to express concern and I deemed it my duty to try to find out a few things. I am disturbed and people are disturbed. If everything is all right, then I think it necessary that we find that out through a properly constituted method of examination. I know that there have been denials, but that does not surprise me because when I charged in 1945 that there was wanton destruction of surplus war material at Pen-hold I was confronted with vehement denials from all quarters. In fact, on the floor of this house my charges were denied and everything was done to discourage me. However, it so happened that I was a member of the war expenditures and economies committee at that time, and after a great many weeks and a great deal of cross-examination we were given the frank admission that the charges were absolutely true and the committee recommended a change of policy relative thereto. Therefore I am never too greatly impressed by blanket denials. I know the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) cannot be on each one of these jobs but I do say we should be able to acquire a sufficient number of properly qualified inspectors with the right to do their jobs without being hampered, and that they should be allowed to go in there and see that these contracts are carried out as they should be carried out and that the materials that are being used are materials which are essential to the construction of permanent establishments.

It is my understanding that these are to be permanent establishments, and who knows but what the cold war may carry on for twenty-five years or forever, as far as that goes, although we hope not. It is my understanding that they are trying to bring an element of permanency into the construction of these establishments. After all, we are faced with an emergency. We know that. But Canada is not being attacked and it is not as if we were required to put only half the necessary number of nails into a building to get it done in a hurry so that we could drive the enemy back from our shores.

The Address-Mr. Larson

The Canadian taxpayers will bear the burden. They have indicated their willingness to bear the burden of defence no matter what it may be but they require that every conceivable effort be made to ensure that the money which is taken from them and spent is spent in such a way that the results will be obtained which they hope will be achieved, and within a reasonably short period of time. I hope that the government will see fit to recommend to the defence expenditures committee that it should look into these matters or that the committee will take it upon itself to do so. I am sure the taxpayers of Canada will be greatly relieved if they know that that is going to be done.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

Frederick Hugo Larson

Liberal

Mr. F. H. Larson (Kindersley):

Mr. Speaker, I realize that, the practice having been established in this house some time ago, the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Deslieres) and the hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Schneider) should be congratulated on their efforts in moving and seconding the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Having been subjected to the same pressures at one time, I feel that probably I realize, more than is generally the case, the excellence of their speeches made under such pressures.

Looking at our national picture at this time in the life of this government I would say that the keynote of the government's activities has been a sort of gathering up of the loose ends that have resulted from the pressures exerted on our national unity and the building of this country once again and forever into one solid unit. Geographically, as I have said before in the house, we are split by miles and miles of area separating the various portions of the country one from the other, and it is very easy for us to drift into a position where we are sectional in our outlook. With the various sectional appeals that have been made to different groups in this country in the past by other governments, I do not feel that any other government would have the ability to continue moulding this country into one national unit as our present government has done.

In Saskatchewan we recently had a little contest about who was going to run that province, and the party which might form an alternative government at some time in this country was so short of candidates that I do not see how it could ever feel that it could form an alternative government to the one in power today.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink

November 26, 1952