1949-11-09

[Stage Direction]
James MacKerras Macdonnell, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Greenwood, introduced by Mr. George A. Drew and Mr. A. L. Smith.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Knowles:: In the allocation of houses to veterans in the Greater Winnipeg area, how many exceptions have there been, since January 1, 1947, to the rule that to qualify for such a house a veteran must have had overseas service, be married and have two children?


Mr. Winters:: The rules governing the allocation of veterans' rental houses do not require that a veteran have overseas service and two or more children. Houses are allocated to suitable applicants in accordance with a point score. The grid rating by which applications are scored recognizes such factors as: Length of service in world war II both in Canada and overseas, a heavier weighting being given to service overseas, war service disability, number and age of children, other dependents, dispersed families, pending or actual eviction, condition and suitability of present accommodation, suitability as a tenant.
There is an overriding rule that houses will not be allocated to veterans with only one child while there are outstanding applications from qualified veterans with two or more children. In cases where the circumstances are very exceptional, however, as in the case of a disabled veteran with only one dependent, exceptions have been made to this two-children rule. Nineteen such exceptions were made in the greater Winnipeg area in the course of making 2,392 allocations since January 1, 1947.



NEWFOUNDLAND


Mr. Browne (Si. John's West):: 1.	What staff is now employed by the architectural branch of the Department of Public Works in Newfoundland?
2.	What are the names of those employed?
3.	What salary is paid to each?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1,	2 and 3.
Name-Position-Salary per annum.
Hopkins, L. W., district architect, grade 2, $4,740; Brown, D. R., typist, grade 1, $1,500; Lawlor, T., caretaker, grade 6, $2,400; King, S., caretaker, grade 3, $1,920; Martin, T., caretaker, grade 3, $1,920; Redmond, M. F., caretaker, grade 3, $1,920; Fowlow, W. T., caretaker, grade 3, $1,920; Clarke, H., caretaker, grade 2, $1,580; Poole, A., caretaker, grade 1, $1,500; Hiscock, G., caretaker, grade 1, $1,260; Boland, J., caretaker, grade 1, part-time, $680; Burke, A., caretaker, parttime, $480.



RADIO RECEIVING LICENCES

Mr. Hodgson:: 1.	How much money was collected for radio licences in 1946, 1947 and 1948?
2.	What was the cost of collecting same?
3.	What were the inspectors' salaries, including expenses?
4.	What were law and court costs for delinquent radio taxpayers?


Mr. Chevrier:: 1.
1946-	47	$4,099,795.141947-	48	$4,398,495.861948-	49	$4,670,342.65
2.
1946-	47		 $ 544,673.17
(including $307,169.20 commissions)
1947-	48		 $ 570,505.55
(including $326,695.25 commissions)
1948-	49		 $ 611,918.76
(including $341,982.00 commissions)
3.	It is pointed out that inspectors are not private receiving station licence issuers. Commissions were paid to issuers as above indicated.
4.
Legal fees payable by the department
1946-	47	
$ 796.661947-	48	
$1,815.171948-	49	
$1,538.49
Fines and court costs, payable by delinquents Fines Court costs
1946-	47	
$40,478.25	$36,730.901947-	48	
$33,882.35	$39,595.501948-	49	
$35,677.90	$38,472.73
Questions



GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES

Mr. Smith (Queens-Shelburne):: 1.	When was the annuities branch of the Department of Labour established?
2.	Have the rates of interest paid on deposits, in respect of annuity contracts, and the maximum amount of annuities purchasable, been changed since that date?
3.	If so, in what years and to what extent?
4.	What profit or loss was shown by the annuities branch (a) for the year previous to the last date of change of rate; (b) for the year following?
5.	Do these profits or losses take into consideration office and administrative expenses?
6.	What is the estimated total of office and administrative expenses annually?
7.	Are government annuities considered to be a part of Canada's social security program?
8.	How many government annuity contracts were in effect at the end of (a) 1938; (b) 1948?


Mr. Coie (Verdun-LaSalle):: 1.	The Government Annuities Act was passed in 1908, and came under the administration of the Department of Trade and Commerce. In 1912 it was transferred to the Post Office Department, and in 1922 to the Department of Labour.
2.	Yes, there have been changes since 1908.
3.	Interest rate for new contracts changed from 4 per cent to 3 per cent in April, 1948. Maximum annuity purchasable originally was $600. Increased to $1,000 in 1913; increased to $5,000 in 1920; reduced to $1,200 in 1931.
4.	*(a) Loss, fiscal year 1947-48, $331,857. (b) Loss, fiscal year 1948-49, $609,541.**
Note: *The loss in 1947-48 resulted from the number of deaths during the year being less than anticipated under the rate structure. In 1948-49 the death rate was considerably lighter than in the previous year. Consequently, the loss was greater. It might be added that the losses shown apply to vested contracts under old rates.
* Calculated on same basis as previous year. The actual amount transferred to maintain annuities reserve was $11,408,468, in order to value old business on same mortality basis as 1948 premiums.
5.	No.
6.
Fiscal year
1944-	45	
1945-	46	
1946-	47	
1947-	48	
1948-	49	
7.	Yes.
8.	(a) 33,685; (b) 210,935.f
Note: flncludes 92,063 certificates under group plans.



NORTHERN LABRADOR TRADING OPERATIONS

Mr. Higgins:: Has Canada assumed responsibility for the operation known as northern Labrador trading operations?


Mr. Maybank:: No.



PAYMENTS TO NEWFOUNDLAND FOR RAILWAY EQUIPMENT, ETC.

Gordon Francis Higgins: What was the amount by which Newfoundland was reimbursed for payments made before March 31, 1949, for railway equipment not delivered until after March 31, 1949?


Gordon Francis Higgins: What was the amount by which Newfoundland was reimbursed for payments made by Newfoundland for buildings and R.C.A.F. equipment at Gander airport?


Gordon Francis Higgins: How much was paid to Newfoundland for (a) S.S. Bar Haven; (b) S.S. Springdale?


Gordon Francis Higgins: What was the amount paid to Newfoundland in respect to expenditures made by Newfoundland at Gander airport for conversion of buildings to civil use, runway improvements and the replacement or expansion of plant and equipment between April 1, 1945 and March 31, 1949?


Mr. Chevrier:: The four preceding questions, standing in the name of the member for St. John's East (Mr. Higgins), are questions upon which the Department of Transport has not information available, nor can it have the information before the end of this year. Under the circumstances, would the hon. member drop the questions?


Mr. Speaker:: Questions dropped.



ONTARIO HIGHWAYS


Mr. Bradetle:: 1.	Did the federal government, during the years 1939 to 1945, spend money on or contribute money for construction on any portions of Ontario provincial highway No. 11, between Hearst, Geraldton and Fort William, of the province of Ontario?
2.	If so, what amount was contributed?
3.	Under what authority was such money paid?
4.	If it was granted under the War Measures Act, was there any agreement with the province of Ontario and the federal government for the construction of that highway?
5.	What was the ratio of expenditure of the two respective parties?


Ralph Maybank: 1. Yes.	
2. 1938-39 			$354,971.36
1939-40 			 432,302.41
Total 			$787,273.77
Total administrative expenses
$353,556	72
400,961	51
566,968	04
665,622	45
754,606	00

3.	Authority for 1938-39 payments was order in council P.C. 1661, of July 13, 1938, issued under the terms of the Unemployment and Agricultural Assistance Act, 1938.
Authority for 1939-40 was order in council P.C. 1483, of June 15, 1939, issued under the terms of the Unemployment and Agricultural Assistance Act, 1939.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	Equal expenditures were made by the two respective parties.



R.C.A.F-CHATHAM, N.B., STATION-COAL

Mr. Brooks:: 1.	Were tenders called for the supplying of coal for the R.C.A.F station at Chatham, New Brunswick?
Questions
2.	If so (a) what tenders were received, showing names and amount of each tender; (b) which tender was accepted; (c) what is the quality of coal provided under the tender; (d) what quantity of coal was required?
3.	Is the price for coal under above contract f.o.b. cars Chatham or delivered in stock piles, or bins, to the R.C.A.F. station?
4.	If f.o.b. cars, were tenders called for the trucking from railway station to R.C.A.F. station?
5.	If tenders were called, what are the names of individuals who tendered, and the amount of each tender?
6.	Who received the contract?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Twelve quotations were received from eight firms, as follows:
-	Type	Price per ton f.o.b. cars	Cost per M.B.T.U.	Price per ton f.o.b. stockpile, and/or bins	Cost per M.B.T.U.Intercolonial Coal Co. Ltd., West-ville, N.S.	$9.55	$0,395	
Indian Cove Coal Co. Ltd., Sydney Mines, N.S.		9.75	0.479		
					
S. Cunard & Co. Ltd., Halifax, N.S.	Bras D'Or	10.30	0.418	$12.30	$0,500Rogers Montreal Ltd., Montreal, P.Q.	Franklin Bras D'Or	10.39	0.407	11.19	0.439Dominion Coal Co. Ltd., Moncton, N.B.	10.55	0.418	
Dominion Coal Co. Ltd., Moncton, N.B.		11.55	0.445		
					
Rogers Montreal, Ltd., Montreal, P.Q.	Lumpstead Penn., U.S.A.	11.59	0.431	12.39	0.460Eastern Coal Co. Ltd., Saint John, N.B.	12.49	0.612	13.95	0.685
H. B. McDonald, Chatham, N.B..				12.00 S.P.	0.475
				12.50 bins	0.495
W. S. Loggie Co. Ltd., Chatham, N.B.				12.50 S.P.	0.495
				13.00 bins	0.515
H. B. McDonald, Chatham, N.B.				13.00 S.P.	0.501
				13.50 bins	0.520
W. S. Loggie Co. Ltd., Chatham N.B.				13.50 S.P.	0.520
				14.00 bins	0.539
(b) The quotation submitted by Rogers Montreal Limited at $11.19 per ton, f.o.b. stockpile or bins was accepted. Calculated on a B.T.U. basis, this quotation was the second lowest received, f.o.b. cars. The lowest received, that submitted by Intercolonial Coal Company Limited, was for coal, the
ash content of which was 18-4 per cent or 4 * 4 per cent in excess of the maximum allowable by the Department of National Defence. Having regard to the cost of storage by individual contractors, it was considered more economical to purchase on a f.o.b. stockpile or bins basis for which kind

Orders for Returns
of delivery Rogers Montreal Limited submitted the lowest quotation calculated on a B.T.U. basis.
(c)	Coal, bituminous, nut slack 1J". The "as received" analysis given in the successful tender was as follows: Moisture, 3-50 per cent; Ash, 10-52 per cent; Volatile matter, 35-55 per cent; Fixed carbon, 53-93 per cent; Sulphur, 3 -93 per cent; F.P.A., 2-040 degrees JJ\; B.T.U., 13,207.
(d)	3,000 tons.
3 4, 5 and 6. Answered by 2(b) above.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 
Mr. Bradley:: Return tabled.


NATIONAL FILM BOARD
Mr. Fraser:: 1.	How many stills or photographs were taken, developed and printed by the national film board during the period January 1 to September 30 1949?
2.	What size were these stills?
3.	How many were sold and at what prices were these different sizes sold?


Robert Henry Winters: Return tabled.


BENTINCK ISLAND, B.C., LEPER STATION
Mr. Pearlces:: 1.	How many patients are cared for at the leper station, Bentinck island, British Columbia?
2.	How many attendants and other persons are employed at Bentinck island, and what are their salaries?
3.	What was the cost of maintaining Bentinck island, including heating, lighting, etc., during the past year?
4.	What improvements have been made in the accommodation, lighting plant and landing stage during the last two years?
5.	What was the cost of these improvements?


CERTIFICATES OF NATURALIZATION
Mr. Pearkes:: 1.	How many certificates of naturalization have been issued under P.C. 5842, dated July 9, 1942, to (a) aliens serving outside Canada with the naval, military and air force services of Canada; (b) aliens residing in Canada?
2.	What is the minimum time of residence in Canada required before the certificate of naturalization is issued to aliens residing in Canada, under P.C. 5842?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Return tabled.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


Mr. Coldwell:: 1.	What was the price of flour and millfeed in Canada prior to the post-war decontrol of these products?
2.	At what date was the investigation into the flour industry started with the approval of the Right Hon. J. L. Ilsley, then minister of justice?
3.	What was the price of flour and millfeed on the date the above investigation was started?
4.	Were reductions made in the price of flour and millfeed subsequent to this date?
5.	If so, when, and of what amount were they?



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	What was the total amount expended in Canada on health and welfare by (a) the federal government; (b) the provincial governments; (c) municipal authorities; (d) voluntary and other organizations, in 1930, 1935, 1938, 1940, 1942, 1944, 1948 and 1948?
2.	What is the anticipated expenditure on health and welfare by (a), (b), (c) and (d) as above, for 1949 and for 1950?
3.	What main items are included, and what are the amounts for each such main item, in the answers to questions (1) and (2) above?



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. MacNaughl (Prince):: In view of the fact that I have received many telephone calls and telegrams from Prince Edward Island concerning the acute shortage of refrigerator cars, will the Minister of Transport make a statement about that situation?


Lionel Chevrier: There is not a great deal I can say, other than that the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacNaught) and the hon. member for Queens, P.E.I., (Mr. Douglas), both spoke to me and are apprehensive about the situation. The position at the moment is that from the first of September to the first of November, 1949, there were 621 refrigerator cars available for the movement of potatoes. These were shipped from Borden to Tormentine and handled on the car ferry. This compares favourably with 1948, when there were 592 such cars. This morning I was informed that 111 cars are now on the island; 238 have been earmarked for movement there from such points as Tormentine, Sackville, Moncton, Truro, Napadogan, Edmundston and Joffre. There are 70 more that are to be moved to the area. The Canadian National Railways are familiar with -the position and have it in hand.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. Church (Broadview):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister the following questions: (1) Can he soon name part of a day to deal with external affairs? (2) No diplomacy can match the atomic menace; (3) Canada should know soon what security it has from attack, notwithstanding the United Nations organization.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: The hon. member sent me notice of his questions, one of which is in the form of a question and the other two seem to be assertions. No. 1 is, "Can he soon name part of a day to deal with external affairs?" I am not yet in a position to say definitely that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) will be here on the 16th and 17th of this month, but we are endeavouring to arrange that. Yesterday I promised to make an announcement in the house as soon as the arrangements in New York can be completed. No. 2 is, "No diplomacy can match the atomic menace". This is an assertion with which I am not going to quarrel. No. 3: "Canada should know soon what security it has from attack, notwithstanding the United Nations organization". I hope Canada will be able to ascertain what security it has, and that it will be satisfactory security, but it is not a question I can answer.


THE BUDGET
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, November 3, consideration of the motion of Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Rowe.
Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, before proceeding to deal with the subject which I propose to discuss today, I should like to state the Social Credit position on the Conservative amendment. We take no exception to the wording of it. We support the proposal for an early commonwealth conference for the purpose of working out an arrangement for expanding our markets in sterling countries.
The Conservative position on important matters of trade, as made apparent by their spokesmen, seems to be based upon two principles which to us are fallacies. The first
The Budget

Mr. Blackmore of these is the convertibility of currency. The hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) demonstrated on November 1 how utterly unrealistic it is to talk about multilateral trade based upon the convertibility of currencies in a world in which there is an unbalance of no less than $6 billion between the sterling and dollar areas. The second fallacy appearing in the Conservative case is that all exchange controls should be abolished, and that money should be allowed to find its own value. This would mean that the value of money would be determined by speculation rather than by its real purchasing power.
Social Crediters have always felt that this Conservative proposal is based upon the false concept that money is a commodity that should be bought and sold like rice or beans. Social Crediters contend that such a concept lies at the root of human misery. We shall vote for the Conservative amendment. We support it for what it says, but we do not in any way subscribe to the technique which the Conservatives might propose at the commonwealth conference in question, if that technique is based upon the fallacies I have mentioned.
So much having been said about the Conservative amendment, may I turn to the discussion of the need for federal aid for education in the provinces of Canada. The other day I received from my constituency a letter which contains a passage which I believe will serve as a point of contact, so to speak, for what I have to say. It comes from Barnwell, Alberta. It is signed by the principal of the school there; part of it reads as follows:
In Barnwell, where I am in a position to know as principal of the school, at least 33 per cent of the children attending our school come from families paying no taxes for education except a $4 annual poll tax (these people being beet labourers, not owning land). This places a tremendous burden on our taxpayers to maintain full school advantages. In fact they find it is almost impossible to do so. Governmental aid seems to be the only solution to our problem.
Before continuing with that, may I say that the schools in my constituency are overburdened because of the influx of people from two sources. One of these is the displaced persons, who seem to be dumped in my constituency rather generously; the other is the Japanese, who were brought in from British Columbia and dumped in that area. Both types of people, while I have complete respect for them, have kept the commandment of the Lord to multiply and replenish the earth. The result is that throngs of their children go to our schools. While they are quite welcome there, it does throw a heavy burden on our educational facilities.
457S1-101
1584	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Blackmore
May I point out that both these abnormal conditions are the result of federal control and federal policy over which the province has no power or control whatsoever.
As to federal aid for education, there are a number of considerations which in my judgment weigh with considerable importance in regard to this matter. There are widely varying economic conditions and financial circumstances prevailing in the provinces throughout Canada. Suppose that we assume that the people of any one province are just as eager to educate their children as are the people of any other province. Then we must gather a considerable amount of sobering information concerning the financial conditions and economic conditions in the various provinces from a contemplation of the figures which I shall read to the house and endeavour to have put on Hansard. These figures are drawn from a document which I look upon as being completely authentic. May I read them? They are from page 7 of a publication called "Wealth, Children and Education in Canada", by K. F. Argue, associate professor of education, university of Alberta, a document prepared for presentation to the national convention of the Canadian Teachers Federation at Vancouver, August 13-17, 1945. It is not completely up to date, but it is near enough to give us a fairly good picture of the situation confronting Canadians in various parts of Canada:
Financial provision per unit of educational need in the Canadian provinces.
1936 and 1941
(Stated in terms of dollar values August 1, 1939)
1936	1941
Prince Edward Island	
$16.87	$14.29Nova Scotia	
22.35	22.70New Brunswick	
18.58	19.74Quebec	
20.25	22.86
Year average-maritimes and
Quebec	
$20.26	$22.34General average-maritimes and Quebec	Approximately	21.00Manitoba	
$31.43	$35.37Saskatchewan	
25.87	32.85Alberta	
38.98	39.41Year average-prairie provinces ___ $31.05	$35.70
General average-prairie provinces
Approximately 33.00
Ontario	
$45.43	$46.87British Columbia	
47.18	49.61
Year average-Ontario and B.C.... $45.70 $47.30
General average-Ontario and B.C.-
Approximately 46.50
Canada: Year averages	 32.73	34.00
General average for dominion-
Approximately 33.00

Expenditure recommended by the
C.N.E.A. survey committee for a
very moderate and practicable
advance in education ...Approximately $67.00
May I just give a little attention to those figures. Hon. members will not be able to recall them readily, but I will mention one or two. They will notice that the report says that the amount which ought to be spent for a general average Canadian education is $67. The general average for the maritimes and Quebec is $21; for the prairie provinces, $33; for Ontario and British Columbia, $46.50. It cannot be seriously entertained-


Mr. Coldwell:: Has the hon. member the figures broken down for Ontario and British Columbia?


John Horne Blackmore: No, I have not. Ontario is $45.43 and $46.87; and British Columbia is $47.18 and $49.61.


Major James William Coldwell: British Columbia is a little more.


John Horne Blackmore: Yes. It cannot be seriously entertained, or even pretended, that the people of Ontario are any more desirous of giving their children a good education than are the people of Quebec or Nova Scotia. I think every hon. member would be disgusted at the very thought of such a notion. Then we must conclude that the reason why the maritimes are able to provide so little for their children is simply that they lack the financial and economic set-up in their provinces with which to supply the needed support for education.
I quoted from the C.N.E.A. Hon. members will be entitled to know what this C.N.E.A. is. Dr. F. Cyril James, principal of McGill university and chairman of the advisory committee on reconstruction, requested the members to survey the Canadian educational scene in 1943. The members were:
1.	The president of the Canada and Newfoundland Educational Association, who is also director of Protestant education for the province of Quebec.
2.	The French secretary and deputy minister of education for the province of Quebec.
3.	The director of education for the province of New Brunswick as representative of the maritime provinces.
4.	The deputy minister of education for Ontario.
5.	The deputy minister of education for Alberta as representative of the western provinces.
6.	A representative of the Canadian Teachers Federation.
7.	A representative of the Canadian National Federation of Home and School.

8.	The director of the Canadian Association for Adult Education.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that if those gentlemen were not able to discover the truth, it must be extremely difficult indeed to discover it.
There is a good deal to be said concerning the general inadequacy of Canadian educational provisions. It was found by this committee that Canada's typical teacher in 1941 was a single lady with a grade X, XI or XII education, plus a course of from six to eight months in normal school. About one Canadian teacher in six had a university education. Those who had such an education almost invariably taught in secondary schools. Canada had approximately 70,000 teachers in those days. In 1941 she paid each of the
35,000	of those teachers $782 a year, or less than $15.04 a week. She paid each of 17,500 of them less than $537 a year, or $10.05 a week. Just imagine a young girl or boy teaching school for that amount of money and hoping to repay a loan for education, or hoping to save up for higher education! Or just imagine a young man trying to save up to get married!
As a contrast to this state of affairs, Canadian Breweries in 1941 paid salaried employees an average income of $50 a week, as against $10.05 for the teacher. Canadian Breweries paid wage earners an average weekly wage of $29. That is almost three times as much per week as was paid to the 17,500 teachers whom I mentioned a moment ago.
Here are the median salaries of Canada's teachers in 1941 by provinces: Prince Edward Island, $422 a year. May 1 pause to explain that median, as hon. members know, means the average. It means that 49-9 per cent of the teachers received less than the figure which I just mentioned. Nova Scotia, $627 a year; New Brunswick, $588; Quebec, Protestant, $1,247; Quebec, Roman Catholic lay teachers, $318, religious orders, $479; Ontario, $1,055; Manitoba, $748; Saskatchewan, $710; Alberta, $881 and British Columbia, $1,321. The median for Canada was $782 a year. As I said before, 49-9 per cent of the Canadian teachers in these respective provinces received less than the amounts which I have mentioned.


Mr. Brooks:: May I ask the hon. member whether he is bringing these salaries up to date? I know that some have been increased by as much as three times the figures which he gave.


John Horne Blackmore: Probably I went a little too fast. I mentioned that this is the 1941 picture. The hon. member for York South
The Budget-Mr. Blackmore (Mr. Noseworthy) put some figures on the record bringing them up nearer to date; but I think the disparity which exists between any two provinces in Canada will be just about comparable with the disparity which existed between any two provinces in 1941. What I am endeavouring to bring out is not so much the meagre income which is being paid our teachers as the fact that the amount which the people are able to give their teachers in the varying provinces differs very greatly as from one province to another.
The Canadian average per pupil in attendance was $59. The British Columbia average was $84. The Canadian average per pupil enrolled was $50. The British Columbia average was $73. The Canadian average per child between five and nineteen was $33. The British Columbia average was $46.50. I do not mention these figures just to show how much better British Columbia is doing than the other provinces. If the average British Columbian were asked if that province were paying enough to the teachers in that province he would say without hesitation: We undoubtedly are not; we should be able to pay our teachers far more than we are paying them. Nevertheless British Columbia has been able to pay more than the other provinces have been paying. Contrast that with what Prince Edward Island can pay, and you will see the truth of the general statement I have made that there is a wide range of economic and financial circumstances facing the people in the various provinces of Canada.
From an editorial in Maclean's magazine prior to November 1, 1944, entitled "Education in Canada needs more money," I quote the following words, which constitute a sad commentary on the figures which I have given:
"In Ontario the average cost of keeping a person in jail is $536.55 per year."
In other words we are paying more to keep a man in jail than we are paying a large percentage of our teachers in Canada.
The financial responsibilities of the provinces are very heavy. I do not know that I have been very happy about the relative inability of some people to appreciate these facts. Let me mention that once more for the sake of hon. members and people throughout the country. The provinces of this dominion have many responsibilities placed upon them, and very little substantial provision for means of obtaining the money with which to discharge those responsibilities.
Here are some of the costly responsibilities which rest upon the provinces according to the British North America Act: They have to take care of roads, which entail a colossal
45781-101J

The Budget-Mr. Blackmore expenditure, especially in these times of motor transport. They have to take care of the forests, irrigation,-at least that was the general idea until very recently-public welfare, old age and blind pensions. Of course we recognize that the dominion is contributing in relation to the last mentioned item. But the general argument I am advancing is that the dominion must contribute to education also.
The provinces must take care of indigent relief, mothers' allowances, child welfare and mental patients. For example, Alberta alone on December 31, 1947, had 3,201 mental patients. I would imagine that that is a figure comparable with what would be found in other provinces. The provinces are charged with assistance to municipalities. They are charged with public health and hospitalization.
To offset these great financial responsibilities the revenue sources of the provinces available to them are unstable and grossly inadequate; especially is this the case in the western provinces and in the maritimes.
May I turn to my own province, with which I am naturally more familiar than I am with other provinces, much as I am interested in the welfare of the other provinces. In the year 1947-48 we had a revenue of $57,692,728.60. Our total expenditures for that same year were $50,952,244.84. Here is the way that the Alberta government saw fit to apportion that expenditure:	To education they gave
$7,695,352.45, $9.58 per capita, 14-2 per cent of the revenue and 20-8 per cent of the expenditures. To public health and welfare they gave $13,298,299.97; to highways and bridges they gave $12,950,284.60; to public buildings and other public works, $1,901,643.02. To administration of justice they gave $938,673.69. Expenditures for agriculture amounted to $1,088,281.71. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it will require very careful study to show how any one of these expenditures could be decreased. There is a tremendous demand for public health and welfare services, and for highways and bridges. Public buildings must be taken care of, and also the administration of justice. Expenditures for agriculture are very important, because through them the increase in the production of the province is taken care of. Hon. members can see what the province of Alberta faced financially in the year 1947-48.
It will be argued that at the present time Alberta has additional revenue coming from the oil industry. We will all grant that, but it must be borne in mind that any sound administration caring for a province must look to the future. I think that any group of men taken from this house would act in the same way as do the people who are in charge in the province of Alberta so far as looking to the future is concerned. The
(Mr. Blackmore.]
province of Alberta will look back to the years that have passed. They will recall that during the years 1930 to 1935 the province was put into debt to the extent of $51 million. That was not because of any careless administration. That was because of the needs of the needy. If another depression comes along the province will probably be faced with a similar outlay and a similar debt. How many years could a province like Alberta survive under such a state of affairs? Surely it is the part of wisdom to provide for any such contingency as the onset of a depression, when the province knows so well the most precarious financial system under which we are operating!
In 1935 the province was under a very heavy debt. We owed something like $167 million gross. It was almost enough to destroy us. It was costing close to fifty cents out of every dollar of our taxation to service the debt alone. Will any group of intelligent men from any party whatsoever in any province of Canada reason that when we have the opportunity to pay off such a debt as that, we should not take the opportunity?
Alberta has wisely assumed that the proper thing to do is to lay by for a rainy day. They see a rainy day coming before very long. If the rainy day does not come, it will still be a fine thing to have a little reserve on hand to take care of what might be a painful situation. So we cannot really say that Alberta should appropriate any of the moneys she is taking in from the oil industry for the servicing of education at the present time. At the same time, however, even if it were proposed that she should spend money from her oil revenues for education, judging from articles appearing in the newspapers published in that province she ought to be spending a lot more money on roads and highways; she ought to be spending more money in helping to finance municipalities; she ought to be spending more money on irrigation, and ought to be spending more money on this, that and the other thing.
Hon. members will realize that in a democracy, the provincial government has to be susceptible to the influence of public opinion, just as does any other government. It becomes difficult for a province, from almost any angle, to appropriate a larger percentage of provincial revenues to the support of education.
Hon. members will be interested in what Alberta has done for education. These figures tend to show how the provinces are manfully standing up to the task. In Alberta the total expenditure for education in 1934-35, which was during the depression years, was $2,269,286.41; in 1939-40, it was $2,850,214.09 and in 1944-45, it was $4,072,402.65. In 1948-49 the estimated amount is $9,829,000.

It must be obvious to anyone that Alberta is endeavouring to do all it can for education. Then, grants to schools in 1934-35 amounted to $1,391,020, in 1939-40 they were $1,763,768; in 1944-45 they were $2,717,700, and the estimated amount for 1948-49 is $5,700,000. Once more the province is doing all that one could logically expect for education.
Grants per pupil in 1934-35 amounted to $8.28; in 1939-40, $10.76; in 1944-45, $17.81, and the estimated amount for 1948-49 is $36.65.
The total grant to the university of Alberta in 1934-35 was $386,250; in 1939-40 it was $425,000; in 1944-45,	$602,500, and the
estimated amount for 1948-49 is $1,170,900, plus a capital sum for new buildings amounting to $1,369,800.
The institute of technology and art received in 1934-35 the sum of $64,438.41; in 1939-40, $79,238.23; in 1944-45, $63,796.12, and the estimated amount for 1948-49 is $197,613.
I mention those figures from my own province to show that the provinces are doing the very best they can with the means at their disposal. Even at that they must fall far short of providing the support for education to which the average Canadian boy and girl is entitled.
I said a while ago that the province has only meagre and unstable sources of financial revenue. Let us turn from the provincial to the federal field. In the first place the federal government has access to the whole credit of Canada, through section 91 (3) of the British North America Act, which makes provision for the raising of money by any mode or system of taxation. No reservation is made; the dominion is free to take money wherever she wishes. Furthermore, the dominion is capable of borrowing money on the public credit of all Canada. Currency and coinage is in the hands of the dominion, as are banking, the incorporation of banks, and the issue of paper money.
There will be those who will argue that these are responsibilities rather than sources of revenue. I suggest that attitude is entirely false. Those sources of revenue- currency and coinage, banking, the incorporation of banks and the issue of paper money -constitute probably the most important single source of revenue available in Canada. But it is locked up with the federal government, because the British North America Act precludes the provinces from gaining access to money through use of those means.
I believe I have said sufficient to show that the only possible solution of the education problem facing us must be found through federal aid to education, in every province. It seems to me that the child growing up in Prince Edward Island has the right to as
The Budget-Mr. Riley good an education as the child born in any other province. There is only one way in which we can guarantee to each child that he shall have those privileges of education which are his birthright, and that is through federal aid to education.
I shall be asked what I would do about education in provinces which may desire to have privately-owned schools. My answer would be that the money should be issued to the provinces as a definite grant, without any earmarks, and with no strings attached. A province as wise in the management of money in respect of those obligations placed upon her as Alberta has shown herself to be-as indicated by the figures I placed on Hansard a few moments ago-can safely be trusted with any moneys a federal government may think it appropriate and just to give that province. She will spend the money advanced by the federal government just as wisely as she spends the money derived from her own sources of revenue.
We need not endeavour to interfere with the way the provinces used the money put at their disposal. They will take care of that. I believe such money should be advanced on a per capita basis, regardless of the religious affiliation of the child concerned. The money would be granted for the education of a Canadian child, wherever that child may be, or in whatever circumstances it may live.
I urge once more that the federal government take into serious consideration the granting of generous allotments of money to each of the provinces not later than next year to support them in their endeavour to have a suitable educational system.


Mr. D. A. Riley (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I feel it to be my bounden duty to take advantage of the latitude allowed by the budget debate to bring to the attention of the house a matter of vital interest and grave concern to hundreds of thousands of citizens in the Atlantic provinces of New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.
It was at the historic city of Quebec in the year 1864 that the fathers of confederation met in solemn assembly to deliberate, among other things, upon the inducements for the provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island to unite with Canada in forming that which was later to become what we Canadians with some considerable justification hold out to be the mightiest unit in the British commonwealth of nations.
Although the deliberations of the Quebec conference were not open to the public, and although no completely official minutes of
1588	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Riley the proceedings of that body are in existence today, nevertheless it was later disclosed to the people along the Atlantic seaboard that there was a clear and distinct understanding among the delegates representing the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia on the one hand and Canada on the other that the federal government to be set up as a result of the proposed confederation would take upon itself certain definite responsibilities. Not the least of those responsibilities was the construction of a canal through the isthmus of Chignecto, a narrow strip of land some eighteen miles in width at its narrowest point and connecting the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
Despite the absence of an official record of the deliberations of the Quebec conference there is ample evidence on the unquestioned records of this house and of yet another place that the construction of what at that time was referred to as the proposed Baie Verte canal occupied a prominent role during those discussions. Although not a condition of confederation, it was nevertheless so clearly expected to be one of the first projects to be undertaken by the central government that the delegates from the easterly maritime provinces were completely satisfied that it formed an integral part of the considerations for their entering into the union contract.
On April 8, 1876, Mr. Burpee, the member for Sunbury in my own province, spoke on the floor of the House of Commons as follows:
The two great improvements spoken of in New Brunswick before the union were the intercolonial railroad and the Baie Verte canal. The intercolonial was made a condition of confederation, and although the canal was not, it was understood it was also to be constructed.
Mr. Burpee did not hesitate to say that if the people of New Brunswick had not been satisfied that this point was settled and that the construction of the Baie Verte canal would be proceeded with, they would have never consented to the union.
Again on May 7, 1886, the late Senator Dickey, one of the fathers of confederation and the illustrious great-grandfather of the bon. member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey), who sits in front of me in this house, again raised the question of this same canal when he said:
It was an undertaking which was agitated in the provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island for half a century. It received the sanction of every governor and every military commander to whom it was referred during the whole of that period, and it became one of those things that had to be done. At all events the provinces very strongly urged it, and when the Quebec conference took place in 1864 it was then distinctly agreed and understood that this Baie Verte canal across the same isthmus dividing the two provinces should be constructed by the dominion, because, as


the house will recall, these three small provinces, in their disunited state, could not grapple with a work of that magnitude.
I shall not at this time delve too deeply into the tragic details of the efforts put forward in promoting this project. Generations of maritimers have gone to their graves bewildered and disillusioned over the failure of the federal authorities to carry out this undertaking so necessary for the development of the Atlantic provinces. Down through the years since confederation this question has been raised and discussed on the floor of this House of Commons. Time after time parliament has been made conscious of its obligations in this regard. Commissions have been appointed; surveys have been conducted, and without exception they have determined the engineering feasibility of this canal.
On at least two occasions, when it seemed that its construction would most certainly be proceeded with, it was decided that the economic conditions of the times did not warrant the expenditures necessary to carry out the work. This despite the fact that during one of those periods, between 1930 and 1935, unemployment was rife in this country, and a project of this nature not only would have fed thousands of hungry mouths but would have assisted materially in the economic recovery of the Atlantic provinces. Surely such an excuse cannot be put forward today.
During the present century industrial development in the maritime provinces has lagged behind that of other sections of Canada. Although the investment of capital has increased in our provinces, and although production has reached a much higher level, we have nevertheless obvious geographic disadvantages. Because of transportation handicaps it is not possible for us to ship our products to the populous markets of our country so as to compete favourably with the products of the industries of central Canada. Should the building of a canal through the isthmus of Chignecto be proceeded with at this time, the Atlantic provinces would be placed in a much more favourable economic position, and their economic development, so long and so unnecessarily retarded, would be ensured. Old industries would be revived; new industries would spring into being, and coastwise trade in small vessels would flourish. The potatoes and fish products of Prince Edward Island could be shipped by small vessels to the east coast of the United States. The wood products of the north shore of our own province of New Brunswick could be similarly shipped to the port of Saint John for transshipment to the markets of the world in ocean-going vessels, as would also the various products from the north shore of Nova Scotia. At

the present time it is necessary for those products either to be shipped by rail at prohibitive cost or to travel by water via a circuitous, costly and hazardous route in order to reach their destination.
With the advent of the grand province of Newfoundland into confederation, and the exploitation of the iron ore deposits in Labrador a distinct probability, it is easy to envision that part of this ore will be shipped to eastern United States ports. The water route from the St. Lawrence to the eastern coast of the United States would be shortened some 400 miles by the construction of the Chignecto canal, as it has now come to be known.
I shall leave to other occasions and to other hon. members of this house who intend to record their wholehearted support of this project a more detailed description of the advantages that the Chignecto canal will bring to constituencies other than my own and to the nation as a whole. The citizens of my constituency have long urged the building of this canal, because to them its advantages are obvious and manifold. The great seaport of Saint John-spelled S-a-i-n-t -through which is shipped each year millions of tons of freight destined for the markets of the world, would be made readily accessible to other regions of the Atlantic provinces via a short and less expensive water route. The several foundries in and about Saint John could import their pig iron and moulding sand from the great lakes region on a more economical basis. A saving could also be realized in the importation of coke from Montreal for these same industries. Our fertilizer could be shipped over a wider area at much lower cost. With the increased commerce going through our port and the revival of coastwise shipping, we feel that employment in our vital shipbuilding and ship repair industry would tend to reach a more stable level.
The Saint John area produces about one-quarter of all the crushed limestone quarried in Canada. This is distributed for agricultural purposes under a joint policy of the federal government and the governments of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, and I believe Nova Scotia is also concerned. Those governments could save a great deal of money if this limestone were shipped by water through the Chignecto canal, and there is a distinct possibility that a market for this product would be opened up in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario.
There is now under construction in Albert county, in my constituency, in one of the most beautiful settings in Canada, the Fundy national park. It is anticipated that the thousands of pleasure craft which would normally pass through the Chignecto canal
The Budget-Mr. J. R. Kirk will find a haven in the village of Alma, in the same county, at the entrance to what promises to become a tourists' paradise.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to read into the record, as evidence of the mounting interest in the Chignecto canal in our Atlantic provinces, a resolution recently adopted by the maritime board of trade at a meeting held in Charlottetown on September 30 of this year.
Whereas Chignecto canal committees are being organized in all important centres throughout the maritime provinces in support of the construction of the Chignecto canal;
And whereas several royal commissions have declared its feasibility and its economic value to the maritime provinces as a whole;
And whereas the Surveyer commission of 1931-33, while confirming the findings of previous investigations, could not recommend its construction at that time owing to existing economic conditions, but did recommend its further examination in the light of future development;
And whereas there is now a widespread and evergrowing demand throughout the maritimes for its immediate construction;
Therefore be it resolved that the Maritime Board of Trade go on record as supporting the Chignecto canal committee in urging definite action towards the construction of the Chignecto canal.
Before I conclude I should like to remind this parliament that it has before it a solemn obligation, in common with every parliament since confederation, to ensure for the people of my province and those of the other Atlantic provinces the construction of this most important project, which we deem to be so necessary for our future economic welfare.


Mr. J. R. Kirk (Anligonish-Guysborough):: Mr. Speaker, I think I am the first member to publicly welcome the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) back to this chamber. In connection with this welcome, I would hazard a guess, sir, that the $64 question in the minds of some has been answered. The question; Can you keep a good man down? The answer is no.
This is the first time in this session of the twenty-first parliament of Canada that I have taken any part in the discussions. I take this opportunity to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on having been the unanimous choice of hon. members of this house for the position which you hold. I wish to assure you that it will be a pleasure to co-operate with you in your duties, which I know you will carry out with distinction and which I trust will not be too arduous.
Before making any specific remarks on subjects which are of interest and importance to my constituents of Antigonish-Guysborough, on the east coast of Nova Scotia, I would like to say a word of welcome to the many new members who are this session making their debut, so to speak, in this chamber. It is encouraging to see so many young men

The Budget-Mr. J. R. Kirk interesting themselves in the affairs of the nation, and indicating their willingness to share in its responsibilities. I would like to welcome in a special manner the members from our newest sister province, the sea-girt province of Newfoundland. They will find that many of the interests and hopes of their constituents are similar to those of the residents of other maritime provinces, and this common bond will, I know, serve to weld closely together the people of our new province and their representatives with those of our other maritime provinces.
I should also like to extend congratulations to our genial Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) on the success which has attended upon his work, by no means easy, of keeping the financial situation of Canada on a pretty even keel, even while so many other countries are experiencing hardships and difficulties following the heavy toll of the war years. Rehabilitation has been pretty well completed in Canada now, and we Canadians have endured no hardships-certainly none comparable to what might have been expected in a country small in population but large in expanse, limited in financial capacity but unlimited in the will to share in obligations, a country which contributed so unstintingly during the war years in men and material, and towards the rehabilitation of the allies in the years following the war. I believe the reputation which Canada has established for itself within the last decade will increase with the years, and that renown, in no small measure, will be due to the masterly handling of our financial problems by the present Minister of Finance, and by his predecessor.
I am happy to learn of the plan recently outlined by the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Winters) for long-term housing development, based upon joint participation by the dominion, the provinces and the municipalities. Housing remains one of our greatest national problems, and I think it only fit and proper that this problem should be handled jointly by these three units of government, working in collaboration. I am sure that the working out of this plan will mean great easing of the financial burden now being felt by homebuilders-most of them veterans and other young men-and I look forward to seeing this legislation put into effect at the earliest possible day. Knowing our Minister of Reconstruction and Supply as well as I do, I am satisfied that the carrying out of the plan is in good hands.
As all hon. members know, there are several things which the people living in our coastal provinces, whether on the Atlantic or the Pacific, or in constituencies bordering the great lakes, have in common, and these include the love of the sea and the dread of

it. The sea is kind to them, because it affords them a means of livelihood by fishing, shipbuilding and other allied industries; it provides many opportunities for pleasant and health-giving recreation; it affords, too, an avenue of transportation, a pathway by which to reach the lands beyond the horizon. But often, too, in the sea lurks the danger of sudden death, and many a man, and many a ship, went down to instant destruction at its whim, or when its lashing waves hid from view the shoals and rocks which are all too numerous along our extensive coast lines.
For a number of years, I have voiced in this chamber the urgent need of providing improved aids to navigation, and especially a first-class coastguard marine service, to patrol our shores. I am not going to reiterate the statements made on previous occasions by other hon. members, as well as by myself, as to why and how this service should be instituted. However, I do hope that our government will give early consideration to the proposal. I would like to read into Hansard a clipping from the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of September 29,	1949,
which has the caption "Radar to be used by coastguard", and is datelined Boston, Massachusetts. It reads:
The coastguard revealed today that it is planning to set up radar stations along the shore, to help find disabled vessels.
Captain F. J. Sexton, commander of the first coastguard district, said the use of radar would enhance the value of the present lookout watch at lifeboat stations.
Positions of ships in distress within the range of the equipment could be accurately determined, he said, and radio equipped coastguard boats could be directed to their assistance.
Sexton said one station under consideration for the use of radar is Brant Point, Nantucket, and another is the station at Race Point on Cape Cod.
What the United States can do in this direction, we in Canada could do also.
With so many devices made available through the wonderful inventions of the past few years, we have at hand a real opportunity to give protection to our seafarers by co-ordinating the marine services now operated by government departments, such as fisheries, mines and resources, transport, and the R.C.M.P. I am sure all hon. members will support this request for a coastguard service in Canada, especially those who represent, as I do, a coastal constituency.
While on the subject of the sea and those who make a living thereby, I wish to refer also to a great need of our fishermen. It is commonly known that no item of food which man enjoys begins to lose its flavour as quickly as fish; from the moment they leave the water, their flavour begins to disappear. The fishermen have realized this for many a year, and this explains why, so

early in the history of our country, the art of drying fish was known and practised. In fact, some of our earliest settlements were made by the people of Brittany, France, on the Nova Scotia coast. They came there to catch codfish and dry it on the sandy stretches of shore before returning home across the seas. From these Breton fisher-folk, the island of Cape Breton received its name. In time, other methods of processing fish came into use, and in recent years the "locking-in" of the flavour of the fish has been accomplished by the deep-freeze or quick-freeze method. The few larger units that have been established have proved a great boon to the fishing industry in the areas they serve; and I must say this government has been most helpful in giving needed assistance by way of financing such projects.
However, the fishermen along the coasts have been and still are at a disadvantage in this respect, being so far from the large freezer plants. Now a movement has spread along the coast whereby financial assistance is being sought for the erection of small mechanical cold storage and bait freezers. If our fishing industry is to flourish, it is becoming increasingly necessary for plants of this nature to be built along our shores. I do hope that the Department of Fisheries will give sympathetic attention to this question of assistance to fishermen's co-operatives and those who are anxious to erect these units, which will not only serve to retain the freshness of the fish but will also be a means of keeping on hand at all times sufficient bait- a very important item in the fishing industry. Last year it was necessary for this government to spend a considerable amount of money to transport bait from the Pacific to the Atlantic coast for the use of our fishermen. While this was a great help to the fishermen, it is an aid only and not a solution of the problem. But with their own bait freezers and deep-freeze units, the fishermen would be able to pursue their calling with considerably increased facility. With the coming into effect of the new Annecy trade agreements, the Canadian fishing industry will be given a new lease on life, so to speak, provided we can obtain and hold the markets for our fish which are being made available. Much will depend upon our ability during the next few years to ensure a steady, and an attractive, supply of seafood. If we can do this, with government assistance, it will bring prosperity to our fishermen.
I wish to touch once again upon a subject which has been dear to my heart ever since I first came to this house, and that is the construction or completion of the Guysborough railway.
The Budget-Mr. J. R. Kirk
In 1939 I first brought to the attention of hon. members of this house the urgent need of completing this Guysborough railway if the people of this area were to benefit from the agreements which were being arranged at that time. However, the war intervened and brought in its wake the need for other urgent and more necessary expenditures, which overshadowed for the time all other considerations.
In 1947 I again took the matter up in this house, and I think I cannot do better than quote from my remarks at that time, as recorded in Hansard of May 20, 1947, at page 3242. Speaking of the Guysborough railway project, I said:
Now that the war is over, and a considerable part of the demobilization costs have been taken care of, the importance of post-war projects has become paramount. May I say, with the full endorsement of all people in that part of Nova Scotia, that the need for completion of this railway is every bit as great now as it was in 1929, if not more so. The present position of having the right of way purchased and paid for, the concrete abutments for bridges in place, of having ready all preliminary work, and allowing all this expenditure and preparation to come into disuse, is not what it should be; if I may use the word, the situation is intolerable'. Remember that this is no mere temporary or unproductive enterprise. I can tell the house with full knowledge whereof I speak that the fishing, lumber, agriculture and tourist industries of Guysborough county are today suffering from neglect and lack of development because of the failure to complete the Guysborough railway. My constituents of Guysborough county, of every political persuasion are unanimous in their endorsement of my representations to the house today, and I take this opportunity to make the strongest appeal to the government for immediate action in this matter. The house may sometimes grow weary of the claims sponsored by members from the maritimes, of all political parties, but I feel sure that all members who have a knowledge of this subject will support the appeal which I make today. I hope that by the time another budget speech is being debated in this chamber I may be in a position to voice the thanks of my constituents for the government's authorization, for the completion of the Guysborough railway.
The above remarks are as applicable now as they were in 1929 or in 1947, and more so if possible; for with the efforts to bring into Canada immigrants from other lands who are, generally speaking, interested in industries such as agriculture, fishing, lumbering, the natural resources of Guysborough county have much to offer if transportation facilities were such as to make the county easy of access.
In 1948 I again referred to this proposed railway when addressing this house on March 4 on the budget debate on such kindred subjects as industries based on the natural resources of the eastern shore of Nova Scotia. At that time I said, as recorded on page 1869 of Hansard:
The counties of Antigonish and Guysborough also contain fine stretches of timber, both hard and soft

The Budget-Mr. J. R. Kirk wood; but the lumber industry has been greatly handicapped by lack of suitable means of transportation.
As I have pointed out on various occasions, the whole county of Guysborough is practically without any railroad. The Guysborough railway has been used, by both old-line parties, as a political football ever since confederation. True, no government is bound by anything a candidate may say at election time or between elections; but this case is somewhat different, for the Liberal government has in effect promised the people of Guysborough a railway, inasmuch as a contract was let and construction work begun in 1929. Unfortunately before the contract was completed there was a change of government and the new Conservative administration, under the late Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, cancelled the contract, and from that day to this, nothing further has been done about it.
Naturally, during the war years, the good people of Guysborough county were satisfied to wait, believing that every available dollar should be expended in fighting the enemy. But now that the war is over, and we have gone through the transition period from war to peace, they do expect this government to fulfil the promise made to them, as I have said, away back in 1929.
The above remarks, made in 1948, apply no less pointedly at this time. Earlier this year, I received a resolution from the following organizations in Guysborough county: The Guysborough board of trade, the Sherbrooke board of trade; the Canso board of trade; the Goldboro, Isaacs Harbour and district board of trade; town of Mulgrave; Guysborough county farmers' association; Guysborough branch of the Canadian Legion; Canso branch of the Canadian Legion.
The resolution to which I have referred reaids:
Whereas all county industry, fishing, agricultural and lumbering is hampered by the lack of transportation facilities, often promised but never provided, and plainly evidenced in the depopulated agricultural and fishing settlements,
Therefore resolved,
(1)	That this organization requests the resumption to successful completion, for both economic and defence reasons, of the Guysborough railway, commenced in 1929, but on which no work has been done since 1931; and
(2)	That copies of this resolution be sent to the Prime Minister, the premier, the federal and local members and the departments or ministries concerned.
I forwarded this resolution to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier), the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) and last, but not least, our able minister from Nova Scotia, the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Winters). I also forwarded a copy to Hon. Angus L. Macdonald, premier of Nova Scotia, and to his minister of lands and forests, who happens to be the local member for Guysborough county.
I received favourable acknowledgments from the Prime Minister and the cabinet ministers previously referred to, and was par-

ticularly pleased with an interview which I had with the Prime Minister later, followed by a letter from him which reads as follows:
Ottawa, May 6, 1949
J. Ralph Kirk, Esq.,
Antigonish, N.S.
Dear Mr. Kirk:
I wish to refer to our conversation concerning the Guysborough railway.
I was pleased to have you explain to me both the historic background and the economic possibilities of this railway and, although I am, of course, not in a position to form any definite opinion about it, I do wish to assure you that I am one of those who believe in the future of our great country and who believe that it will be necessary to continue taking risks with development projects if we wish our progress to continue.
Of course, there were mistakes made in the building of some of our railway lines but if we had been too cautious about them, we would not have the Canada we have today.
I think it was a mistake to have stopped all venturesome pioneering when we got into the depression twenty years ago and then, of course, it had to be discontinued during the war. But we should now be able to look forward to a good, long era of peace and go ahead with the kind of projects that will be apt to stimulate healthy national development.
With kindest personal regards, believe me always, Yours very truly,
Louis S. St. Laurent
I should like to thank the Prime Minister publicly for the letter which I have quoted, which indicates the broad vision and the wealth of thought which have in no small measure contributed to his own wonderful success and to his present position of prominence and trust. I believe that the spirit of confidence in the future of Canada, which is expressed in this letter, will serve to keep our country in the forefront of international affairs.
Recently two resolutions were introduced by the Minister of Transport for the consideration of this house. One is to provide for the purchase by the government of Canada of 'the Temiscouata railway and the other is to authorize the government of Canada to grant to the province of British Columbia a subsidy of $15,000 per mile toward the construction of a line of railway in that province. I thoroughly approve of these measures, and I am glad to see ^ the residents of those sections of Canada given improved railway facilities. In fact, I am strongly in favour of any action which will serve outlying sections of the country, sections which are in need of improved means of transportation, in order to develop their natural resources and win for their people a fairer share of the amenities of life. Such a section exists in the county of Guysborough, which is part of 'the constituency which I have had the honour to represent in this house since 1936.

Commenting on the two resolutions to which I have just referred, an editorial appeared in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of November 2 last, under the caption "An Intolerable Situation", from which I quote:
Proposals of this kind are, as we say, of peculiar interest to the people of this part of the country at this time when there are renewed demands for sorely needed railway facilities in sections of Nova Scotia. These proposals are not referred to here in any critical sense, but merely to indicate that railway facilities for other sections of the dominion are engaging the attention of the federal authorities.
Here in this province there are renewed efforts to have the Guysborough railway built-or completed. For long decades now, the Guysborough railway project has been both a political football and the butt of political jokes. But this project never should have been a political football; and certainly there is nothing "funny" about the position of an important part of Canada deprived of railway facilities.
J. Ralph Kirk, member for Antigonish-Guys-borough, has stated the case well on a number of occasions in the federal parliament, insisting that "the need for completion of this railway is every bit as great now as it was in 1929, if not more so."
"The present position of having the right of way purchased and paid for, the concrete abutments for bridges in place, of having ready all preliminary work, and allowing all this expenditure and preparation to come into disuse, is not what it should be; if X may use the word, the situation is intolerable."
And the member for Antigonish-Guysborough did not exaggerate when he told the House of Commons that the fishing, lumbering, agricultural and tourist industries of Guysborough county "are today suffering from neglect and lack of development because of the failure to complete the Guysborough railway."
Now that the war is over, and we have gone through the transition period from war to peace, the people of Guysborough county, he added, "do expect this government to fulfil the promise made to them . . . away back in 1929."
It is the next thing to disgraceful to compel the people of important sections of the country to exist without reasonably adequate railway facilities. The Guysborough railway should have been completed-to tide water-long ago.
Another editorial appeared in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of November 7, entitled "Let it be Finished-Right!" It reads as follows:
In a letter published within the year, Hon. Michael Dwyer, former minister of mines in the government of Nova Scotia, suggested that "no other item on a pro rata basis of potential value to the country at large would cost so little and mean so much as the Guysborough railway". The former minister gave these facts and figures:
The road as laid out has practically no grades or sharp curves and therefore it would be much cheaper to operate when finished than the road presently in use-ton for ton.
"For example, a locomotive that could haul 1,500 tons from Sydney to the strait and 1,200 from the strait-
That is the strait of Canso.
-to Truro could haul 4,000 tons from the strait to Truro.
"It may not be generally known that had the Guysborough railway been finished, it would have justified its entire cost during the first year of world war II."
The people of that section of the province have been promised the Guysborough railway for a
The Budget-Mr. Murphy
long time now-but the question cannot be permitted to rest on mere promises alone. It is essential public work, this project, and it should be completed-to tide water.
All governments, all political parties, have "played with" the Guysborough railway project. It has been a political football for generations. It should now be gone forward with. There is no justification for any further delay in this matter, which is of such profound concern to an important part of the dominion.
Let the Guysborough railway project be finished -and finished right!
These editorials which I have just read will indicate what the people of Nova Scotia are thinking with regard to the necessity of completing the Guysborough railway. Certainly, if the people of Guysborough county are to benefit at all from the construction of the strait of Canso bridge, it is really mandatory that this line of railway be completed.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I submit the observations in my remarks today for the earnest consideration and attention of the cabinet. Anticipating that the Minister of Transport will, as I hope, see fit to introduce a resolution dealing with the completion of the Guysborough railway, I ask all hon. members of this house for their support.


Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lambton West):: Mr. Speaker, it so happens that I am the first speaker of our party after the introduction today of our newest member, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell). The applause which greeted his introduction today was more expressive than any words I can use. We all know that the hon. member resigned one of the most responsible positions held by any Canadian to accept a greater political responsibility. I am sure that all hon. members are really happy, at least they should be, that this house again has the presence of a man of such outstanding ability.
This also gives me the opportunity of saying-I may be criticized for saying it, but many hon. members from all parties will agree-that we could have many hon. members of whom we would be very proud if hon. members from far-away places were given air transportation privileges that we now enjoy by rail. This happens to be the first.session in my experience in which I have been back to my riding only once in two months. I must say that I miss the association and the advice of my constituents. I say that because I can appreciate the position of those members who come from long distances and who are unable to return to their ridings, as they should, to represent them properly and to get the feeling and the opinions of the people of those ridings. It is not fair, Mr. Speaker, to expect hon. members from the west coast to spend four days to get home and four days to return

The Budget-Mr. Murphy in order to visit their constituents. As I said a moment ago, I do think that if hon. members who live four hundred miles or more from the capital were afforded the privilege of using air transportation the house and the country would benefit not only by the experience of those hon. members on their return two or three times during each session, but, most important of all, we would have a better type of member.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I hear some laughter in the chamber, Mr. Speaker. We are very fortunate indeed to have such a high type of member from these far-away places. The point I am making is that busy people, whether they are in a profession or in a business, cannot afford to come to these sessions and not have the opportunity of going back home. If we are to have these people here and have them accept their political responsibilities we should afford them the opportunity which could easily be made available to them.


Mr. Isnor:: The hon. member would include the maritimes.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Yes indeed; all residing over 400 miles away.


Mr. Wylie:: Don't forget that rough railroad.


Joseph Warner Murphy: The hon. member is talking 4about the Temiscouata Railway.
Since coming to this house I have not made a practice of advocating expenditure of sums of money where I did not think it was absolutely necessary. I make that statement because of what I am going to say. In the city of Sarnia we have what was at one time a boys' brigade hall, which is now an armouries." Every hon. member will agree that Sarnia has been mentioned in this particular session and in the last few days of the previous session probably more often than any other city in the dominion.


Mr. Gibson (Comox-Alberni):: Except Fraser Valley.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Yes, except Fraser Valley. I should mention these facts in view of what I intend to say. We have the largest oil refinery in the British empire, which is the Imperial Oil. We have the great Polymer Corporation, a $50 million corporation, a crown company. We have the Dow Chemical, a $9 million to $11 million chemical industry, with prospects of additions of some $5 million to $9 million. There are other new plants I could mention, including one about to come in, namely, the Sun Oil, a $20 million refinery. In fact, Sarnia has become known as the chemical valley of Canada because of these industries. The armoury that we have

there is a disgrace. Because of the particular type of industry we have there I hope the urgency of this armoury will receive favourable government consideration. A few days ago I noticed that armouries were being proposed for the Sault. They may be under construction within a few days. I have no quarrel with that. I think that is a strategic place where one should be erected.
Hon. members should know something about the building which is now being used as an armoury and which houses in small numbers the 31st Field Regiment, R.C.A., and the 11th Field Squadron, R.C.E. This building was erected in 1892 as a boys' brigade hall. Then it was used as a theatre for a few years. It stood vacant for several years, and then was used as a theatre again, and today it is used as an armoury. An engineers' and architects' report has been made on this particular building. They consider it unsafe for drilling troops and even for the storage of military equipment. They are unable to go ahead with any recruiting campaign. There is no accommodation for vehicles, which accounts for the high cost of maintenance not only of the vehicles but of other armoured equipment. They did acquire a garage some two or three miles distant which means additional maintenance cost. They have no lecture rooms. The drilling needs and the training of the nine different courses cannot be carried on because there is no place to hold them. The floor is condemned. It is now limited to thirty pounds per square foot of weight. They have shoring in the basement to hold gun carriages. The only place they can handle them is immediately above the furnace. Considerable shoring is done around the furnace to hold these particular vehicles.
The department has a copy of the report of the engineers and architects. Some few weeks ago, an amount of $50,000, or thereabouts, was allocated for some repair work. As a matter of fact this money was returned by the engineers as it would serve no useful purpose. The building was beyond repair. The side walls are badly bulged from the pressure of the wood roof trusses, and the south wall is extremely bad, so that the rods would not hold back the walls in position. The brick buttress along the inside of the basement walls is cracked half way up, showing that the basement walls are shoving in owing to the pressure of the earth on the outside, and the eccentric load from the brick walls above, because they are not plumb.
There used to be a swimming pool in the basement, which has been filled in, and a concrete floor poured over it. But owing to the pressure of the basement wall and posts supporting the floor above, the concrete floor has sunk, as a matter of fact, under

the posts, and buckled up about two feet from them. The wooden timbers supporting the floor joists are in very poor condition and show signs of dry rot. The drill hall floor is uneven, owing to the sagging of the beams. I could go on in detail regarding the condition of this particular building. However the department has full details and knows all the defects.
The point I make is that the area is a strategic one, where we should have an armoury which would be in keeping with the necessary protection of the various industries located there. Today, because of the atomic bomb, people are defence conscious. For the first time since I have been a member of the House of Commons I am urging the expenditure of public money on a most necessary defence building and I do hope the government will consider seriously taking advantage of the opportunity there of replacing the present armoury with a more modern one.
I mention the present opportunity because there has been some suggestion that the city of Sarnia make a trade with the department, permitting the department to move out into the country and to accept some small acreage in return for the site upon which the armoury is located. It may seem strange for the member from a riding to make this statement, but I must say that while this trade might have been all right fifteen or twenty years ago, at which time the property they would propose to give to the government would be worth an amount which would be within a very few thousand dollars of the then value of the armoury, today, due to the progress being made in that area, and the development of Sarnia and the surrounding districts, it so happens that the location of this armoury is a most valuable one. It is on the best street in the city, with a frontage of 221 feet on Christina street, running through to Front street, with a frontage of 130 feet, and with a depth of 249 feet.
This property is practically down town; and while some people say that even fifteen or twenty years ago it might not have been worth more than $15,000, and the property they would now propose to give to the government would not be worth more than that amount, I am here to say that today in my view a fair valuation of that property would be somewhere between $100,000 and $200,000. I believe the government could obtain that amount by offering this property for sale.
From my place in the House of Commons I am now suggesting that neither this government nor any other government should make a transfer of property which would not be fair to all concerned. This is a property held in truit for the people of Canada. If the
The Budget-Mr. Murphy transfer or trade were carried out on a fair basis, all well and good; but as the representative of that riding I have no hesitation in saying that such a trade would not be fair to the rest of the people in Canada. It would be my view that the government ought not to accept the idea of making the transfer on that basis.
I would repeat that a new armoury could be constructed at a lesser cost, because the sale price of this building would be an item of some extent. I do hope the government will take these facts into consideration when considering the requirements at Sarnia.
We hear it suggested from time to time that there should be an increase in the radio licence fee. Let me go on record emphatically as stating my opposition to any such increase. Every hon. member knows that it is the policy of the Progressive Conservative party to abolish entirely the radio licence fee. I have received many resolutions from organizations, including the city and some surrounding townships, as well as labour organizations, and I would not be fair to them if I did not express their disapproval of any increase in the licence fee. I do not intend to develop the argument further today.
I would hope that the policy announced a few days ago by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) whereby the sales tax is to be removed from fuel oil might be extended to other commodities. I am one who is firmly convinced-and I think many hon. members regardless of party must share this view-that the sales tax is the bugbear of the high cost of living today. If when introducing the next budget the government could see its way clear to decrease or to eliminate the sales tax I am sure it would be received favourably. We can think of various prices of different articles, and we can tell about increased prices we have noted, but I am satisfied there is no factor in our economy which has contributed so greatly to the high cost of living as has the sales tax.
It is my hope that since the minister has begun a reduction of this tax, perhaps as one of his post-war ideas, he may carry it further so that in the 1950 budget we will see either a reduction of the sales tax or its elimination altogether.
Another observation I should like to make relates to the statement made recently by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and supplemented by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) concerning the taxation of crown companies. We expect that some time before the close of this session legislation will be introduced to provide some return in lieu of taxes to those municipalities in which crown companies or crown properties are located.

The Budget-Mr. Murphy
As the older members in the house will recall, on several occasions I have urged that crown companies be subject to municipal taxation, or that at least they should accept their share of the responsibility in municipal administration. In my constituency we have the Polymer Corporation, a $50 million enterprise, and one which has done a grand job. Had it not been for this corporation during the war we would have suffered from a shortage of raw rubber requirements. That cor-portation was a large factor in winning the war. Let there be no mistake about that. Since coming to this house I have given various reasons

I do not intend to repeat them-why this crown company should accept its municipal responsibilities.
I hope that when the proposed legislation is introduced provision will be made whereby the municipal assessments will be accepted so that there will be no further exemptions from taxation. I have mentioned that I think they should contribute to school taxes. The present population of the township in which this Polymer Corporation is situated is well over 10,000, whereas some few years ago it was only about 2,500. I shall not elaborate on the increased costs brought about by this company being located there. I was happy to hear the announcement and I think it will give a great deal of satisfaction to those municipalities where crown companies are located. We have several of them in our county.
I know it is on the record here that crown companies never pay taxes or anything in lieu of taxes, but this municipality does receive $5,000 or $6,000 a year. I understand that Eldorado in Port Hope continued to pay the municipal taxes that had been paid by the private corporation which it took over. I do not know whether retroactive provisions would be included but I would like to see something along this line because it would be only fair to these municipalities.
Just a few minutes before the house closed the other evening, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) made an announcement with regard to rentals which was important to so many families in the Dominion of Canada. This happened to be the second announcement which had been made by the same minister without regard to parliament, the former one being-


Mr. Sinclair:: On a point of order, I question whether it is admissible for the hon. member to refer to a debate which was concluded last evening.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is out of order to refer to a debate that has occurred during the present session.


An hon. Member:: Go ahead.	.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I shall refer to it just
briefly. I think that was an illustration of an utter disregard of parliament. These increased rentals are going to work great hardship on many people especially at this particular time of the year. In saying that, I think I am voicing the opinion of most hon. members of this house.


James Sinclair: I repeat my point of order.


Joseph Warner Murphy: It was an unwelcome announcement that had little regard for the people and for the rights of parliament.


James Sinclair: I repeat my point of order for personal reasons. I was very anxious to enter the debate on rental control but I have been advised that because the matter was dealt with yesterday I cannot do it.


An hon. Member:: Of course you can.


Mr. Fleming:: On the point of order, I submit that nothing that happened yesterday on the motion to adjourn the house to discuss a matter of urgent public importance governs the subjects that may be discussed in later debates. Surely there was nothing closed about that debate yesterday. The debate yesterday was on a motion to adjourn the house. There was no vote and there was no opportunity to bring the matter to a conclusion or a decision. I submit that nothing that happened yesterday precludes any hon. member from referring to rental controls during this budget debate, if he chooses so to do.


Mr. Fauieux:: On the point of order, I should like to direct the attention of the house to May, thirteenth edition, chapter 12, page 316, paragraph entitled, "Reference to prior debates". This reads:
It is a wholesome restraint upon members to prevent them from reviving a debate already concluded; and there would be little use in preventing the same question or bill from being offered in the same session, if, without being offered, its merits might be discussed again and again.
I believe it has always been ruled in the past that it is against the rules of the house to refer to or to discuss a matter which has been considered in a preceding debate.


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Speaker, I submit that the citation that has just been read proves conclusively that there can be no objection to the hon. member who is now speaking proceeding to discuss what he proposed to discuss. There was no conclusion to the debate he has referred to. It is perfectly obvious that there are reasons why something which parliament has decided upon should not be reviewed over and over again, but on a substantive motion there happens to have been discussion in regard to a matter that undoubtedly will be discussed in this

house a number of times during the remainder of this session. In this particular case the house has come to no conclusion in regard to the bungling of the government in connection with rental controls which would in any way preclude the hon. member from dealing with that matter in the present debate.


Alphonse Fournier: Up to the moment that the leader of the opposition spoke I thought that there was some doubt as to the position taken by the Speaker, but if hon. members will refer to citation 250 they will see that it reads:
The debate on the urgent matter referred to in this rule cannot be adjourned as the motion actually before the chair is "that the house do now adjourn." Once the house rises, the motion is carried.
The motion yesterday was to adjourn the house so that a specific question could be discussed, the question of rental control. At eleven o'clock the house rose without question put and the motion carried. According to this rule, we have had a complete debate in the house on rental control. I am of the opinion that you cannot renew that debate at this stage. You can probably mention rental control, but you cannot refer to the debate or to what the minister said in the debate. The hon. member was mentioning what the Minister of Finance had said and I really think he is out of order.


Mr. Maclnnis:: I should like to say a word on the point of order. I have no particular reason to urge that the hon. member for Lamb ton West (Mr. Murphy) would have an opportunity to discuss rent control, but I do not think the point raised by the minister is well taken. The motion yesterday was that the house do adjourn in order to discuss a certain matter, and that matter was discussed. That did not dispose of the matter at all; it merely disposed of the adjourning of the house. If the minister's contention were upheld it would mean that the Minister of Finance would be debarred from bringing into this house during the present session any other legislation of any kind dealing with rent control. No decision was made on the question; and under our procedure all the references to such debates deal with debates on which a decision has been reached. So while that debate ended, no decision was arrived at with respect to rent control.


James Sinclair: To make my position clear, I had hoped to speak on rent control myself, but I did not want to be immediately challenged by some of the legal experts of the opposition, so I thought it best to raise this point now and obtain a ruling.


Joseph Warner Murphy: In a way this discussion can be compared to the announcement with
The Budget-Mr. Murphy respect to rentals, in that we as members of the House of Commons can discuss it only after a decision has been made. I shall be very brief, but I would like to express to this house the opposition to this enactment on the part of the municipalities I represent, the various labour organizations, and the Canadian Legion. I would not be fair to those people if I did not take advantage of this opportunity to express their disapproval of this action.
For a few minutes now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with housing in a more general way. A few days ago Mr. A. R. Mosher, president of the Canadian Congress of Labour, suggested to the government that a royal commission be appointed to investigate home building costs. In that connection I want to quote from the Montreal Gazette; I have not the exact date, but it was within the last couple of weeks:
Mr. A. R. Mosher, president of the Canadian Congress of Labour, is campaigning "to get houses built at a cost which Canadians can afford." This looks like a plank which would take a high polish in any man's platform. Opening gun of the campaign was heard this week when Mr. Mosher made public a letter he had addressed to Hon. R. H. Winters, reconstruction minister, asking for a royal commission to investigate home building costs.
The next paragraph is the one which I think concerns most of us.
Mr. Mosher wrote:	"If contractors and supply
houses are making excessive profits, if labour is not doing a job, if interest rates are too high, if decentralization of the building industry increases costs, or real estate practices unduly affect the final price, we believe that the investigation should be launched with a view to establishing the facts regarding these matters.
The minister, of course, announced that there would not be a royal commission. I have no hesitation in supporting this request; in fact it is hard for me to understand why the minister or the government turned it down. Had I been given any voice in government I would have accepted the suggestion gladly, because it might have enabled us to obtain valuable information which would have placed the responsibility for high costs where it belongs. Therefore I suggest to this government that a royal commission be appointed, as suggested by Mr. Mosher, and I would also suggest that Mr. Mosher be a member of that commission.
We have had in operation in Canada the National Housing Act, under which loans may be obtained for the construction of new homes. I have high regard for the minister, in which I think all other hon. members of this house share. We realize that he has a difficult job, that he has inherited a legacy with perhaps more liabilities than assets, and we do hope he will make a good job of it. We know it is not an easy task for anyone to carry out;

The Budget-Mr. Murphy let us be frank about that. I have some slight knowledge of what I am going to talk about, and I would like the minister to believe that my observations are made in the most sincere manner, so I hope he will take notice of them. In the past a percentage has been fixed beyond which loans could not be made, but I say to this house that as far as I know loans have never been made up to that percentage. The loans now being made to people who want to buy houses are far too low. They do not go anywhere near the maximum permitted, and I think perhaps the loaning companies are taking advantage of the situation and not permitting borrowers to obtain the loans they might otherwise get. I know of many young veterans building $10,000 or $11,000 homes during the last year or two, who have not been able to get their maximum loans. There is no reason why that situation should continue. It is true that the proposed housing legislation will be beneficial in many provinces, though not so much in Ontario because here we have had provincial legislation giving home owners an opportunity to obtain an additional loan of $1,250, which has been an important factor in enabling many young veterans and others to provide roofs over their heads. So I suggest that the minister indicate to the loaning companies that they should permit home owners to obtain greater loans than they have been obtaining in the past. After all is said and done, most of these homes are being built by private enterprise. If greater loans could be made more homes would be built, and that is what we want in this country.
I might offer a suggestion to the government which I believe would help overcome this housing mess we are in; and let us admit that it is a mess. The suggestion I would make is that the loans be made to the people at three per cent. I see you are about to rise and stop me, Mr. Speaker. I hope you took time out for that little Irish argument in which some members took part a few minutes ago. If we were able to get money at three per cent, or even less, I believe there would be a great increase in the number of homes being built. I know of no factor in house building which would contribute to more houses being built than a lowering of that amount. The records of the past years will show that most houses were built by individual owners, who also may have built one or two houses for rental purposes.
I should like to deal for a moment with the question of research in house construction. I do not think there is a member in this chamber who could tell me how many labour operations there are in the construction of a house. I should like to mention that to indi-


cate the necessity of some research into construction methods. If I were to ask most members how many operations there are in the construction of an outside wall, the guesses would likely range from three, four or five to six. I shall tell hon. members how many there are.
Let us consider a frame house. This matter is important, in view of the fact that so many people are complaining about the cost of houses today. A house has to be built according to specifications and sometimes people complain about the fact it may require heavier timbers than they consider necessary. In the construction of an ordinary frame house, there is the studding and then the sheeting on the outside. There is paper on the outside of that and then the siding, over which three coats of paint are applied. On the inside, there is the insulation, whatever it may be, then the rock lath and two coats of plaster. If you want the inside of the house painted, then three coats of paint are applied. Now, Mr. Speaker, in the building of that house there are fifteen separate labour operations in the construction of the walls alone. If one constructs a cinder block house, there are just as many labour operations.
For several years, I have contended that the cost of construction could be considerably reduced if the walls were built with preframed sections. I am certainly convinced that houses of various sizes, and quite large houses, could be built on a sectional basis. Such houses will not be built by the industry, because up until now there has been a shortage of practically everything that goes into a house. We cannot expect the construction industry or those who supply the things that go into a house to initiate any research at any great expense.
In many localities, the building bylaws are outmoded, such as the bylaws requiring plastering and that sort of thing. In order to cut down the cost of houses, even those which are built under the National Housing Act, plaster could be eliminated and weldwood could be substituted.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but he has exhausted his time, and may continue only with the unanimous consent of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I believe it is important for the municipalities to give more consideration to this housing problem. I referred a moment ago to the building bylaws as an illustration of that. Apparently it is necessary for some people to build in the cities where sewers and other facilities are available. I should like to suggest to the people of this country

that they might be well advised to build outside the cities where they would not find such high taxation. It is true they would have to do without sewers, sidewalks, pavements and that sort of thing, but those are the factors which add to the cost of owning a house in the city.
In northern Ontario there are two town-sites upon which fine houses have been built at surprisingly low cost. Approximately four or five thousand five-room houses have been built of aluminum. I cannot see why the cost could not be lowered if research were conducted into construction methods. There are plenty of capable engineers, and I believe research should be encouraged. If such research were conducted, it should be remembered that it must be conducted by the government. I believe there is an appropriation of approximately $5 million to be expended over a five-year period for that purpose. I understand the government has spent $1 million of that. This is one method by which the government could contribute a great deal to so many people. I believe it would be well advised to seriously consider further research work. This framing to which I referred a few moments ago could be done in the factories.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I hope some of the observations I have made will be considered by the government. I mention them because house building has been carried on mainly by private enterprise. If we look over the records of the cost of administration of government projects, I believe they will verify the fact that the government would like to be absolved of all responsibility for housing. For that reason,
I hope some of the suggestions and comments I have made will be considered.


Mr. T. J. Kickham (Kings):: Mr. Speaker, rising in this debate I should like to tell the new members of this house something of our province. Many of the new members have not visited Prince Edward Island, so I should like to extend an invitation to them to visit the province and learn for themselves about its scenic beauty.
As you know, Prince Edward Island is located in the gulf of St. Lawrence, with Northumberland strait dividing it from the mainland. There are two ferry services, one crossing from Port Borden, Prince Edward Island, to Tormentine, New Brunswick. The boat on this service is said to be the largest icebreaker in the world. It is capable of carrying approximately nineteen railway cars and about sixty automobiles and trucks. The second service is from Cariboo, Nova Scotia, to Wood Island, Prince Edward Island. This ferry service carries passengers and motor vehicles only. Last year a bus service was
The Budget-Mr. Kickham inaugurated from Moncton to Charlottetown, which greatly assists in speeding up passenger traffic from Moncton. Hon. members are probably aware of the fact that there is also an air service from the United States and Canadian points to Charlottetown.
The main interests in Prince Edward Island are farming, fishing and the tourist business. Potatoes are our main cash crop. Prince Edward Island seed potatoes are known the world over. We have shipped them to Argentina, British West Indies, Cuba, France, Mexico, Newfoundland, Palestine, Egypt, Panama, South Africa, and the United States. We supply over 55 per cent of the Canadian requirements for certified seed. Many of the markets I have named are not available to us now. These were markets emanating out of war conditions. We must now depend largely on the United States and Canada for our markets.
Two years ago our provincial government passed an act known as the Potato Act, compelling all growers to plant certified seed or better. The highest grade is known as foundation. So that our seed is practically disease-free, coming as it does from what we strive to make a disease-free area.
Our shipments to the United States are subject to a regular duty of 75 cents per hundredweight. This government, however, obtained for us from the United States government a quota for 3,500,000 bushels at the reduced rate of 37 i cents per hundredweight. While we appreciate this fact, we should like to see the quota increased by another 2 million bushels. If this could be arranged, it would assist in offsetting the adverse balance of trade between Canada and the United States.
Last marketing season the government gave us a floor price of $1.15 per hundredweight; this action had a beneficial effect in stabilizing the marketing of the crop. We are faced again this year with the same conditions as those that obtained last season, and we hope and trust that this government will do for us what they did last season, thereby preventing serious financial loss to the growers. It could well be that no loss would be suffered by this government owing to the greatly reduced crop in the United States and Canada. The estimated production in the United States for 1949 is 378,805,000 bushels, which is 67,045,000 less than last year. The estimate for Canada in 1949 is
82,745,000	bushels, which is 9,355,000 bushels less than last year, making a total decrease in the United States and Canada of 76,400,000 bushels. The total consumption in Canada and the United States is approximately 480 million bushels, so that this year's production is 18,450,000 bushels under normal

The Budget-Mr. Kickham requirements. A great advantage would accrue from having the support price in effect as early as possible, thus preventing panicky marketing and assuring the growers of something near the cost of production.
The recently increased freight rate of 29 cents per hundredweight is a serious handicap to our potato industry. Before the first increase in 1948 of 21 per cent, our rate to Toronto, for example, was 39 cents per hundredweight; now it is 51 cents, or 30 cents per bushel. In all, it costs around $290 to ship a car of potatoes to Toronto, including freight, "reefer" charges and heat en route.
The provinces of Quebec and Ontario should be as much interested in the potato industry in our province as we are ourselves. Why is this so? The reason is that we buy from central Canada approximately $24 million worth of all commodities each year. Not only is the money which we receive from Quebec and Ontario returned to them for goods of every description that we need, but all the dollars that we receive from sales outside Canada, particularly from the United States, are spent by us in central Canada, thereby greatly assisting in keeping their wheels of industry revolving.
Furthermore, were it not for the fact that our potatoes receive a premium on those markets, earned because of their quality, we could not compete with Quebec and Ontario-grown potatoes, because of their nearness to the consuming centres in those provinces where, by rail and trucks, they can be delivered for a fraction of our costs.
Potatoes are our cash crop, in the same way as wheat is the cash crop for the western farmer. Our government provides the wheat grower with a support price; we feel that we are also entitled to a support price, and that it would be of as much advantage to central Canada as to our province. Again, if our potato industry is ruined by exorbitant freight rates that apply,-and that are as effective as high tariffs,-between the provinces, the Canadian National Railways will suffer equally. I cannot see why we should be penalized because of our geographical location in Canada in relation to other provinces with whom we must do business, and because of existing tariff regulations between Canada and the United States.
I wish to tender this solution of the problem to the government. Rather than increase our freight rates, should any loss be sustained by the government the loss should be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund, thereby encouraging free exchange of commodities between the provinces.
Our second largest industry is fishing. The principal varieties of fish are lobsters, cod, hake, mackerel, herring, clams and oysters.

Because of the quality of our lobsters, we have no difficulty in finding markets in Canada and the United States. Our big problem now is to find profitable markets for salted, dried fish. During and immediately following the war, our total catch of cod and hake was canned, purchased by UNRRA and shipped to Europe. This market is not now available.
In the discussion on the second reading of the Fish Inspection Act, I noticed that members stressed the importance of putting up a high grade and quality of fish. We have a problem in my constituency in this respect, as many of our harbours are too shoal for the boats to reach the dressing stands at low tide. As a result, the boats must wait outside until the tide rises, while the fisherman covers his catch from the hot sun. Nevertheless, the quicker the fish are split and salted, the better the grade that will be procured.
This is a matter for both the Department of Fisheries and the Department of Public Works. I bring this problem to the attention of both departments, trusting that those conditions I have mentioned will now be remedied. In the past the answer has been that no steel, cement or lumber were available to extend the work at those harbours and also that there was a shortage of dredging equipment. I do not think that those answers are good enough now.
Our third industry is our tourist business which brings in approximately $2,800,000 each year. I do not wish to take up too much time of the house but, before taking my seat, I want to say that having regard to the remuneration received by teachers in other provinces our teachers in Prince Edward Island receive the least. Why is this? Because of our people having the lowest income per capita of any province in Canada; and this is because of our geographical disadvantages, as I have tried to point out to this house. For example, the personal income per capita in Prince Edward Island is $548; Nova Scotia, $682; New Brunswick, $636; Quebec, $784; Ontario $1,075; Manitoba, $946; Alberta, $998 and British Columbia, $1,024. The other provinces of Canada receive the benefits of the education and of the talents of most of those who receive a good education in Prince Edward Island. Our population was 105,000 when we joined confederation in 1873; now I believe it is 93,000. As the smallest province of Canada we are entitled to greater consideration and to be given the measure of equality which is due to all Canadians.
Before taking my seat I wish to support what was said by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Riley) endorsing the Chig-necto canal.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?
Amendment negatived.
Main motion (Mr. Abbott) agreed to on division.



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
Resolved that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Excise Tax Act and to provide:
1.	That the following excise taxes be repealed, namely, the excise taxes on: (a) soft drinks; (b) chocolate, candy, and confectionery; (c) chewing gum; (d) cable, telegraph, and telephone messages, and on telephone extensions; (e) transportation tickets or rights of transportation, and on seats, berths, or other sleeping accommodation; (f) motor buses; and (g) carbonic acid gas.
2.	That the retail purchase tax be repealed and replaced by an excise tax of 10 per cent, payable by the manufacturer or importer, on all articles now subject to the retail purchase tax.
3.	That the following excise taxes be reduced from 35 per cent to 10 per cent, namely, the excise taxes on: (a) trunks, suitcases, bags, and luggage of all kinds; (b) ash trays, tobacco pipes, and smokers' accessories; and (c) fountain pens, propelling pencils, and desk accessories.
4.	That the following excise taxes be reduced from 25 per cent to 10 per cent, namely, the excise taxes on: (a) toilet articles; (b) devices commonly or commercially known as lighters; and (c) coin, disc, or token operated machines and vending machines.
5.	That the sales tax on the following articles be repealed: lactose; malt syrup except when sold for beverage purposes; diesel powered self-propelled trucks, mounted on rubber tired wheels, for off highway use exclusively at mines and quarries, and complete parts thereof.
6.	That the rates of excise tax on matches be amended from the present specific proportionate rate of tax on each package, to an ad valorem tax of 10 per cent.
7.	That the present specific tax of 5 cents per pound on tires and tubes be amended to an ad valorem tax of 10 per cent.
8.	That the sales tax on the following articles be repealed: liquid fuel for lighting or heating, but not including fuel when for use in internal combustion engines; crude oil to be used for the production of fuel.
9.	That the excise tax on wines containing not more than 7 per cent of proof spirit be reduced from 50 cents per gallon to 25 cents per gallon.
10.	That paragraphs 1 to 7 shall have effect on and after March 23, 1949, and paragraphs 8 and 9 shall have effect on and after October 21, 1949.
James Sinclair: Mr. Chairman, the resolution to amend the Excise Tax Act is just one resolution but for the convenience of hon. members it is broken down into its various subheadings. For the benefit of the new members perhaps I should make just a brief explanation of the purpose of the tax reductions. For the most part, these tax reductions occurred in the budget which was presented in the spring by the Minister of
Excise Tax Act
Finance (Mr. Abbott) and were repeated, with two extensions, in the budget delivered in October. While hon. members will welcome any tax reduction, this resolution, with its various parts, provides for actually more than tax reductions because there is a measure which may be called a tidying-up job done in the entire excise tax structure of Canada.
Our indirect tax structure now falls into four main groups. The first group is a large group of commodities on which there is no sales tax nor excise tax. They are the commodities which are covered in schedule III of the Excise Tax Act. I am quite sure that if hon. members would refer to that list they would be amazed at the number of commodities in this country on which neither sales tax nor excise tax is levied.


Donald MacInnis: Federal sales tax.


James Sinclair: The hon. member will appreciate that these excise taxes and sales taxes are federal taxes.


Mr. Low:: Will the hon. member put them on the record?	[DOT]


James Sinclair: They are already on record as schedule III of the Excise Tax Act.


Solon Earl Low: I understand that.


James Sinclair: If there is any desire to have schedule III placed on record that could be done.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Sinclair: I think it would be very helpful to hon. members in the study of these questions to place them on Hansard.
The next group is a group on which sales tax is levied. That is actually schedule II of the Excise Tax Act. It also will be placed on Hansard.
Then the third group in the old Excise Tax Act was varied in taxation structure. We had a variety of taxes, namely, 15 per cent, 25 per cent, 35 per cent at various levels, the manufacturers' level and the retail level. I know it was confusing to the public and also difficult to administer as far as the department was concerned. Therefore the major tidying-up job which has been done is in this third group. The excise taxes have all been reduced to 10 per cent at the manufacturers' level.
Then, there is the fourth group, in which no change has been made, namely, the excise duties on which traditionally high taxes on tobacco and liquor, which are regarded in the luxury class, have been levied. Therefore we have four classes in our excise tax structure. The first class is foodstuffs and building materials, on which there is neither federal sales tax nor excise tax. Then there

Excise Tax Act
is the second group of quite essential commodities on which the 8 per cent sales tax is levied. Next is the third group on which in addition a 10 per cent excise tax is levied; and finally the fourth group, tobacco and liquor, on which our traditionally high excise duties are levied.
I would suggest that it would be best to have the committee study the various subheadings.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall we adopt the resolution?


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
James Sinclair: I think only resolution 1 has been carried.


Donald MacInnis: May we take each section in turn?


Louis-René Beaudoin: Yes. Section 1 of the resolution has been discussed and I understand that it has been agreed to. We shall now proceed with section 2.
2. That the retail purchase tax be repealed and replaced by an excise tax ot 10 per cent, payable by the manufacturer or importer, on all articles now subject to the retail purchase tax.


Mr. Fraser:: Watches would come under this resolution?


James Sinclair: Yes.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: This resolution deals with the luxury tax which used to be 25 per cent and has now been reduced to 10 per cent?


James Sinclair: Yes.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I protest against the tax still being on watches and clocks because they are not luxuries. I feel the tax should be taken off watches and clocks because they are a necessity.


James Sinclair: This resolution covers pretty well the 25 per cent tax which was placed on things handled by jewelers. It included watches and clocks over a certain price range. This is not a luxury tax. During wartime it was placed on the retail level not so much for its revenue-raising potential but rather to discourage the buying of what were regarded as articles not absolutely essential for war needs. As hon. members know, it was very successful in discouraging purchases from jewelers and this was one of the main reasons why the jewelers of Canada protested very strongly against the continuance of this tax. This improvement has been brought down by reducing the tax from 25 per cent at the retail level to 10 per cent on the wholesale value.


Major James William Coldwell: What is the value of the clock or watch which is not now taxed? What is the range?


James Sinclair: I must confess that it slips my mind at the moment. It is quite low, around $5. I shall bring that information in later.


Major James William Coldwell: The resolution should stand.


Solon Earl Low: In connection with this section 2, let me say I am definitely opposed to the principle of converting what was an ultimate purchasers' tax into what will now be a hidden sales tax imposed at the manufacturer's level. The main purpose, evidently, is to bring the taxes on the items covered by section 2 into line with the general sales tax provisions-


James Sinclair: Excise tax.


Solon Earl Low: Excise tax or sales tax, it does not matter much; the principle is the same. It becomes a hidden tax added on at the manufacturer's level. We have pointed out repeatedly that we are opposed to this type of taxation, for the main reason that it sets in motion a vicious spiral of increased cost to the consumer. On the general principle, and with complete disregard for the items mentioned, we do wish to protest. We feel the people of this country are entitled to know what fraction or part of the cost of an article they are buying is in reality taxation and what fraction or part is in reality cost.
We feel that the responsibility for imposing taxes ought to rest with the government of the day. How else can the people of this country know what the taxes really are? I believe hon. members who have considered this matter carefully will agree that the best barometer by which to judge the efficiency of government is the level of taxation imposed upon the people. Until the people have a fair chance to see the barometer, and to keep it ever in front of them, so that they can measure the efficiency of the government, there can be no gauge or standard by which they can tell whether or not the government is efficient.
Under the circumstances we of the Social Credit party protest strongly against this move to add one more hidden tax to the great burden of taxation borne by the Canadian people today and, sir, which in the main is responsible for pushing up the cost of living by, I submit, fully 20 or 25 per cent.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The parliamentary assistant has said that he would permit this provision to be set aside until he obtains further information.


Donald MacInnis: Could the parliamentary assistant tell the committee what the amount of this tax was previously? What was the amount of the retail purchase tax? I notice this change went into effect on March 23, 1949. Could he tell the committee whether,

on the basis on which it is now calculated, the tax is greater or smaller? Is there this pyramiding to which reference has been made, and if so is it more or less than it was before?


James Sinclair: To answer the earlier questions of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar and the hon. member for Peterborough West, the Excise Tax Act makes provision that the tax shall not apply to railwaymen's watches, the purchase of which is authorized by the divisional superintendent of any railway; watches designed for the use of the blind; and alarm clocks sold at not more than $10 each.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes, but the cheap watch which sells at $2 or $3 is taxed. They are good watches, made in Canada-the best watches money can buy. In many instances they will outlast a 17-jewel watch.


Major James William Coldwell: Where are they made?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I do not hesitate for one moment to say that they are made in Peterborough by a firm the name of which I shall not mention. I can say however that more than 5,000 watches and clocks are turned out each day, the great majority of which are in the low-price field.
As the parliamentary assistant has said, the tax was first imposed at a 25 per cent rate, not for the purpose of collecting revenue, but only to stop the sale of these watches and clocks. We find however that the 10 per cent tax is retained. Why? People are now demanding these watches because the manufacture of them was held up during the war.


James Sinclair: While the tax has not been removed, there has been a substantial reduction in taxation in this group from 25 per cent to 10 per cent. The main purpose of tax reduction is to afford a measure of tax relief across the entire scale. I imagine each hon. member could build up a special case for special consideration of a certain industry in his riding. But the government has to look at the broad picture.
Turning to the question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver East, there will be a revenue loss of $8 million in this change from a 25 per cent retail tax to a 10 per cent excise tax at the manufacturers' level. I would point out that there will also be a very considerable saving in administrative cost, because it will be recalled that one of the difficulties of administering a retail sales tax arises from the great number of outlets which have to be supervised by the Department of National Revenue. In these jewelry shops there were some goods which were not taxable and others which were taxable
Excise Tax Act
at different rates. Now, if we have this tax tidied up and placed at 10 per cent at the manufacturers' level, the actual cost of administering the collection would be much less.


Donald MacInnis: When the 10 per cent tax is placed at the manufacturers' level, and the sale is made to a jobber or wholesaler, how is the wholesaler's profit considered? Is not the tax taken into consideration, so that the wholesaler pays more than the 10 per cent? And when it comes to the retailer there is another addition. What tax does the retailer now pay?


James Sinclair: Whether the jobber and wholesaler and retailer take today the same mark-up on the price they get from the manufacturer would depend upon their trade practice. But mathematically, even though they had, for example, a 50 per cent mark-up on the $1.10 they would now pay for an article now worth $1, still in the end when they take their usual mark-up there is only a 10 per cent increase in the actual retail price.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: No, no.


Major James William Coldwell: No.


James Sinclair: I can speak with some authority, because I remember when the former member for Beauce, who was a manufacturer, made this very argument. If the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar will follow through he will find that the actual 10 per cent increase at the manufacturers' level, if passed on by a mark-up, is still at 10 per cent increase in the final retail price. And that, of course, is the reason for the $8 million loss in revenue.


Major James William Coldwell: No.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: No. The tax was formerly 25 per cent when the purchase was made in a retail store. The retailer therefore paid 25 per cent on the retail price. But here we have a 10 per cent tax at the manufacturers' level. The manufacturer sells it to the jobber, the jobber has that 10 per cent; it is then pyramided, and he sells it-


James Sinclair: No.


Major James William Coldwell: Absolutely.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It jumps up; that is added to his price. He sells it to someone else-the wholesaler-and the wholesaler has to absorb the first 10 per cent, the write-up by the jobber. The wholesaler has it; he makes that addition, and it is sold to the retailer, and he has to add his profit with the pyramided 10 per cent, all the way up the line. The poor little fellow who has to buy the watch because he has not enough money to buy anything

Excise Tax Act
else has to pay it. He has to pay that pyramided price, which is not 10 per cent. The parliamentary assistant has the financial adviser and the deputy minister in front of him and I am sure they will tell him that the retailer is still paying close to 25 per cent.


James Sinclair: Let me take an actual example and follow it through and then I think the hon. gentleman will see that the ten per cent tax is still ten per cent on the retail end. Take an article which sells for one dollar at the manufacturing end. Assume that there is a markup of 100 per cent between the manufacturer and the retailer. It would sell at retail for $2. The previous tax was 25 per cent, so in that case the selling price would be $2.50. Take this 10 per cent excise tax on the $1. That would make it $1.10 at the wholesale end. The jobber and the middleman would still take a total of 100 per cent markup, making the final selling price $2.20. The price of $2.20 is 10 per cent, which is 30 cents less than the old price of $2.50.


Major James William Coldwell: I think we are talking at cross purposes. We are talking about the 10 per cent on the original dollar which is carried through instead of collecting 10 per cent from the retailer. It makes a great deal of difference with the same markup. We are suggesting that if we are going to have this tax, it should not be a hidden tax. It should be collected from the final purchaser. When you have all the markups you get a much different result.
The government will now get 10 per cent on the dollar, but under the other plan the purchaser would be paying only the 10 per cent. With all the markups right through to the retailer it is quite different.


James Sinclair: If the tax was added at the manufacturing level or at the retailing level, it would still be selling for $1 and the markup would still make it $2 at the retailing level. A 10 per cent retail tax on the $2 would still make it $2.20, which is exactly the same.


Major James William Coldwell: The purchaser is paying 20 per cent on the original dollar.


James Sinclair: Ten per cent on the retail price of $2.


Louis-René Beaudoin: May I suggest that all hon. members who desire to ask questions should ask them and then the parliamentary assistant could reply at one time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Perhaps if the parliamentary assistant would wait a moment until we have completed our questions we could make more headway. I think there has been some confusion of thought and terms in this discussion.
It is quite true that, where a tax is pyramided as an article is passed on through various hands, you still have in the end only the original tax; there is no increase in the tax. But when the purchase takes place after the final change of hands the purchaser is paying at least a markup on the tax plus a markup on the markup on the tax. If there happen to be four hands through which the article passes he would be paying also a markup on the markup on the markup on the tax.
The same process applies in the case of the sales tax. I cited an actual case to the house two years ago of a pair of stockings, where the 8 per cent sales tax is levied on the manufacturer. The manufacturer sells the stockings to the wholesaler who applies his markup, not just on the selling price to him but on the eight per cent tax as well. Then the article is passed on to the retailer, or there may be a jobber in between. Each adds his markup, and when a purchaser buys the goods over the counter he is paying the original tax, plus the wholesaler's 10 per cent markup on the tax, plus the retailer's 50 per cent markup on the markup on the tax.
In that simple case the amount paid by the purchaser was not eight per cent, it was 14-8 per cent. That does not mean that the government got 14-8 per cent; the government got only the eight per cent on the manufacturer's price, but the purchaser was paying 14-8 per cent. As long as the government continues to levy these excise taxes at the manufacturer's level the final purchaser is going to be paying the tax plus the markup on the tax plus the markup on the markup on the tax, and in some cases also a markup on the markup on the markup on the tax.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we will continue in committee of ways and means to discuss the budget resolutions. When those are concluded we will take up Bill No. 47, to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act; then the second reading of Bill No. 133, respecting the application of a national trade mark to commodities and respecting the true description of commodities; then the second reading of Bill No. 64, to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act; then the second reading of Bill No. 65, to amend the Judges Act, 1946. If we still have time we will take up Bill No. 63, respecting the inspection of fish and marine plants.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, November 10, 1949