1950-04-25

Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, before proceeding with the order of business, I am sure that hon. members would wish to join in the commemoration of a day that means a great deal to the sister dominions of Australia and New Zealand. As everyone is aware, this is Anzac day, which not only commemorates the landing in Gallipoli, but also is celebrated in every part of Australia and New Zealand as a day of commemoration of the services given by their people to the cause of freedom in two world wars.
It was thirty-five years ago this morning that the troops of Australia and New Zealand landed on the beaches at Gallipoli, which they held for many months in one of the most trying and tragic battles of the first world war. I have risen simply to express my own respect for the traditions which they keep alive so carefully, and to convey to all our friends in Australia and New Zealand, and particularly those who have come to this country to live, our feeling of admiration of the gallant efforts of their men and women in a common service in which our own men and women bore their full share.
For us, too, this is one of those memorable days which stand out on the pages of history as evidence of the extent to which people are prepared to sacrifice everything for the preservation of their own freedom.


Hon. Humphrey Mitchell (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I join with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) in commemorating that famous day, April 25, at Gallipoli. I happened to land with the Australians and New Zealanders at Gaba Tepe on that day, and I well recollect the first two attacks on Egypt by the Turks and Germans in which engagement the New Zealanders and Australians took part.
I join in every word my good friend has said with respect to the contribution made by our sister dominions in that great struggle
of 1914-18. I am sure that if liberty is ever again at stake, all decent and free peoples will see to it that the free institutions given to the world, in the main by our people, will be maintained so that freedom may prevail in the days to come.



RAILWAYS, CANALS AND TELEGRAPH LINES FIRST AND SECOND REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEE-CONCURRENCE IN FIRST REPORT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. L. O. Breilhaupt (Waterloo North)
presented the first and second reports of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, and moved that the first report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Mr. George Prudham (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Resources and Development):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Resources and' Development I should like to lay on the table two copies of the trans-Canada highway agreement, signed yesterday, April 24, by the government of Canada and six provincial governments.



MOTOR VEHICLES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. F. Brown (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) of which, I regret, I have not given notice. Because of its importance, however, I would appreciate an answer. Have any automobiles, trucks or other motor vehicles recently been imported into Canada from Czechoslovakia? If so, by whom and for what purpose?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Unless there is some urgency in the matter I believe that is a question which should be put on the order paper.


Donald Ferguson Brown: I think there is sufficient urgency to require an answer from the minister.

Inquiries of the Ministry CANADA SHIPPING ACT



RADIO EQUIPMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport. Is it the intention of the minister to bring down a bill to amend the Canada Shipping Act, as indicated in the speech from the throne? If so, will there be an amendment to section 706, which deals with radio equipment?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: I believe I answered a similar question last Friday, at which time I stated that I did intend to introduce a bill at this session to amend the Canada Shipping Act. It is now in course of preparation, and I hope it will be on the order paper in the not too distant future. There are some amendments affecting the question my hon. friend has in mind. Whether or not they will meet with his approval, I am unable to say.



GRASSHOPPERS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: should like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture, arising out of a press dispatch of yesterday's date from Saskatchewan, to the effect that one of the departmental officials has stated that the prospects for crops in Saskatchewan, by reason of the grasshopper menace, are the worst in that province since the early thirties. Will the minister give consideration to providing national assistance to alleviate what would be a national disaster, if the belief of his representative in Saskatchewan is borne out by the fact?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: This same question was asked on three occasions during the last session. I do not know just what my hon. friend has in mind. Grasshoppers have been fought in Saskatchewan by the provincial government during the whole of the history of that province, and they are still being fought by the provincial government. At no time has any official representation been made to me that it should be done otherwise. In other words, I assume that the government they have in Saskatchewan, which is not good enough to suit me, is good enough to fight grasshoppers.


Mr. Coldwell:: May I ask the minister if they did not fight them pretty successfully last year?



SEED GRAIN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the shortage of seed grain in the southwestern drought area section of Saskatchewan, is the government considering paying freight on the shipment of seed grain into those areas in somewhat the same manner as it is now paying freight on feed grains to eastern Canada?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not wish to repeat what I said a moment ago, but this question was asked on three or four occasions last year, and from, I think, the same source. The government out there has taken care of that situation as well, and, I think, to the satisfaction of most of the people.



DOUKHOBORS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice, and I am sorry I was not able to give him notice. The situation in British Columbia in connection with the Doukhobors seems to be growing more serious every day. Is the dominion government taking any steps to help the provincial government in that connection?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: I should think it would be quite clear from a perusal of the newspapers that ever since last December, or even before, we have been assisting British Columbia government authorities in those respects in which they asked for assistance, and this has been done at their request.



DAIRY INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron North):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Minister of Agriculture met a delegation of dairymen yesterday. I should like to ask if he is in position to make a statement with regard to any decision that may have been reached.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did meet a delegation yesterday, and I met the advisory committee this morning. I shall not be in position to make an announcement before tomorrow.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, April 24, 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. Macdonnell (Greenwood), and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. Frank T. Stanfield (Colchester-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, when eleven o'clock came along last evening I was attempting to make a few observations with respect to freight rates as they affect the maritime provinces.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member seemed to be in doubt last night as to whether it would be in order to discuss freight rates at this time. I believe the question is before the courts and therefore would be sub judice.


Frank Thomas Stanfield: Coal mining is one of the essential industries in Nova Scotia, and along with steel it has a great deal to do with the economic prosperity of the people living in that province. Quebec and Ontario provide the markets upon which we must depend to dispose of the coal not used in the maritimes. In late years the government has been good enough to provide subventions to permit us to bring our coal to Montreal and Toronto and Ontario and Quebec in general.
We are faced with many disadvantages in mining coal in Nova Scotia. There are approximately 12,000 coal miners in Nova Scotia, and they produce approximately
6,750,000	tons of coal per year. There are perhaps another 1,000 miners in New Brunswick. In Alberta they produce something like 12 million tons of coal, and they employ approximately 9,500 miners. It will be seen that a miner in western Canada produces about twice as much coal as the miner in Nova Scotia. Most of the coal used in Ontario and Quebec is brought in from the United States. A miner in the United States produces from eight to twelve tons per day.
That is the obstacle we have to overcome in Nova Scotia. Our mines are deep and they run under the sea. In some mines they have to pump three tons of water for every ton of coal brought to the surface. The miners and companies in Nova Scotia realize that new mines will have to be opened and that many other mines will have to be mechanized if they are to compete in the Ontario and Quebec markets with United States coal.
I ask the minister and every hon. member of this house to give their best consideration to the providing of sufficient subventions
The Budget-Mr. Stanfield so that we can bring as much as possible of our coal to Ontario and Quebec. I believe that last year 18 million tons of coal were brought in from the United States to Ontario and Quebec, roughly three times as much as is produced in the maritime provinces. If Nova Scotia could manage to dispose of another five or six million tons of coal in those provinces it would mean a great deal to the mining centres and to the economic life of our province as a whole. I hope that when the time comes the minister and the government as a whole will give every consideration to devising means of moving as much Nova Scotia coal as possible to the central regions of Canada to displace United States coal. We all live together in this country, and we all hope that we can get aloftg as a single unit.
I should like to correct a statement made by a Liberal member that the Cuban market was lost by the action of a Conservative statesman from Nova Scotia, the late Hon. E. N. Rhodes. That statement is not correct. In the early twenties the Liberal government, through the great energies and hard work of the late Senator Logan and a few other Liberals, brought about the West Indies treaty. By that treaty we stopped buying a great deal of our sugar and other products from Cuba, and as a result the Cubans cut off our markets.
I think I can safely say that the Cuban market was of greater value to the maritimes than the West Indies market, although we did and do appreciate the West Indies market. I simply wanted to correct the observation made, I think by the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Elderkin), that it was through the actions of the Conservatives that our Cuban market was lost. I assure the house that the Conservatives had nothing whatever to do with it; they were not in power in Ottawa when the West Indies treaty came into effect.
Nova Scotia-and perhaps this applies to the maritime provinces generally-was interested in the English market. If we are going to have the same degree of prosperity in the maritimes as prevails in the rest of Canada it seems to me that we must retain the English market, as well as develop the United States market to the fullest extent that we possibly can. Any other market that we may reach is of secondary importance.
It is true that last year our exports to Great Britain amounted to $700 million, which is a lot of money. In the case of the United States I believe the figure was $1,400 million, practically twice as much as to Great Britain. With 150 million people living to the south of us naturally our exports to that
I860	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Stanfield country are bound to increase, and the market there is bound to become more and more important to us. There are certain things, however, that the United States market will not buy from us. They do not want our apples, pit props, wheat, cheese and a lot of other things. Therefore the retaining and developing of the English market is certainly of great importance, not only to the people of Nova Scotia and the other maritime provinces, but also to the people of Canada generally.
Because of a shortage of dollars on the part of the British, exports from the maritime provinces to Great Britain have been hard hit. In fact we have lost many of the markets altogether, such as those for apples, pit props and long lumber. I believe that some long lumber will be shipped from the maritimes this summer to Great Britain, but it is a very small amount compared with what it used to be. The loss of these markets is a serious blow to a great many people. I realize that the shortage of dollars required by England is not an easy thing to overcome. Evidently she is buying newsprint, aluminum, lead, zinc and many manufactured commodities rather than the food supplies, lumber and raw materials that she used to purchase in the old days. If the people of Nova Scotia are to be prosperous, they must have that market for many of their commodities. We all hope that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) can recover these markets for the maritime provinces. If we do not, the people of that region will have to find something else to do. Goodness knows we have had enough shifting of population in Nova Scotia without having to start it all over again.
In the days of the wooden ships everything was prosperous. We then had the days when people could not live on small farms any longer and had to leave the back settlements. They went to the larger towns of the United States, to western Canada and elsewhere. If we have to start again to regroup many of our industries in the maritime provinces, it is going to be a pretty tough proposition.
There is another development that I think could be very well carried a lot further in Nova Scotia and the maritimes generally. I refer to the tourist industry. We perhaps have not enough good accommodation to attract many United States people to Nova Scotia to spend their vacations there. It is true we have a great many more summer resorts than we had a few years ago, and the accommodation is improving all the time. We have good roads, and our scenery is as fine as you will find anywhere. I feel that the government of Nova Scotia is more interested in


improving accommodation for tourists than it is in building better highways at the present time. It has been suggested at different times that rather than spend money in Nova Scotia on the trans-Canada highway it would be preferable if the money could be used to develop tourist resorts and hotels in all the counties of the province. It would pay handsome dividends by way of returns to our people, and greatly enlarge our tourist trade. It would also increase our supply of badly needed United States dollars.
I believe it is correct to say that the state of Minnesota alone has a larger tourist trade than all the provinces of Canada combined. We have just scratched the surface of this industry so far as the maritime provinces are -concerned. I believe the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters) would be well advised to give his best attention, in co-operation with the governments of the maritime provinces, to increasing our tourist traffic.
I had intended to say something as to the forests of Nova Scotia, but I shall leave that for discussion under the estimates or at some other time. I wish to thank you, Mr. Speaker, and, through you, thank the house for its kind attention.


Mr. Rooney:: Will the hon. member permit a question concerning Nova Scotia coal?


Frank Thomas Stanfield: Yes, if I can answer it.


James Hendrick Rooney: Some years ago I brought to Toronto the first coke made in Montreal from Nova Scotia coal. Around that time the government had made provision for the subsidizing of a coking plant in the city of Toronto to use a certain amount of Canadian coal. The subsidy was to be payable at the rate of five per cent for twelve years, or, in other words, sixty per cent of the total capital investment. I am drawing on my memory, and this is quite a few years ago, but I pictured at that time that we might have a fleet of small boats running from Montreal during the summer to bring Nova Scotia coal to Toronto, thus cutting down the freight charge and allowing the coal to compete with other coals -available in the city of Toronto. I was interested in the hon. member's address, and I was wondering if this would not be a proper thing to do in order to help the sale of Nova Scotia coal in Ontario.


Frank Thomas Stanfield: That would be a hard question for me to answer, since I am not a coal expert. But I am sure that if any way could be found by which more Nova Scotia coal would be used in Toronto, it would be greatly appreciated, not only by the miners but by all the people of Nova Scotia.


Mr. Hansell:: How about Alberta coal?


Frank Thomas Stanfield: That is good coal, too, but we in Nova Scotia have to look after ourselves once in a while.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I desire to participate in this debate in order to make a few comments on two announcements made recently by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe).
I refer to the announcements made by the minister as to the government's wheat policy for the coming year. While I was at home during the Easter recess many farmers told me they were disappointed indeed that the government had seen fit to drop the initial price of wheat for this crop year by 35 cents a bushel. I should say the farmers to whom I spoke were not only disappointed; they were even angry to think that the price was being reduced particularly because of the fact that for the last few years as a result of the government's price control and stabilization policy, they had taken a lower price for wheat.
I believe the wheat policy of the government announced for this year can be criticized on two main grounds: first, that the initial price is too low, and second, that a floor price should have been set .for the three-year period instead of being established from one year to the next. Over the years the farmers of western Canada have fought hard to obtain a wheat board to market all their grain. They have fought hard, too, for an initial price which would bear a fair and proper relationship to their cost of production. The farmers were first successful in having a wheat board established to handle the 1919-1920 crop. After that they did not get another wheat board until 1935, when it was established on a voluntary basis. From that time until September, 1943, well into the war years, the initial prices paid were indeed low. In 1936 and 1937 this government, which claims now to believe in the wheat board as the sole marketing agency, wrote into the act a clause which provided that if on the Winnipeg grain exchange wheat rose 2J cents a bushel or more above the initial price, the wheat board was not to be allowed to accept delivery of farmers' grain.
I am afraid that even now this government is not convinced that the wheat board should be maintained as part of the permanent peacetime wheat policy. Let me quote from the remarks of the Minister of Trade and Commerce at page 1732 of Hansard of April 20 last.
Although there are some signs of a tendency to get back to a basis of private trading, we still find that a majority of our customers prefer to settle
The Budget-Mr. Argue their grain problems with an official agency, and if that continues to be their preference, it is obvious that we should maintain the wheat board to deal with them in that way.
The only thing I can take from that statement is that if in the next few years our wheat customers decide to buy their wheat through private trading institutions, this government will consider opening the grain exchange and putting the wheat board back on a voluntary basis. So the farmers are disturbed not only because the initial price for wheat is too low, but also because of that statement by the minister, which means that the government may not maintain the wheat board on a permanent basis.
The reduction of 35 cents a bushel in the price of wheat beginning August 1 in my opinion is a very serious drop, particularly when considered with the fact that in the coming year there will not be a further large payment from the wheat board. It is obvious that there will be a terrific drop in the purchasing power of the farmers of western Canada, and that decrease in purchasing power may well mean serious economic difficulties for all parts of Canada.
During the spring and early summer of 1949, just before the election, the farmers of western Canada received a total of $213 million in wheat board payments. This year, as I have said, the initial payment is to be reduced by 35 cents a bushel. If there is an average crop of 300 million bushels of wheat the income of the farmers will drop by an additional $100 million, which will mean a total drop of more than $300 million in western farm income potential over the next twelve months. I know one has to deduct from that figure any final payment that may be made from the wheat pool account. I do not think any such payment will be more than five cents a bushel; that would be my estimate. One must also deduct the participation payment of 40 cents a bushel on barley and 10 cents on oats. Even considering that, however, I say that as a result of the wheat policy now adopted by the government the income of western farmers will drop by at least $200 million during the coming year.
Looking at the reduction in farm income on another basis, one might compare the effective price farmers will receive for wheat. In the spring of 1949, when the initial price was increased, the farmers received $1.75 a bushel. They were then paid 20 cents a bushel for each of the three previous crop years. On the average, for the one crop year it meant in effect a price of $1.75 a bushel plus another 60 cents in participation payments, making the total effective price $2.35 a bushel as related to the single crop year. The initial payment now is to be $1.40 a bushel, which
1882	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Argue means an effective drop of 95 cents. If we are to maintain full employment and prosperity in Canada I believe every section of the nation must continue to be prosperous, but this reduction in the price of wheat will mean a definite deterioration in the standard of living of the people of western Canada. In my opinion that cannot help but reflect itself in a lessening of economic activity throughout the nation with consequent increasing unemployment.
Farmers are disappointed that the initial price has dropped 35 cents a bushel, because they felt that the government's much advertised policy would be carried out, a policy whereby the farmers were asked to forgo the highest prices in order to avoid taking the lowest prices at a later date. According to the figures available in the wheat board report, and after doing some calculating on the basis of those figures, one can establish that farmers have made a huge sacrifice because of the government's wheat policy. For the 485 million bushels of wheat sold to Britain in the first three years under the British agreement, the average price amounted to $1.71 per bushel, or 68 cents per bushel less than the average price received for class II wheat during the same three-year period. In other words, the farmers thus made a contribution of $332 million.
Into the domestic market during the same period went 204 million bushels of Canadian wheat at an average price for the three years of $1.61 per bushel, or 78 cents per bushel less than the price received for wheat sold to countries other than Britain. Through the government's policy of maintaining cheap bread for the consumer the farmer contributed $159 million. According to the wheat board report, and calculations I have made on the figures contained therein, the farmers contributed a total of $492 million up until July 31 of last year, because of the government's wheat policy.
Even now I do not think the farmers would complain about that huge sacrifice if they thought they might have an opportunity of recouping their losses in the future. Since there is a danger of a drop in international wheat prices, the government has looked at the international wheat agreement, ascertained the lowest possible price in the agreement, and then set the initial price to the farmer at 14 cents per bushel below the international agreement floor price. It is no wonder therefore that the farmers, having contributed almost $500 million in that three-year period, are disappointed to find the government setting such a low initial price for wheat. Under the international agreement the floor price for wheat for the coming year


is $1.40 per bushel in United States funds. The Canadian wheat farmer will receive $1.40 in Canadian funds. If he received the international agreement floor price he would obtain an initial price of $1.54 in Canadian money for this year's crop.
There is no guarantee that the initial price will be maintained even at this level for the two crop years covered by the international wheat agreement. If our floor price falls in the next three years at the same rate as the international floor price falls, after two years the farmers will receive 20 cents per bushel less or an initial price of $1.20 per bushel basis Fort William. I make the statement now, Mr. Speaker, and I believe I can prove it, that, on the basis of the farmers' costs of production, the $1.40 per bushel for wheat this year places the farmer in no better position, and perhaps in an even worse position, than he was in the period of 1935-39 before the war. I have before me the eleven-factor index published by the dominion bureau of statistics, which shows the farmers' costs of production. Into that eleven-factor index go all the important items of farm cost, namely, farm implements, building materials, gasoline, oil, grease, feed, fertilizer, binder twine, seed, hardware, taxes, interest rates and farm wages. That index is calculated on the basis of 1935-39 equals 100.
The last available publication of that index is for the month of January, 1950, and shows that the index stood at 196-3. In other words the farmer's costs of production in 1950 are almost twice his costs of production in the 1935-39 period. If I were speaking to an audience of farmers in western Canada, I would not have to quote those statistics to prove that farm costs have doubled. Almost every time one meets western farmers to discuss the price of wheat, farmers will say that their costs have doubled since the immediate pre-war period. The farmer will now receive $1.40, basis Fort William, for No. 1 northern wheat. Considering that the western farmer does not receive No. 1 grade for all his wheat we can safely assume, that the average grade is approximately No. 2 northern. Taking the handling charges into consideration, the average price the farmer will receive will be $1.20 per bushel at his local elevator.
I made the statement that, on the basis of costs, the farmer now will be no better off than he was before the war. In 1935, 1936, and 1937, the wheat board paid an initial price of 87J cents per bushel. In 1938, under this government, the price was reduced to 80 cents per bushel. In 1939 the initial price was further reduced to 70 cents per bushel, but the mean average

initial price paid by the wheat board from 1935 to 1939 works out at 82 J cents per bushel. If one assumes that the farmer gets the Fort William price less 20 cents a bushel, then on that basis the farmer received 62J cents per bushel as an average initial price for the 1935-39 period. If one then relates the initial price to the farmer under the present policy to the cost of production index published by the bureau of statistics, one finds that today the initial price for wheat is only worth 61 cents a bushel to the farmer on the basis of pre-war purchasing power. On the basis of purchasing power, therefore, the initial price for wheat for the coming year will actually be a cent and a half per bushel less than in the 1935-39 period.
I hope the farmers' costs of production go down, but I doubt if they will go down very much. One does not see the price of farm implements or gasoline dropping 22 per cent with the 22 per cent drop in the initial price of wheat. Owing to the freight rate increases the prices of most commodities the farmers purchase have recently gone up, and no doubt will go up again if another freight rate increase is granted. In addition the purchasing power of the farmers' net income is not nearly as great as it was before the war. We all know there has been a steep increase in the urban cost of living, but the urban cost of living index in January of this year was 161, whereas the farmers' cost of living index during the same month was 175-3. In other words, the farmers' cost of living index this year is some 14 points higher than the cost of living index for people living in the city. Considering the fact that the purchasing power of the new initial price of wheat is placing the farmer in a position no better than his position in the late 1930's, and further considering his very high cost of living one can readily see that the new initial price adopted by the government is going to place the farmer in a very serious economic situation.
As I have said before, the initial price is not even for the full three-year period. I believe the government are making a mistake in dropping the initial price of wheat 35 cents a bushel, for another reason.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is not the price of
wheat.


Hazen Robert Argue: The Minister of Agriculture cannot talk himself out of the 35 cent drop.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the initial payment; that is not the price at all.
The Budget-Mr. Argue


Hazen Robert Argue: Initial payment-let the minister call it what he wishes. When the farmer goes to the elevator this fall and takes in a load of grain he will know what to call it.


James Garfield Gardiner: Surely, and will know that you are all wrong.


Hazen Robert Argue: Nonsense. In my opinion the government, at a time when world prices are still high for wheat, is saying to every country in the international wheat agreement "our producers are prepared to accept an initial payment which is 14 cents a bushel less than the floor price under the international wheat agreement."


James Garfield Gardiner: That is not correct, either.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister can make his
speech afterwards. In the meantime I think I can-


James Garfield Gardiner: Fix up yours as you go along and I won't need to make one.


Hazen Robert Argue: I can make a speech more
nearly in accordance with the facts than can the Minister of Agriculture.


Mr. Knowles:: The minister should stick to grasshoppers.


Hazen Robert Argue: If the government continue
with this policy, all they will be doing will be to invite the importing countries to bid less for Canadian wheat at a time when the Minister of Trade and Commerce has already said that as far as wheat is concerned we are going into a buyer's market.
I say that the government should have continued the initial price of $1.75 a bushel for the next three years. Even if it cost the federal treasury some money, it would only be a very small payment indeed for the sacrifices and the contributions that the farmers have made over the last three years when no other segment of the Canadian economy was called upon to make a similar sacrifice.
The government has not tied the price of Canadian wheat to the highest price for wheat on the international market. Therefore I feel that the government now should not tie the initial price for wheat to a figure which is even lower than the floor price in the international wheat agreement.
Farmers are indeed disappointed in the government's wheat policy. The Saskatchewan farmers' union passed a resolution at their recent convention held a few weeks ago, asking that they be paid $2 a bushel; under the five-year pool, that is another 25 cents a bushel. Numerous wheat pool committees are asking that the new $1.40 initial payment be

The Budget-Mr. Matthews increased. I would ask the government, before it brings in the bill and before it ties its hands by doing so, to increase the initial price to $1.75 a bushel and to maintain it throughout the life of the international wheat agreement.


Mr. J. E. Matthews (Brandon):: Mr. Speaker, I want again this year to congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) upon the splendid budget that he submitted a few nights ago. It is just another indication of the advances that have been made in Canada's progress, and I have no doubt that even his keenest critics-some of them at least-would admit in their own minds that he has done a wonderfully good job. I know the Canadian people will appreciate his frankness; I know they will appreciate his honesty of expression, as was evidenced when he discussed several points. There was no quibbling in anything that he said.
The minister has ample ground for rejoicing, having again maintained his record of surpluses, an unbroken record which is all the more noteworthy because of the fact that in all the years since confederation there have been only seventeen when a surplus was declared. All the others were years of deficits.
It is noteworthy also because his surplus of $111 million last year was in the face of a substantial reduction in the taxes levied upon the taxpayer. Such a record of course would have been impossible had it not been for the high level of last year's production; for it has been well said that production and trade are the two pillars of national prosperity. This being so I am sure the Minister of Finance would like me to share the credit for his excellent year with two other deserving ministers who very largely directed the building of those pillars, namely, the minister of production, agricultural production, if you will, and the Minister of Trade and Com-merie (Mr. Howe). Both these departments contributed in a high degree to the year's success.
Take agricultural production, for instance. I do not share the gloom of some of our members. In spite of the great industrial development of Canada since the beginning of the century agriculture is still the country's basic industry. It employs directly one-quarter of the gainfully employed, and indirectly provides for the employment of many others in processing, packing and marketing agricultural products. In 1947 about one-half of the gross value of the production of primary industries came from the farm.
It is most pleasant to pause, and realize that during recent years farm income has reached a level so high as to be undreamed of a few years ago. It was very close to $2,500
[Mr. Argue.)
million again last year, divided among the different provinces, excluding Newfoundland, as follows-I am quoting millions only:
Millions
Province	of dollars
Prince Edward Island	 21
Nova Scotia	 37
New Brunswick	 44
Quebec	 346
Ontario	 653
Manitoba	 283
Saskatchewan	 570
Alberta	 463
British Columbia	 98
I must not let the occasion pass without throwing in this side remark, that Manitoba leads all other provinces in the average income per farm. What I have said on farm production applies also to production along other lines. Forests amounted to $975 million; minerals, $890 million; and fisheries approximately $170 million. There are various others that might be mentioned. When it is recalled that last year our production was $16 billion, exceeding 1948 by $500 million, it will be evident that every channel of production, including manufacturing, must have co-operated in the building of one of the pillars of our national prosperity. But let us look back. Let us not forget that back of production is employment, and right here I want to quote some pertinent remarks in this regard made by a leading economist. His first sentence really tells the whole story. It is as follows:
The way to make more employment is to make more employers.
Nobody can gainsay that. Then he goes on to say:
Employers are made by preserving incentives to produce and to expand productive enterprise. In the free system the principal incentive, and the most effective one, is the hope of profit. Moreover, it is through profits, together with individual savings and investment, that the economic organization is provided with the tools and equipment which make employment possible.
The first great barrier to the expansion of employment in proportion to the increase in the labour force is to be found in the tax system, which rewards effort on a diminishing scale, graduated down almost to the vanishing point; which discourages risk and venture; and which because of the sheer burden of taxes reduces the savings and impedes the investment which the economic organization must have if it is to grow.
Mr. Speaker, in view of those words of wisdom, as I see them, expressed by that economist, it is encouraging to note the substantial reduction in taxation already made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). I trust more will follow.
So much, then, for production, the first pillar supporting the splendid edifice presided over by the Minister of Finance. That pillar has its setting in the toil of the producers, not only in agriculture but in every

other walk of life. Many of those producers, however, follow the sane suggestions made from time to time by the minister of production-or agriculture, whichever term one prefers.
But that first pillar, production, would be only a weak support without the second, known as trade. We hear a good deal about trade these days, and rightly so. The more our attention is focused upon Canada's trade, the better for Canada, and the more we shall then realize the outstanding ability of Canada's Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), in the pillar he has done so much to erect. Many of our people fail to realize that Canada's trade per capita is double that of the United Kingdom, and four times that of the United States; that Canada's wage earners, including the three fighting services, made 196 per cent more money in 1949 than in 1939; that last year Canada's retailers did the greatest business in their history-6 per cent higher than in 1948; that as a result of the building of pipe lines, which originated in 1949, Canada is due to save hundreds of millions of dollars in United States funds in future years. It is stated that in 1948 Canada spent $300 million in the United States for oil alone.
We are told that Canadian imports from the United Kingdom, which had a value in 1946 of $140 million, increased in 1947 to $190 million and in 1948 to $300 million. Even the 1949 figure, while representing an important increase over the past few years, will be only about 13 per cent of our total imports. Yet someone has pointed out that this amount of imports taken by 13 million people in Canada from the United Kingdom is more than the total imports that the 150 million people in the United States take from the same source.
Expressed another way, on a per capita basis, in 1949 we are buying goods from the United Kingdom at the rate of $24 for every man, woman and child in Canada. The comparable figure for the United States is about $1.40.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, it was cheering to the people of Canada, and must have been doubly cheering to the Minister of Finance, when a few days ago the Minister of Trade and Commerce tabled departmental documents forecasting a new high of $3,600 million in public and private capital investment in Canada for 1950, a 5 per cent increase over 1949.
Speaking of trade, as complementary to farm production, and indeed all production, I was greatly interested when a few days ago there came to my notice some cogent facts expressed in a novel way by a good friend
The Budget-Mr. Matthews of mine. These facts concern Canada's food contribution to the world. To my mind the article is so original, and yet so informative, that I should like to quote somewhat freely from it now. It depicts in a unique manner the ramifications of our trade. At the same time I should like to keep in mind the prodigious work of the departments of trade and commerce and agriculture in bringing about the results to which this writer has referred.
Every day in this chamber, when the house is in session, the writer suggests, we hear this prayer: "Give us this day our daily bread." The article goes on to say:
This is our only prayer made without reservations. When we think of bread we Canadians think of wheat. Excluding the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the largest producer of wheat is the United States, producing 24-4 per cent, then China, with its twenty-two provinces, 17-8 per cent and Canada, 7-4 per cent of the world's supply.
Let us compare this with world population figures. He continues:
The United States population is 6-8 per cent, China 21-5 per cent and Canada 0-6 per cent of the world's population.
Thus China with 21-5 per cent of the world's population produces 17-8 per cent of the world's wheat while Canada with only six-tenths of one per cent of the population produces 7-4 per cent of the wheat. Canada must therefore export to other countries a large share of its wheat production and now rates second in the amount supplied to the world markets.
Canada, however, supplies to the world by trade many other articles of food, and in reading of their destination, if one can use imagination, they would make the pamphlet of a travel agent's world tour look like a very uninteresting document. Just imagine the cook book of the Arabs and1 the Germans having Canadian foods in their recipes. For the year 1949 agricultural and vegetable products were exported to the value of $773 million and animals and animal products to the value of over $338 million, a total of over one billion dollars, and mainly food for others.
The United Kingdom took $413 million worth and the United States $370 million. Wheat as grain went to forty-four countries and flour of wheat to seventy-four countries. While wheat may change its name to corn, it is the principal source of the world's daily bread. It is grown near the Arctic circle, it is grown on the equator and produced in practically every country in some larger or smaller degree.
The largest customer for wheat is the United Kingdom, but on reading the list of the countries which are customers for Canadian wheat, we can picture a great variety of people, all with their own customs of living, preparing it for food. Arabia, Chile, Egypt and Norway all take wheat, while flour goes to Africa, Hong Kong, Cuba, Denmark, even to Madagascar and Greece.
Let us look further into Canada's exports of food other than bread. We And jams and jellies go to fifteen countries from Japan to the Belgian Congo, to the amount of $155,000.
Apples fresh, apples dried, apples canned, go to twenty countries all the way from England to Hong Kong. They get various names when sold to the housewife, but they are Canadian apples just the same. This export is worth to Canada $7 million.
18E6

The Budget-Mr. Matthews
We also supply to this world-wide table such things as blueberries, strawberries, pears and peaches, while canned fruit goes to over thirty countries, all from Canada.
Tomato juice to the value of $49,000 goes to thirty countries, the names of which would conjure up interesting native customs-Ethiopia, Guatemala- even $10 worth to Meth in the Antarctic. Onions to the amount of $152,000 go to countries from Greenland to the Virgin islands. Apple juices and canned corn, not to mention pickles, sauces and catsup, all go to forty countries, including Pakistan and Morocco.
To the world's great table go potatoes to the amount of $2,900,000, nearly two million dollars' worth of turnips to twenty-two countries and I must not forget the porridge, oatmeal and rolled oats to a million and a half dollars going to forty countries from Peru to India.
From what I have said you will see our vegetables and grains are known the world over, but what about the joint of meat? Here we have another wonderful story.
Purebred cattle are shipped by air to Chile, and we export to twenty different countries to the amount of over six million dollars; dairy cattle over eight million and cattle for beef forty-six million. We export chickens and turkeys and an abundance of fish and fish products. Bacon goes to twenty countries to a value of twenty-four million dollars. The products of this country, Canada, are on the breakfast, dinner or supper tables of every country. We must export to buy our tea, coffee and many other things to eat ourselves, for in North America the standard of living is the highest in the world. We export to eighty countries and Canada's exports are not on a two-way street. Trade is by many roads. Markets for our products are world-wide. We must trade on a world basis, buying and selling in all the world's markets and improving our trade with all the world.
I have been discussing the two pillars, production and trade, that form the basis of our national economy. May I turn for a minute to the superstructure that we are erecting upon those two pillars. Do they bear a proper relationship, because there is a limit to the weight that any pillar can carry? Are we attempting to build too much upon those pillars as we have them today? Any superstructure that is too top-heavy is liable to collapse if and when the winds of adversity strike. This is a possibility that Canadians of every class should be frank enough to realize.
I spoke of the finance minister's honesty of expression. All Canadians will be impressed with his statement that our annual rate of expenditure is not likely to fall below the present mark of $2,400 million. That is a lot of money for this country. That is a lot of money as compared with 1939, for instance, when our expenditures were less than one-quarter of that amount, or $553,063,098.
It appears however that our present annual expenditure can be handled providing we maintain our present national production of $16,000 million per year, which by the way was two or three per cent greater last year than in 1948, and providing also that our present heavy standard of taxation is maintained.
But the rainy day comes to a nation just as to an individual and so far as taxes are concerned Canadians are carrying a heavy load. I think the superstructure is already as heavy as the pillars will carry. Someone has computed that we pay in taxes 28 per cent of our total annual income. I think we pay more. Seventy-eight per cent of those tax payments are to the federal government, ten per cent to the provincial government and twelve per cent to the municipalities. In all three cases too much of it I suggest is collected in the form of hidden taxes and thus the people are unaware of what they are actually paying, even though the percentage now is smaller than that of previous governments.
Quite frankly one phase of our public financing that gives me concern is the large and rapidly increasing portion of our payments that have come to be listed as "uncontrollable expenditures". That is a very dangerous term and one which any government and any people will do well to heed. Let a sufficient tonnage of uncontrollable expenditure be loaded upon our superstructure and there can.be only one result: the pillars will be unequal to the strain. In this respect the amber is already showing and the red light controlled by the taxpayer is at hand. There is no gainsaying the fact that some expenditures are always in order and entirely justified. Sometimes they might be classified, not as expenditures at all, but as investments, as bread cast upon the waters which in due course will come back buttered. I can think of no better example of what I mean than expenditures made by the agricultural department under the P.F.R.A. regulations. Those expenditures have proved to be good investments for all concerned.
But when a large part of a nation's expenditures come to be listed as "uncontrollable" the danger signal must be heeded. I refer to this, because of the pressure from so many quarters for further huge expenditures, which once begun it will be practically impossible to discontinue, no matter how hard the Canadian taxpayer might be pressed. Among uncontrollable expenditures with which the taxpayer is already burdened, we have $449 million per year interest, mainly on war debts, and $500 million per year on what are included under the general and rather indefinite phrase, social services-these in addition to the tremendous amounts absolutely necessary for national defence.
I am not surprised that people are beginning to wonder where the money would come from for those further huge expenditures that are being demanded. That question is easily answered. It would come from your pocket and mine and the pockets of our neighbours,

either directly or indirectly. There is no other source. If the Canadian taxpayer wishes to avoid further heavy demands upon the fruits of his toil he needs to do some serious thinking and to do it right now. Following that, he should also let his opinions be known as regards the weight of the superstructure as compared with the strength of the pillars.
I congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) upon his firmness in resisting demands upon the public treasury greater than this country can stand. I congratulate him upon his frankness in that regard, a frankness that commands the respect of all. That firmness has been a contributing factor to our debt reductions of almost two and a quarter billion dollars since the war, including $486 million in 1949.
The cheering feature of it all is that on a basis of three per cent interest charge those reductions mean a saving in our interest payments of between fifty and sixty million dollars a year for all future years. Is that good financing or is it not? Do those reductions in our interest payments mean anything to you who have to raise the money or do they not? Do you desire still further reductions or do you not? I know what your answer has been in the past. I know what it would be today.
I have stressed those debt reductions because to me they give the whole story of the budget in a nutshell. Further analysis would seem unnecessary. Any finance minister who every year since the war has kept the business of this country advancing under a full head of steam and at the same time has reduced Canada's indebtedness to the tune of nearly $2,000 million is good enough for me. I congratulate him of course, but I congratulate much more heartily the people of Canada upon having a minister so able and so frank at the financial helm of this country.


Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: Mr. Speaker, once again this discussion of Canada's budget is under way and I, like other hon. members, wish to try to interpret to the government some of the thoughts, desires and wishes of the people I have the honour to represent. I think one of the most disturbing features of the budget was the rigidity with which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) said that our expenditures would be fixed at $2,400 million, that they will never be less. Let us hope that we are in a position to afford that, but people and nations have found that they have had to adjust their household and national budgets to fit their incomes and pocketbooks. When any government gets in a position where it has promised more than the people can produce and more than the tax collector can extort
The Budget-Mr. H. O. White from the producer, then the nation is in a serious situation. I am fearful of the giveaway policy of the government. What does $2,400 million mean to the average citizen, the man in the street? He passes it off. He figures it is a lot of money. What does it mean to the individual? Let me tell you that it is approximately $200 for every man, woman and child in Canada. Therefore, for every family of five it is about $1,000, and that does not take into consideration at all provincial or municipal taxation. Is it any wonder that the householder finds it difficult to buy groceries and clothing, and to pay rent? The federal government is extracting from the head of every average family of five approximately $1,000. That is a serious situation, and the minister has said there is no retreat from that position.
The hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) ably pointed out last night there were some things that could be done in the minister's department as well as in some of the other departments to reduce this enormous expenditure somewhat. The reason that the man in the street does not know just how much taxes he is paying is that many taxes are hidden. There is quite a little bit of it hidden in our daily bread. There is more of it hidden in our clothing, still more in the house that we try to buy, and hundreds of dollars in the automobile that one may own or wish to own. These things are articles that every one of us wishes to own or owns and uses. Possibly hidden taxes do not hurt as much as income taxes but nevertheless they are just as effective. Speaking roughly, about half of the income of the government comes from that source. In our school days we read about early times in Great Britain when Robin Hood and his band of robbers took from the rich and gave to the poor, but they were just pikers compared with the way the Robin Hood sitting across from me does it, and he is not greatly disturbed about it either.
Dealing with income tax for a moment, I want to refer to the collection of tax on undistributed reserves. Most industries have set aside reserves for a rainy day, shall we say, or for the day when times are maybe not as good as they are now or become a little difficult. The distribution of such a reserve simply means that the labourer working in that industry is going to be out of work that much quicker. More companies are going to go broke more rapidly if times get tough. Let us hope they do not, but let us not be so foolish as to make no provision. Years ago the story of the seven lean and the seven fat years was unheeded and disaster followed. I think the history of nations and people has pretty well borne
1868

The Budget-Mr. H. O. White that out, if you look back over the past centuries. I should like the minister to consider seriously that part of the income tax legislation dealing with the enforced distribution of reserves. In one of the subsections there is a provision for a ninety-day period during which it has to be cleaned up; otherwise it is considered as not distributed and subject to the collection of tax thereon. I said that no buffer was left to protect the labourer in his job, and that is a most vicious system. Apparently the government has embarked on a program of outdoing and out-promising everything that the socialists promise. They have worked themselves up to a figure of $2,400 million, and they say there is no retreat and that it may be worse.
I mentioned the give-away program of the government. If I were conducting one of these radio give-away programs I would be able to say, step right up, this is the greatest give-away in Canada's history, it is now going on. Let men say that it was not necessary. In the period following the war the government had at its disposal, until quite recently, powers under the War Measures Act and the Continuation of Transitional Measures Act so that some of the things which have occurred were not necessary. They gave away or lost our agricultural export markets which are now in the hands of enemy countries behind the iron curtain. They have given away our raw resources to the United States. Last week we saw the culmination of that in the defeat of the opposition to the pipe line measures. Wall Street interests are now going to have the satisfaction of seeing that the United States is served first, and what is left Canada will get. We know just how much we shall get out of a deal like that.
I should like to mention some of the other things that have been given away. Every year we give thousands and thousands of our best educated young men to foreign lands. It is estimated that it costs $30,000 to educate a child from kindergarten until he has completed his university training. When that is finished he is then offered a job in the United States. The government is giving away $20,000 for every soldier eduoated at the Royal Military College because, as I mentioned before on the defence estimates, the same training can be provided at the universities of Canada for approximately $1,000 per man. The curriculum is the same and the hours of study are the same even to the minutes. I checked it and I know.
The hon. member for Kingston City (Mr. Henderson) protested and tried to point out to the house that it was the first soldier educated there who cost $20,000 and not the


others. Such is not the case. That is what it is costing this year for every one of them. Our defence dollar, when spent on the Royal Military College, is just worth a nickel. You can figure that out for yourselves. Like many other members of the house I receive unsigned letters. I had one dealing with the remarks I made about the Royal Military College. The writer said that I should consult my leader and other military leaders of both parties. The people whom I consult, Mr. Speaker, are the people who elect me, and I respect their judgment greatly. Probably the greatest weapon of defence the minister has is the secret weapon of telling no one anything. That will not win a cold or a hot war. Secrecy is being used as a cloak for reckless spending. Secrecy is being used to cover up and hide inefficiency. I attempted to get the information I required concerning the Royal Military College but was refused it, and had to place a question on the order paper in order to obtain the figures I needed.
I want to mention again that we are indulging in the greatest give-away in history; but before they can give anything away they have to take it from those who produce it. Let no one forget that. Taxation is penalizing hard work, thrift and ability, the very traits that made this nation great. When the previous speaker, the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Matthews), was telling us that the population of Canada was such a small fraction of the population of the world, I thought that was a pretty good example of what 150 or 200 years of free enterprise could mean to a country. No other small country-in numbers-anywhere in the world ever produced the abundance we have; but how long can we continue to take away from those who produce and give to the idle, the thriftless and ne'er-do-wells? We must come to the end of the trail some day. Then what about unemployment? During the latter part of last session and early this session we were told it was seasonal and temporary, as I mentioned once before.
Apparently we have two sets of rules by which the game is played in this country. The manufacturer is protected by tariffs, but they tell the primary producer he must compete in the markets of the world. But he cannot go to the markets of the world for the things he has to buy; he must purchase them in a protected market. I want to give a few concrete examples of how this government is causing unemployment, and suggest some things that could be done to correct the situation. I know the ministers may say: Oh, it is only ten or fifteen or twenty

men here, or a hundred men there; but when you add them up right across the country the number is very considerable. In the Srst place I suggest that we could develop aur coal resources, and when we became independent of United States fuel our exchange situation would be greatly improved. Then for nine long years we have been rearing about the development of the St. bawrence seaway, but still nothing has been lone. We should retain for our own people >ur sources of cheap fuel, including Alberta >il; and the recent sell-out I mentioned is rut one of the examples I could give.
Then we import foreign vegetable and mimal- oils with which to make butter sub-ititutes, when we could produce those very ;ame oils in this country. The farmers dare lot change from the production of the grains hey now grow because the minute they did io the importer from the United States-and mportation is done by practically one com->any only-could drastically slash the price o the Canadian farmer. So what confidence can he have if he goes ahead and nakes a change? The farmers lack confidence because the very promises that were nade last June are being broken every day. Inly yesterday the dairy farmers of Canada ;ot a slap in the face. Our tariffs as applied o primary products are such that they cause nany things to be produced abroad that could >e produced right here in Canada. I realize is well as any other hon. member that many hings coming from the warmer countries ould not be produced in Canada. It is bad inough to have to import them, but it seems o me a very foolish policy when we import very month thousands of dollars' worth of oods we could produce ourselves. The net esult is that we are hiring people abroad o do things we could do.
One commodity that comes to my mind s sugar. We produce a very small percentage f the sugar we consume, though our sugar >eet industry could be expanded enormously, f that were done it would reduce some f the surpluses of other products we now ave difficulty in marketing abroad. It seems o me the policy that has been followed with espect to Canadian agriculture is very short-ighted as it applies to the things we could iroduce in our own country. But if we o make any changes along these lines let s be sure that we give our farmers some ssurance that they will not have a market or only one year, that next year they will ot find the situation entirely changed. Our armers must have a longer term program dan that to work on or they will not make dese changes. All that Canadians need is ssurance, based upon the knowledge that ne government is sincere in any statement
The Budget-Mr. H. O. White it makes. The farmers are not likely to regard the government as sincere, however, if they continue to be dealt with as they were treated yesterday.
Then I believe we should reimpose the provisions of P.C. 181, the order in council dealing with dumping duties. The excuse for not doing this is that under the Geneva agreements it cannot be done. Only one country in the world has ratified those agreements as yet; that is Switzerland. It is just drawing a red herring across the trail to say we cannot impose those dumping duties. It is a very lame excuse. Now we are told that another delegation is going to Torquay, England, where some 2,500 items will be reviewed and some forty countries will participate in a reduction of tariffs program. Geneva is three or four years behind us; Annecy is behind us. It seems to me these conferences are just becoming pleasure cruises for the senior civil servants in the upper brackets. As yet we have not seen any results worth talking about. And what about our bacon trade? That was lost through the bungling and bickering of two governments. I think if governments would stay out of business we would all be better off. I need not dwell on the deal that has brought consternation to the dairy industry, the employing of foreign labour to produce articles that could be produced in Canada.
I am going to mention a number of items. Someone may say they are small. That is true; so is a nickel, but the companies in the nickel business do very well. Let us watch our nickels, and the dollars will take care of themselves. One item I would mention is asparagus. That is a small matter, perhaps; asparagus is grown only in restricted areas. But when Canadians are ready to harvest their crop they are told the dumping duties cannot be applied; so a flood of United States asparagus comes in, prices drop, and the hopes of the producers are dashed to the ground. Always there is a lag of from ten days to two weeks between the time the department is notified that Canadian asparagus will be ready for the market and the time dumping duties or restrictions are imposed upon the importation. Why? Simply because the wholesalers and dealers in the large centres of this country tell the government what to do. They know they have the primary producers scattered here, there and everywhere. They can look after them, and who can squeal about it? But the big fellows in the cities will take care of themselves; don't worry about that.
What about cheese? It seems that the cheese market has been lost. I wish to point out that we have an opportunity of getting into the
1870	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. H. O. White United States market, but the regulations are such that it is only the lower grades of cheese that can enter the United States. Is that any way to advertise our good Canadian Cheddar cheese? I have friends who visit me from the United States, and when they come here we go to the local factory at Glanworth to buy a good cheese for them to take home. Practically all the high-scoring cheese is kept in this country, and it is only cheese that scores 92 or less that is permitted entry to the United States.	t
I mentioned the dumping duties in connection with asparagus and other fruits and vegetables, and I said that I thought the dumping duties should be applied right across the board. Last spring thousands upon thousands of crates of Canadian celery were sent to the dump, representing a total loss to Canadian producers. Restrictions on the importation of celery from the United States for one month would have meant that all that Canadian celery would have been used. The importers paid $5 or $6 per crate in United States funds for celery which replaced Canadian celery. The government does not need to try to hide behind the Geneva trade treaty, because that was not the reason. The real reason was that the wholesalers of this country could make a bigger profit on celery from the United States than on Canadian celery. All that was needed in that instance was a little horse sense in the administration of these dumping duties.
On March 24, 1950, the Canadian onion growers had 100 carloads of onions on hand. On March 31 they were told that nothing could be done to prevent onions from the United States entering this country. At that time, they were selling at 44 cents per 100 pounds in Chicago. The duty on onions entering Canada amounts to about 8 cents per 100 pounds, while the duty on Canadian onions going to the United States is $1.75 per 100 pounds. What kind of a deal is that? I would say that is a raw onion. It is about time the primary industries of this country had a little protection, as well as the manufacturing industry. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I wish to say that it is about time the Liberal members, who represent constituencies in which these primary industries are located, said a word or two in their defence.
I should like to recall to the minds of hon. members the vastness of the quantities cf products that are imported from the United States which could be produced in Canada. I have in my hand a copy of "Foreign Trade", issued March 18, 1950. The main groups are as follows: Agricultural, vegetable products, in the month of January 1950 alone, $27 milium;


animals and animal products, for the monte of January, 1950, $6 million; fruits, $4,468,000; vegetables, $1,904,000; grains and grain products $987,000; sugar and products, $1,954,000. Those amounts relate to the month of January alone. In the month of January too, oils, vegetable, amounted to $2,111,000; vegetable products, other, $1,959,000; fish and fishery products-and this is one of the greatest fishing countries in the world-$297,000; animal oils, fats, greases, $356,000; animals and products, other, $1,354,000. In this land of vast areas, we find imported wool, raw and unmanufactured, amounting to $3,040,000 for the month of January; wool products, $4,563,000. There is no need for unemployment in such a land as ours,- if labour is directed into the proper channels.
There are two or three other points I should like to mention. I have in mind a letter from Prague, Czechoslovakia. Much has been said about the use of the mails, and the refusal of that use to certain individuals. I do not hold any brief for those individuals
ir.	the city of Toronto or anywhere else, who are possibly trying to fleece the public. As has been pointed out, there is a way to deal with that type of individual. I have here communist propaganda from Prague, and when the fact that it was sent through the mails was brought to the attention of the postal authorities, they said that there was nothing that could be done. I should like to read to you some of the interesting comments in this "Prague News Letter," volume 6, No. 8, dated April 14, 1950. The headline
is,	"The mask of Peace and Charity stripped off the Warmongers." It reads as follows:
In Czechoslovakia-prime target among the people's democracies for the warmongers' offensive oi lies and provocation-the past fortnight has beer especially disillusioning for the American deceivers and self-deceivers, and rich in lessons for the Czechoslovak and all other peoples. The trial oi the abbots and other monk-spies ripped away ths pious concealment from the face of the Vatican* CIC-
That means, counter intelligence corps.
-plot against peace and democracy.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Was tha
published in English in Prague?


Harry Oliver White: Yes, and sen out here.
Here is another article which says, "Tom my-guns under the Lord's Temple." It read: as follows:
Sentence was passed on ten representatives o various Roman Catholic religious and monastii orders on April 5 by the state court in Prague After long and careful investigations the stat authorities and the court unearthed the facts am purpose of their activities and passed a just verdic on the criminals in the name of the Czechosloval people.

Then it goes on to name the different men, and the various monasteries and orders to which they belonged. Farther down the article says:
What is the most significant fact however is that the lord bishops, provincials, and professors of theology did not commit their crimes solely as individuals. All were members of a far-flung net of spies and saboteurs organized by the Vatican and reaching into the monasteries not only throughout Czechoslovakia, but also in Austria, Italy and other countries.
This publication is the property of a friend of mine in the city of London, but I shall let those who are interested see it.


Mr. Hodgson:: Is this the sort of propaganda that is going through the Canadian mails?


Harry Oliver White: Yes, and the Post Office Department has said nothing can be done about it.
When I was dealing with fruits and vegetables, I neglected to mention that the fruit and vegetable growers have made certain suggestions for aiding the industry. I should like to read this paragraph from those suggestions:
Because of the Inadequate protection that we have our association has adopted a new policy which it intends to present to government and to members of parliament. The policy is, in effect:
1.	A clear demand for complete free trade.
2.	Failing No. 1 an agreement by which fruits and vegetables of a like and kind not produced in Canada will be admitted duty free all year round, whilst fruits and vegetables of a kind produced in Canada will be admitted duty free when domestic supplies are not available and placed on restriction when domestic supplies are available.
To me that seems to be a reasonable request. I continue:
3.	Failing adoption of either No. 1 or No. 2 we want complete protection through tariffs high enough to prohibit importation when domestic supplies are available.
All three of these requests are very reasonable.
I should like to mention that the sales tax was removed from dairy drinks. Included in dairy drinks was popsicles. By no stretch of the imagination can a popsicle be a dairy drink. It is a frozen soft drink and nothing else. The tax was not removed from similar products in the bottled state.
I want to say a word or two to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) regarding these much heralded grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes. In municipalities where there are government properties and buildings it was hailed as a great step forward. It was nothing but a joke and a hoax. The sum of $5 million which was to be used for that purpose in all Canada is just peanuts. In my riding there is the greatest military hospital in the British empire. It is not the biggest, but it is the
The Budget-Mr. H. O. White greatest. It falls upon that municipality to educate the children of some of the doctors and others who are employed there. Under the present set-up not a cent of taxes are we likely to receive.
I hold in my hand a resolution from the city of London over the signature of Mr. Cooper, the clerk. I am going to read it because I heartily concur in its contents. The resolution reads:
That in view of the dominion-provincial conference now in progress, and the fact that amendments to the British North America Act are being considered, this council urge upon the dominion and provincial governments that in any amendment to the said act provision be made for the payment by both levels of government of normal taxation on properties held by either government within the limits of any municipality in organized territory;
This is something that we shall have to face sooner or later. While we are dealing with public buildings may I say that a new income tax building was erected in London, Ontario. While it gives you a pain every time you enter it, I want to say something about it to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier). This is the way issues are evaded and money is spent without actually showing on the accounts. I am going to say right now that this building is not in keeping with the architectural structures around it, nor with the beauty of the other public buildings in the city of London, nor with the private buildings that are erected there. I might mention the London Life building and a good many others. This particular building is on Dundas, one of the main streets. I hate to use the word, but it is actually a disgrace.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Probably the minister was his own architect.


Harry Oliver White: No. I can tell you how it came about. I hold in my hand sessional paper No. 83, and it tells the whole story. The building was erected according to specifications. I know the company that built it. They built the Western university. They have built some of the finest buildings in the land. You get only what you pay for. This building was built for the Westmount Realties Company. I will tell you who the directors of the company are. They are: Mr. E. B. Mills, Mount Royal, Quebec, president; Mr. H. Mills, Montreal, vice-president; Mr. Wheatley, Montreal, vice-president; Mr. Rankin, Westmount, vice-president; Mr. McAthey, Westmount, secretary-treasurer; and Mr. C. J. Smith of Westmount, director.
The building is leased to the income tax department for 10 years at $70,000 a year, and at the end of 10 years they are to pay $550,000 additional and the income tax department will own the building.

The Budget-Mr, H. O. White


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: The hon. member is all wrong.


Harry Oliver White: Don't try to tell me that; it is all contained in this sessional paper.


Alphonse Fournier: We could buy that building tomorrow for $550,000, not at the end of 10 years.


Harry Oliver White: Are you doing it?


Alphonse Fournier: We will see about that and give you an answer in due course.


Harry Oliver White: That is not the way the business of the country should be run. You built a lovely public building in the city of London. It is used by the post office. A similar building should have been built for the income tax department. If they were not going to do that they should have put it on a back street. Simpson's built a warehouse, which far surpasses this one, on a back street in the city of London. This building is going to retard the growth of the city. It is a disgrace.
Yesterday I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question about the convertibility of exchange. This is his reply, as reported at page 1811 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, an organization known by the initials OEEC-organization lor European economic co-operation-has been advancing a plan which is designed to bring about the interchangeability of currencies on the continent of Europe, including the United Kingdom. This plan is still under study and is being actively advocated. I think there is some hope that convertibility to the extent I have indicated will be brought about in the near future.
He said the near future several weeks ago.
I wonder if that near future is just prior to the next general election. During the few years that I have been engaged in politics I have learned a lot, and there are some things that I can see at quite a distance. It is possible that this is one of the things that are likely to come about at that time.
I hold in my hand a clipping from the Toronto Star of April 15, 1950. Much as I dislike to quote the Star, the gist of what it says is this. Dealing with the benefits that Canada is likely to receive from tariffs in the United States it goes on to say:
Toys are one example. Germany was chief United States supplier before the war although Canada's industry has now developed into sizeable proportions. Concessions granted to Germany, and therefore to Canada, would enable Canada to boost toy exports to the United States. At present Canadian toy exports to the United States are restricted by tariff barriers.
The inference is that we are going to gain by this deal. The truth of the matter is, we are going to lose all our markets to Germany


and to the United States. That is what is going to happen, and the Star tries to cover it up by a news item of this kind.
Yesterday we had the pleasure of having His Worship the Mayor of London, the president of the western fair, and city architect, down here trying to arrange some details of financial aid for the building of an arena there devoted to the interests of agriculture. According to the newspaper items, London is not likely to get aid. It just occurred to me that possibly last June that was one of the promises that the Liberal party neglected to make when they were fighting the election, and since it was not promised we are not likely to get it.
The Canadian people are worried about the budget and the attitude of the government in budgeting for an expenditure of $2,400 million. Therefore I think the minister should revise his thinking before twelve months pass and we hope that the next budget will be better than this one.


Mr. F. D. Shaw (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my participation in the debate at this time results from certain assertions made yesterday on the floor of the house by the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Dechene). Obviously, one could not be expected to permit certain of his almost fanatical assertions to pass unchallenged. Moreover it is my personal conviction that certain of his implications and insinuations require some consideration and analysis.
My purpose is not to be unnecessarily critical, because it is understood that when the hon. member for Athabaska succeeds in working himself into a political frenzy he invariably indulges in indiscretions, inaccuracies and exaggerations, possibly without being entirely conscious that he is doing so- at least I should like to believe that he was not completely conscious of what he was doing.
On October 25 last year the hon. member for Athabaska stood in his place in the House of Commons and urged, with a good deal of vigour and also with much justification, favourable consideration by the government of the completion of a certain line of railway in northern Alberta. I was somewhat surprised last night to hear him advancing the same plea; because I recall that it was less than a year ago-June, 1949, to be exact- that he and his colleagues were telling the people of my province, and elsewhere, that all they had to do was to elect Liberal candidates and get everything they wanted, everything-all things to all men.

Last fall the hon. member used these words-and again I say he used them with plenty of justification-
I am only asking parliament, the government and the executive of the Canadian National Railways to fulfil their solemn pledge and to carry out their word of honour to the people I represent in this house.
On November 3 I rose in my place and advanced the wholehearted support of my colleagues in his plea. But of course I could not resist the temptation to remind him that he had forgotten something. It will be recalled that upon that occasion he lashed out with some considerable viciousness at the Conservative government which held office in Canada between 1930 and 1935. Then he said something like this-indeed these are his exact words: Then the war broke out. I reminded him that four or five years elapsed between the defeat of the Conservative government and the beginning of the war.
Yet nothing was done. 1 think it was that assertion on my part that made him go hog-wild yesterday. Apparently he does not like being informed of his own party's weaknesses, or the weaknesses of the government he supports.
Yesterday the hon. member for Athabaska, as reported at page 1818 of Hansard, said:
The other day the hon, member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw), referring to what I said last fall, asked why the Liberal government had not done anything from 1935 until 1940. The hon. member is a school teacher and he should1 be possessed of some information. He knows that in 1935, 1936, 1937 and 1938 the government of Alberta defaulted on their obligations to the extent of over $20 million.
And then he added this:
A blot was placed on the escutcheon of Alberta which it has taken decades to erase.
I am sure the residents of that area in northern Alberta, which has been adversely affected as a consequence of the failure to carry out declared policy with respect to that railroad, will appreciate knowing that Alberta is to blame for the railroad's not having been constructed.
But it is not that so much to which one would object, as it is to the insinuation constantly thrown out by the hon. member that, whereas the Social Credit government assumed office in Alberta in 1935, we were responsible for the conditions which prevailed at that time. I hope he has read the report of the Bank of Canada for 1937, which is a report of an investigation into the financial position of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. It was at the invitation of the Social Credit government of Alberta that this investigation was conducted within that province. I do not like taking the time of the house to recount what was
The Budget-Mr. Shaw said about my province during those years when it was under a Liberal administration. However the hon. member for Athabaska makes it necessary for me to do just that. I quote from page 4 of this 1937 report:
Policies pursued from the time the province was created, 1905, until the year 1922,-
That is, under a Liberal administration- -had a profound effect on the financial position of the government of Alberta. The roots of many of Alberta's present problems-
That is, 1937.
-were developed during this period. Only the exceptionally rapid economic progress of the time can account for the fact that extravagant governmental expenditures, direct and indirect, were allowed to proceed on such a scale and to last so long as they did.
Almost immediately after the formation of the province, ambitious telephone and railway policies were launched. Poor judgment, loose administration and over-expansion were to make both utility ventures costly.
And here is another choice one at page 8:
By the end of 1922, Alberta had a direct and guaranteed debt (on which it was already paying interest or for which it was later to become liable) which was some 50 per cent larger than in the much older province of Manitoba, and more than twice as large as that of Saskatchewan, though Saskatchewan had a 30 per cent larger population.
That was under a Liberal administration. And here is another choice one at page 18 of the same report:
Alberta entered the depression with the largest outstanding debt of any province except Ontario, and had the highest fixed charges in relation to its revenues in Canada. The causes of this, as we have outlined, were the extravagant expenditures of the 1905-22 period, followed by the failure to reduce debt during the subsequent prosperous years.
Might I interject at this point that, since the hon. member for Athabaska was speaking about railroads, he ought to get that report and: read what it has to say about the disastrous railway policy of the Liberal government of Alberta at that time.
I have said many times that we had our one and only taste of Liberalism in Alberta during that period. The report summarizes on page 10 in these words:
To summarize, we find the policies pursued in the ambitious and extravagant 1905-22 period resulted in the accumulation of a heavy dead weight debt, and that no adequate effort was made to put the government and various government enterprises on a self-supporting basis, in spite of the favourable opportunity presented by the general prosperity. Alberta consequently entered the following period under a handicap which was certain to create problems for the future, unless a determined effort was made to reduce debt.
The Liberals gave us a debt of $95 million, and the U.F.A. government boosted that up to $167 million in 1937. It took the Social Credit government to whack almost $5C

The Budget-Mr. Shaw million off the provincial debt. In 1935 my province was having to spend 51 per cent of its entire revenue in order to meet debt charges.
I should like to refer to an excellent example of what I consider to be distortion and misrepresentation. The hon. member is reported on page 1819 of Hansard of yesterday as follows:
In my own town of Bonnyville many of the merchants and citizens had a few dollars invested in provincial certificates.
Remember, the hon. member is speaking of that early period 1935-36.
We tried to collect these funds to build a school and-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: I am
sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but if I am not mistaken I heard him accuse the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Dechene) of misrepresentation.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I said that it reminded me of misrepresentation and distortion.


Mr. Blackmore:: Pretty mild language at that, considering.


Frederick Davis Shaw: May I finish the quotation, which is as follows:
-when these people tried to get their money they found that they could not even collect from the provincial government of Alberta.
Of course his statement is not correct. The inference is that it was the Social Credit government of Alberta that reneged on the redemption of the provincial savings certificates. We know that the Liberals in Alberta have been using that argument, have been endeavouring to capitalize upon a situation in connection with which the people did not know exactly what had occurred. Let me refer to the Bank of Canada report of 1937 where reference is made to these savings certificates in Alberta, and I quote from page 9 as follows:
A particularly vulnerable feature of the Alberta debt should be mentioned. In 1917-
That was under a Liberal administration.
-Alberta initiated the policy of selling savings certificates which were payable on demand. Originally sold to yield five per cent compound interest, and altered in 1921 to five per cent simple interest, and with administration costs of less than one-fifth of one per cent, they provided funds at a somewhat lower rate than was then available in the bond market, a comparison of rates which took no account of the fact that the certificates constituted demand liabilities.
This is significant.
No reserve was set up to meet any sudden demand for redemption. As the sales were vigorously pushed, and the total outstanding steadily grew (to $41 million in 1922),-

It reached almost $9 million by 1935.
-a constant threat to the cash position and solvency of the province existed.
It was the United Farmers government of Alberta which in July, 1935, suspended payment on those provincial savings certificates because there was no money in the treasury with which to redeem them.


John Horne Blackmore: They were unable to borrow money.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Owing to the policies of previous administrations and those which I have enunciated, my province was placed in the position where it could not borrow. The Social Credit government took over the reins of office on September 3, 1935, and at that time there was not even enough money in the treasury to pay the civil servants their salaries.


Mr. Wylie:: I was one of them.


Frederick Davis Shaw: The hon member for Medicine Hat says he was one of them. When the hon. member for Athabaska says that in his own town of Bonnyville they were unable to secure these funds to build a school, he is not stating what is a fact. Under the very capable management of my leader, who was provincial treasurer, the moneys that were available were apportioned. I am assured by my leader that the situation referred to by the hon. member was met.
It is like waving a red flag in front of a mad bull to remind the hon. member for Athabaska of what has transpired in my province since 1935 under a Social Credit administration. As I have said already, instead of pursuing asinine policies, they slashed approximately $50 million off the provincial debt and they established the lowest average interest rates on their bonded indebtedness of any province in Canada. Many non-Social Crediters in all parts of Canada who know the facts about Alberta have asserted that that province now has the brightest future of any province in Canada.


John Horne Blackmore: If it does not elect Liberals again.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I do not know just why it is that the hon. member for Athabaska, who is an Albertan, who is a pioneer of that country, should not be able to face up realistically to the facts.


An hon. Member:: He is getting too old.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I do not understand why he does not decide to face up to the facts as they are and not endeavour deliberately or otherwise to distort that which is the fact, or mislead or confuse. Mr. Speaker, I see you are anxious about some of my expressions and I shall watch them very carefully.


Mr. Johnston:: Quite mild.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I shall try to keep within the rules.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: Per-naps it would help the hon. member if I read citation 297 of Beauchesne's second edition, which reads:
The imputation of bad motives, or motives different from those acknowledged, misrepresenting the language of another, or accusing him, in his turn, of misrepresentation, charging him with falsehood or deceit: or contemptuous or insulting language of any kind; all these are unparliamentary and call for prompt interference.
Perhaps I should also remind the hon. member that the hon. member for Athabaska is not present.


An hon. Member:: He should be here.


John Horne Blackmore: It is his own fault.


Charles Edward Johnston: He should not make these statements and then run out.


An hon. Member:: He is afraid to be here.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Yesterday the hon. member for Athabaska referred to an incident which is presumed to have occurred in my province in 1938. He said he was there at the time. He referred to the occasion when a certain member, I believe for Edson, returned to the legislature of the province. He referred to what was presumed to have taken place within the assembly upon Mr. Unwin's entrance into that institution, and he said this at page 1819 of Hansard for April 24, 1950:
I was right there and I know what I am talking about. X challenge anyone to deny it when I say that when Mr. Unwin came out of jail to resume his seat in the legislature there was a snake dance on the floor of the chamber led by Aberhart.


Mr. Low:: On a point of order, the hon. member
for Athabaska is now telling an absolute falsehood because it did not happen as he suggests. I was in the house at the time.


Mr. Dechene:: I want to make it clear to the hon. gentleman that I am not taking back anything that I saw myself. I sat in the gallery when the snake dance took place.


Solon Earl Low: On a point of order, I say that the
hon. member for Athabaska is telling an absolute falsehood.
I am just a bit surprised that the hon. member for Athabaska did not demand that that be withdrawn as being unparliamentary. It makes me wonder. The hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Dechene) went on to say:
I am not retracting one single word.
He repeated that it had occurred, and he was so specific that he was not going to retract a word. I have the newspaper clippings for 1938 in front of me, and neither Mr. Aberhart, the late premier of that province, nor any of his cabinet ministers participated in that which was referred to as a snake dance.
The Budget-Mr. Shaw


John Horne Blackmore: In what paper?


Frederick Davis Shaw: That is in the Edmonton Bulletin of Wednesday, March 23, 1938.


Lionel Chevrier: What took place?


Frederick Davis Shaw: It reads:
None of the cabinet ministers joined in, all remained seated save Mr. Maynard, who stood up and sang lustily, his voice being readily heard.


Lionel Chevrier: What took place?


Frederick Davis Shaw: I am not going to take the time to advise the minister at this moment. He can read the speech delivered by the hon. member yesterday in the house. All I am endeavouring to do is to show that the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) was right in his charge. If this is the kind of assertions that are going to be made here then I think some reform is necessary.


John Horne Blackmore: The people of Alberta would like to know.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I do not recall who was in the chair yesterday, but my leader was not called to order. Reference was also made on the same page of the speech of the hon. member for Athabaska to certain persons who were presumed to have been accused by Mr. Unwin, who was an M.L.A., and another. The hon. member does not even get the names of the people right because Mr. J. J. Duggan certainly was not one of them. I am a bit surprised that he did not change that when he corrected his speech. In fact I am surprised that he did not throw out the whole speech after reading it and write another to take its place.
Reference was also made yesterday to my previous references to oil and the hon. member outlined his position with respect thereto. At page 1820 of Hansard the hon. member
said:
The farmers are told that they are not going to get their rights, that they are not entitled to any benefit for the wealth that God has put under their soil, because a few people think the money should be spent to build roads around Banff and other parts of the province.
That should make the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) very happy. I repeat what I said before. The farmers benefit in two ways, directly and indirectly. I am not going to put on Hansard again all the figures which I referred to last fall. I merely wish to re-emphasize that the money accruing to the people of Alberta through its government as a result of their present oil policy has contributed immeasurably toward $50 million in debt reduction, has contributed towards a reduction Id interest rates on our
1876

The Budget-Mr. Shaw provincial debt, and has contributed materially towards increased services which are being made available to the people from one end of the province to the other.
There may be an honest difference of opinion between the hon. member for Athabaska and myself. He is entitled to his opinion as to how these matters should be dealt with, but at page 1820 of Hansard he said:
I wish I were a younger man. I would be willing to wage a campaign on this issue, but not for political purposes.
He has waged quite a campaign, and precisely for those purposes. He also has his young Liberal leader in Alberta who is in his thirties, and who has tried to wage a campaign on this issue without any result at all.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: He does not know any better.


Frederick Davis Shaw: At page 1820 of Hansard the hon. member for Athabaska also said:
So much has been alienated that it cannot be done now.
He was referring to the return of the mineral rights to the farmers of that province. I should like to remind him that 51 per cent of the mineral rights of the province of Alberta were alienated by the federal government before those resources were ever returned to the province. Yesterday the hon. member for Athabaska referred to the Albertan, a Calgary publication, as a rag. I suppose he will now refer to the Edmonton Bulletin as a rag when I quote from it now, although there is no reference to him in it except by inference. On page 4 of the issue of February 11, 1950, I find the following:
Not even the most bigoted critic could maintain that the Alberta government has been backward or maladroit in developing the oil resources of the province. In most respects Alberta's oil policy is the best in the world. At the very least, it gets the oil out of the ground and puts it to useful work and at the same time sends a nice flow of profit into the public treasury.
I say to the hon. member for Athabaska that if he will reflect upon the fact that within the last year some $30 million has accrued to the people of Alberta from that resource, if he will realize how roads and public buildings have been expanded, if he will realize that the province was able to clip a substantial amount off the provincial debt this year and save $600,000 a year in interest, then he must surely agree that there cannot be anything substantially wrong with the policy being pursued in that province.


John Horne Blackmore: He will never agree with that, not as long as he is a Liberal.
{Mr. Shaw.]


Frederick Davis Shaw: There is one publication that does seem to agree with him, and that is the Farm and Ranch Review. It is conceivable that most hon. members have never heard of it. I realize they are having such great difficulty in getting readers that they are even sending reprints to us to make sure that they have at least 262 readers. They do not reflect good judgment or sound public business sense. They do not show much beyond narrow partisan bigotry in their approach to this matter.


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: They wrote Prowse's speech too, incidentally.


Solon Earl Low: I would not be surprised.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: It was not worth reading.


Frederick Davis Shaw: As I said, there is a publication that agrees with the hon. member for Athabaska because in a recent editorial which I have before me they decried the principle of slashing sums off our provincial debt and saving our people hundreds of thousands of dollars that would otherwise be paid out in interest. For a long time this same publication, the Farm and Ranch Review, has endeavoured to influence public opinion, but we can all bear witness to the dismal failure of that effort.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to occupy more of the time of the house. It seems rather unfortunate that one should have to speak in. this vein at all, but I presume that as long as the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Dechene) represents that constituency and I have the honour to represent Red Deer, and as long as he insists upon delivering speeches of that character, I shall have no alternative but to occupy the time of the house as I have done today. We hope the hon. gentleman will learn something. Yesterday he mentioned that since I had taught school I should have some information. That I have. I think it most regrettable that the hon. member himself never taught school.


Mr. A. H. Jeffery (London):: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of speaking on the budget this session, but after hearing the remarks of the hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. White) I thought I should answer some of the statements he made. I was not going to speak on the budget because I thought the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) was doing an excellent job for Canada, world conditions being what they are, and I had little to offer in the way of criticism of his actions or proposals.
The hon. member for Middlesex East referred to the fact that the budget was for $2,400 million, and that the minister said that amount probably could not be reduced. That statement was criticized by the hon. member,

who said any government should have expenses that could be reduced in order to keep them in line with the prospective income. I wonder if the hon. member would like to do away with old age pensions, or perhaps family allowances, or perhaps farm price supports. Those are some of the items that make it necessary for us to have such a large budget.	The hon. member speaks
about reducing the costs of government, but he must realize that these costs are but an infinitesimal part of the total cost of government in Canada. The greater part of our income is devoted to old age pensions, family allowances and so on, and these are irreducible expenditures. We must realize that we cannot give to those in need unless we get the money somewhere, and that money can be obtained only through taxes which must come out of the pockets of the people of the country.
The hon. member spoke about hidden taxes. I believe the record of this government, and the amount extracted from the people of Canada during the war by way of income tax, speak well for its attitude toward hidden taxes. The government took taxes in such a way that everyone realized where they came from. The hon. member also referred to the Minister of Finance as Robin Hood. I think that was a rather apt comparison, because to a certain extent the minister does take from the rich in order to help the poor. But I think the minister is a little cleverer than was Robin Hood, because he has shown in this budget that he is not going to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. In other words he has realized that you cannot take more than a certain proportion from the wealthy to give to the poor; otherwise you finally tax the wealthy out of existence and have no place from which to get money. A perfect example of the minister's understanding of that situation is to be found in the ten per cent deduction a person is permitted with respect to dividends.
Then the hon. member dealt with the forced distribution of reserves, which he does not like. I think that is a forward step in the financing of this country. We are a young nation. We need a great deal of money in order to develop our resources. The trouble with Canadian industry up to the present has been that most of its profits have been plowed back in an effort to increase the stature of the companies; most of the profits have been kept in reserve in order to expand the companies. I do not think they have been paying enough of their profits to the shareholders. That is why there is difficulty in raising risk capital in the markets of this country. A sufficient percentage is not paid for the risk involved, 55946-1201
The Budget-Mr. Jeffery in comparison with the income from bonds. If we limit reserves and provide that the rest of the profits must be paid out in dividends I think we shall advance a long way in encouraging risk capital to undertake the development of our resources.
During both this parliament and last parliament we have heard criticism with respect to the loss of export markets by this government. I believe the majority of hon. members of this house, and I think the public in general, realize that the loss of export markets is not the fault of this government but the result of world conditions. If a man has not money, he cannot buy. If foreign countries have not money to buy Canadian goods, we cannot export. I think we must realize that.
The hon. member also mentioned the fact that his party has fought against the pipe line bills. I want to point out that the majority of my party fought for those bills, not because we want to export gas or oil to the United States but because we feel that anyone bringing a bill to this parliament has a right to have it voted upon, and that the bill should not be held up by a small minority in this house. The hon. member also said we were exporting educated men. No one regrets that more than I do, or more than the party to which I belong; but I will say that if the hon. member looks at the statistics he will see that we are exporting fewer and fewer educated men. We are keeping more of them in Canada, and if our country continues to develop as it has during the past year or so our educated men will stay here.


Mr. Ferguson:: Does the hon. member
believe that the recognized opposition in the House of Commons, no matter how small it may be, has no right to debate a bill as fully as it sees fit? The hon. member just made the statement that the work of the house was being held up by a small minority. Does he believe that the recognized opposition, no matter how small, does not have the right to fully debate any bill?


Alexander Haley Jeffery: I have publicly stated over the radio that any member of the opposition, and any member of this parliament, should have the right to speak on any bill. But when they have spoken three or four times on the bill and on amendments, when they keep speaking to the general principle even while speaking to an amendment, I do not say it is a hold-up of that bill but it looks very much like it.
The hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. White) mentioned the training of officers in Royal Roads and the Royal Military College- if he did not mention Royal Roads I believe he intended to do so. I want to say to him
1878	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Jeffery that his idea of training oificers in civilian universities is a good idea for preliminary training. I believe he knows that the greatest officers in both the Canadian and the United States armies have been men who were trained in military institutions. I do not mean to say that the men who came from the C.O.T.C., or the men who came up through the ranks and became officers, were not good officers. Certain technical training can be received in a military college that cannot be obtained any other way. We all know that there have to be experts in certain subjects. There are certain members in this house who speak on certain subjects because they have been able to specialize in those subjects, and that principle applies all throughout life. We still need military colleges to teach our future officers for the war we hope will not come.
Mention was also made of the St. Lawrence waterway, and of the promises that our government would do everything possible to establish the St. Lawrence seaway. I believe the member for Middlesex East realizes that it takes two to develop this international seaway, and that Canada cannot do it alone. This government has communicated with the United States about developing the power alone, but the United States has not yet agreed to such a development. Canada cannot undertake it alone.
The hon. member for Middlesex East spoke of selling out our resources. He may have had reference to our oil fields, and to our ore. It is well known that we have to buy certain things from the United States and, in turn, we have to ship something to that country. One of the things this country has is natural resources. For the moment, Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with the oil situation. I think we are shipping, and will ship, considerable oil to the United States, but I do not think western Canada will ship more oil to the United States than the United States ships back into eastern Canada. I think it is a trade of oil, and is not getting rid of our resources. What country but the United States carried Canada in the years during the war by supplying us with oil?


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: And who was paid for it?


Alexander Haley Jeffery: Who is going to get paid for our oil that goes to the United States? Mention has been made of high tariffs by the member for Middlesex East. He wants tariffs on food from the United States, but he objects to tariffs on machinery coming from the United States. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. In order to sell goods, a country must import goods. Money is involved, but it actually comes down to a barter or trade arrangement. If we start putting up tariff walls, so will other countries.


What is the most important industry in our country? It is agriculture. What is the most important export? It is wheat. If we put up a tariff against goods from England or the United States, how are we going to sell goods to those countries? They will need to get money with which to buy them.


Harry Oliver White: You have to pay 40 cents a bushel on wheat going into the United States; is that free trade?


Alexander Haley Jeffery: I did not say it was free trade. The hon. member mentioned communist literature coming through our mails. I think the attitude of the government I support, and my own attitude, is that we should not ban any literature coming through the mails merely because it has the name "communist" attached to it. Communist might be the name of a party, the same as ours. What we must ban is any organization that we can prove wants to overthrow this government by force. If the communists can sell their system of government to the Canadian citizens, if they can elect a predominantly communist government, then they have the right to do so. It is only when they say they are going to overthrow this government by force that we have the right to control them. I have an interest in this, because sometimes people accuse me of being a bit extreme in my views on pensions and medical insurance. I do not want anyone in this country to stop me merely because I am a bit extreme. The minute I go into a public place and say I think the government should be overthrown by force, then I should be thrown in jail; I should be stopped. In certain parts of Canada we have examples of what can be done by gagging the people; let us not fall into that trap.
Mention was made of the employees at Westminster hospital, in the riding of the member for Middlesex East. He talked about the urgent school question, and the fact that the employees who have children are not paying taxes.


Harry Oliver White: Not all of
them.


Alexander Haley Jeffery: I should like to bet the member for Middlesex East that the number of employees who have children and who do not pay taxes is not more than ten per cent. I would bet him that the rest of the employees own or rent homes somewhere in London, or the district surrounding Westminster hospital, and pay taxes.
The hon. member for Middlesex East spoke about the income tax building in London; that was a grand election gag. A great deal of material was put out during the election campaign which was obviously partial

information. It was put out during the last three days, as a last desperate attempt to defeat me. I was sure enough of the election, and so contemptuous of their tactics, that I did not bother to answer the allegation. I can say now that the space rate at which the government rents that building is lower than that paid by the government in the last months of its tenancy of the previous building, and much below the regular rates charged in London. I can say also that the government has a right to buy this building at any time, with certain limitations-perhaps after three years, I have not the contract here. I can tell you that the government does not have to buy it, but can walk out and go to some other building. Supposing we have, and I do not believe we shall have for years to come, some sort of recession, and suppose the shelf program is put into effect; do you not think a new federal building would be a good idea? At the end of ten years the government could walk out of this building and say, "Good-bye; we rented this building cheaply, and we are now walking out."
The Acting Speaker	(Mr. Beaudoin):
Order, it is now six o'clock.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Do you call $70,000 cheap rent?


Alexander Haley Jeffery: I said that the rent-
The Acting Speaker	(Mr. Beaudoin):
Order, it is now six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
"dominion"
Mr. A. Phileas Cote (Maiapedia-Malane) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 4, respecting Canada day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Carried.


Mr. Cruickshank:: Explain.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Alcide Côté: I am sorry that at the request of a man who is the representative of fruit growers I have to explain a bill which has already been voted on. I have not prepared any speech. I am not going to make a speech, because I respect my colleagues in this House of Commons, the majority of whom are members of the former parliament who agreed to the principle of the bill and with the bill itself. It was passed by an overwhelming majority when it came up
Canada Day
in the former house. I am sure that new members do not need to be canvassed to subscribe to what their colleagues did when they accepted this bill. But in the event that there are some new members who would like to have an explanation of this bill, as the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) does, and who got tangled up in his position-


George Alexander Cruickshank: On what?


Mr. Cole (Maiapedia-Malane):: If I remember well, the hon. member spoke one way and voted another. That was the first instance. The last instance was a few weeks ago. I would refer the new members to Bill No. 8, which was passed in this house on April 4, 1946, by an overwhelming majority. Such a desire was shown for the passage of the bill that it was given third reading the very day on which it received second reading, which established a precedent in parliamentary procedure. Of course it did not receive the blessing of the other place. In dealing with it they spent months of time at the taxpayers' expense. In that instance, I do not think they established the reason why there should be another place, and in the second instance, I do not think they established the fact that the members who were there should be there. Fortunately for Canadian unity God Almighty came into the picture and called from that other place to another place most of the members who opposed the bill, and I am sure that the replacements will prove that they are worthy of their appointments.
If I have not brought this bill before the house again after a lapse of a few years, it is because I wanted to give the government a chance to proceed with emergency legislation; but I think I have come to the time when I should decide whether I was sincere with this thing or not, because after all we are in 1950. This bill was introduced and passed first in 1946. My second reason is that during the leadership of that great statesman who is Prime Minister today we have proceeded with important things to make this Canada of ours a great country for all Canadians, new loyalists as well as old ones. We had the opportunity to bass legislation supported by the government to make the supreme court our final court of appeal. We passed legislation to make it possible for this parliament to amend the Canadian constitution. We passed legislation, sponsored by the Prime Minister of today, that gave to Canada the greatest possible autonomy-if we have to speak about autonomy at times-that ever existed since confederation, when the former minister of justice introduced in the last parliament a bill that made Canada no longer subject to

Canada Day
the parliament of the United Kingdom, a bill which made our laws no longer subject to the parliament of the United Kingdom if they wanted to disallow them.
On August 12, 1946, I asked a question of my dear old friend, the late Senator Mackenzie and former minister of national defence, who was leading the house at the time, and who perhaps found it a little boring. Nevertheless I asked my question, directing my remarks to the present Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) who was then acting prime minister, and minister of justice. I pointed out that even though it was almost eleven o'clock, my bill should be proceeded with. I asked further whether it was not more important to proceed with Bill No. 8, which had been amended in the Senate-the other place, as we call it-and which had reference to Canada day. At that time I said:
I should like to know from the government leader whether such a bill, after being passed in this house, and having received the sanction of the Senate, even with amendment, is not as important as, for instance, Bill No. T-ll, an act for the relief of Fania Pustopedskaites Sobolevicius, otherwise known as Fanny Pustopedsky Sobolevicius.
The Prime Minister was good enough to answer in this way:
The hon. member will have to trust that the house, the country and the government will consider as to whether the matter should not be reintroduced as a measure having other precedence at the next session of parliament.
Of course I fully realize the situation of the government, when it had to deal with emergency legislation. But I do suggest that after four years, and a general election which brought back to the House of Commons a majority of the members who sat here at that time, and who supported the bill in such a hurry and with such an overwhelming majority, I would be unfair to my colleagues in the house if I were at this time to make a speech to try to convince them, when it is so clear that they were fully convinced when the bill was first introduced.
I resume my seat, Mr. Speaker, with the conviction that I shall not need to go any further before having the bill accepted^ I hope this bill will not be considered as one which simply follows the precedent set up in the telephone books, which no longer bear the name of the dominion, nor the public vehicles of the various departments from which the word "dominion" has been taken off, but that it will be considered as an acceptance of one of the great principles of the Liberal party which, somehow, has not been considered by the other place. After this bill has passed, the way it was passed in 1946, if it receives the same treatment in the other

place, I hope this house will make it clear to that other place that if they do not come into line there will be some trouble over it.


Mr. E. T. Applewhaile (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I am not happy about this bill, nor would I be happy to see it pass.


An hon. Member:: It has passed.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I would not be happy to see it passed at this session. After all, speaking frankly I can see no good reason for the bill, and a considerable number of reasons against it. I suggest the house might well pause and consider the effect of this legislation before taking a vote upon it.
I suggest the bill does not affect the physical, material or economic life of the country. Therefore, for want of a better term, I would describe it as a sentimental bill, as contrasted with a practical one. I realize that that is no argument against it: but it does indicate that our discussions and decisions concerning it will be based on sentimental arguments. It may be of course that a little sentiment in the chamber from time to time is a good thing.
The purpose of the bill is a simple one, namely, to change the name of Dominion day to Canada day. It does not change the day, the legality of the holiday or its observance, but simply changes the name. That is its sole effect. I do not propose to inflict upon the house the well-known and beautiful history which attaches to the decision to call Canada the Dominion of Canada. Speaking historically however I would point out that there was a Canada before July 1 1867-in faot, there were two of them, Upper and Lower Canada. There was no Dominion of Canada before that date. On the coming into force of the British North America Act, for the first time in history the Dominion of Canada came into being. The country was here before that, but the Dominion of Canada as such was not.
Why have we decided to celebrate July 1 as our national day, a day which apparently still meets with the approval of the sponsor of this bill? The answer, as we tell it to very small children in their school classes, is because the first of July is the birthday of the Dominion of Canada. As all hon. members know it was on July 1 that the British North America Act became effective. The title of that act reads, "An act for the union of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick", and so on. The preamble to the act opens with these words:
Whereas the provinces of Canada. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have expressed their desire to be federally united into one dominion under the Crown.

The important words in section 3, which deals with union, make reference to "the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick", and say that they shall form and be one dominion.
As a Canadian by birth I am not in the least ashamed of the history of Canada. I feel we all have every reason to be proud of that part in our history played by both our British and French ancestors and predecessors, and that we have no reason whatever to feel any shame or any inferiority at this time when they together, some eighty-two or eighty-three years ago, decided to unite to form the Dominion of Canada.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this bill has a more far-reaching effect than its simple terms and explanation would lead one to believe. After all, we are not going to change the name of our national holiday every session. If it is done now, it will most likely be done for all time. I suggest that we in this parliament should not take this action until we have, or are able to produce such overwhelming examples of public opinion on this subject as, so far as I know, no one has been able to produce to date.
The word which it is suggested should be removed, and which presumably is objectionable, is the word "dominion". The first definition of the word "dominion" given in Dr. Annandale's dictionary, the only one with which my roommate supplies me in our office, is "a sovereign or supreme authority."
The word "dominion" in international politics is now synonymous with an autonomous member of a commonwealth. If there ever was any stigma attached to the word "dominion" it was that it implied a form of colonialism, but in fact you will not find any of the colonies described as being dominions.
As one who is Canadian-born I have an affection for the term "dominion". I suppose that affection dates back most likely to the fact that the first holiday I can remember after Christmas was Dominion day. I am not ashamed to admit affection and respect for such expressions as Dominion day, dominion jurisdiction, dominion holiday, and at the present time I admit to having both affection and respect for the dominion government.
I suggest in all sincerity and with sympathy that the underlying feeling behind a move of this kind is really something in the nature of an inferiority complex. I suggest that we in Canada have gone far beyond the stage where we need suffer from an inferiority complex. I think that we have taken our place in the world as a self-governing.
Canada Day
autonomous, independent nation and we would be almost making ourselves ridiculous if we were to comb the dictionary and the statutes to look for a word which might imply something less than autonomy, to try to find a word to take the place of that beautiful word which has such a beautiful history in Canada.
It may be argued that the word "dominion" as applied to Canada lowers our status, but is it not a fact that Canada and the other dominions by their existence, by what they have done in the last few years, have raised the status of the word "dominion" until it now means an autonomous and independent country, a country which may be regarded with pride by its own citizens?
Is it suggested that we go back to the old use of the word? Is there a fear that some body or some thing has dominion over us if we call ourselves a dominion, or have we dominion over ourselves? If that is the fear, then who or what has dominion over us? Surely to goodness with all the speeches that were made last year on that glorious occasion when Newfoundland joined us, with all the speeches that were made during the various debates dealing with appeals to the privy council, with all the speeches and writings since the Statute of Westminster, does any thinking Canadian really believe that anybody, even the imperial government or the imperial parliament, has any dominion over us.
That leaves only His Majesty. As far as I am concerned I am proud to admit that His Majesty still has dominion over me. That is the only tie-a worth-while tie it is-which holds together-and a difficult job it is-the British commonwealth of nations, which is regarded by many as being one of the few hopes left in a foundering world. I suggest it is of sufficient importance to be considered that any action we might take as indicating anything but the greatest union within the commonwealth is an action which we certainly should not take at this time.
There are one or two practical difficulties in removing the word "dominion" and chang- ' ing the name of Dominion day. In the histories and geographies published in this country, in books, in official and semi-official publications, there are many references in the way of definition of jurisdiction and so forth to dominion and provincial. That is not an insuperable difficulty, but it might well be borne in mind.
My real objection to the passing of this bill is that we have no evidence of an overwhelming demand for it. My own opinion based on some knowledge is that there is no demand

Canada Day
for a bill of this kind in the west, and I submit that there is no demand for a bill of this kind in this dominion.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I was a member of the house when a similar bill to the one now before us was introduced and debated and as far as I know I voted for it at that time. I must admit, however, that I have felt uneasy in my mind about it, not that the matter was or is of supreme importance. As the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite) has so well said, to attempt to make this change at the present time is bordering on the ridiculous.
I know the hon. member who has introduced this bill has done so in all sincerity and with the best of intentions, but let me draw to his attention the fact that the observance of Dominion day is merely the observance of an event in Canadian history, the federation of the various provinces into a dominion. That event will not be changed by calling July 1 Canada day. It seems to me that every day should be Canada day and I think it is silly to set out one particular day and call it Canada day.
Let us continue to call July 1 Dominion day because on that day Canada reached dominion status. If there is some particular day when Canada outgrew dominion status and became a sovereign nation, let us take that day if we want to have another holiday and call it Canada day. As I say, even if we change the name of July 1 from Dominion day to Canada day we do not change the event or the circumstances that brought that day into being as a day of observance.
I am Canadian-born, like the hon. member for Skeena, and I deem it an honour to be a Canadian. I suggest to the mover of this bill that when we have had a discussion of it that he should withdraw it and that we leave things as they are. It does not take away anything from the stature of Canada as a nation or the place that Canada holds in the hearts of the people or the respect that Canada has among the nations of the world by calling July 1 Dominion day. If the motion comes to a vote, as I have changed my mind on the matter I shall vote against it.


Mr. John Hunter (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, it appears to me that there is a great deal of protesting going on and I am reminded of the old phrase:	Methinks she doth protest too
much. I rather think that that is applicable to this debate. As an English-speaking Canadian I can enter into this debate without any accusation of being prejudiced or unfair. The fact is that after the passing of the British North America Act we became the Dominion of Canada, and through the slow evolution of events we gradually attained maturity. Today

we are not the Dominion of Canada; we are Canada, and we are known all over the world as Canada. We have our own court of last resort. We have our own armed forces, and our own embassies abroad. We have all the attributes of a nation today. The King is the King of England but he is also King of Canada. To protest against changing the word "dominion", a word for which I have every respect and which in its day had a connotation of beauty and deserved great respect, and to accuse people of changing it to "Canada" carelessly is not in conformity with the facts. The facts are that the country has changed; the country has grown up. I can understand that for those who have not grown up with the country there may be a certain sentiment in what has formed a part of their environment, but I suggest that in fairness to the rest of the country they endeavour to catch up.
I can recall that as a lad I occasionally heard people refer to what is now known as a motorcar or automobile as a horseless carriage. There has to be a transitional period during which something is called what it is at the time or what it appears to be, but the gradual evolution of events, and changes in history, have brought about something new. Today we have arrived at the point where "Canada" is appropriate. I am very proud of Canada. I was proud of the Dominion of Canada, but now that we have attained our majority and apparently grown up beyond some of the members of the house we should make a change. I am singularly proud of the word "Canada". As an English-speaking Canadian I feel that English-speaking Canadians generally will welcome the word "Canada" and "Canada day".


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Mr. Speaker, I will not take up much of the time of the house. There is a certain amount of sentiment and tradition about the word "dominion". I have a dictionary here and I find that it has two or three meanings. It means "a supreme power or authority, control, rule, or the self-governing territories of the British empire". I hope we are still a part of the great British commonwealth of nations of which we are all so proud. I think every member of the house is proud of Canada as a self-governing nation. Sometimes these things are easily changed and it does not always please the majority of the people of Canada. It is likely that some few years hence the country may be ready for a change of this kind, but at the present time I do not think it is. Last year the name was changed in the telephone directory. I asked a question then as to why and by whom it was changed. That does not matter so much,

but at that time I received a great deal of correspondence from the whole of the Dominion of Canada, and I did not receive one letter in favour of it. After all, some people think they would like to keep the old tradition of calling it the Dominion of Canada.
So far as changing the name of a day is concerned, it is a very small matter, and in fact really too small to take up the time of the House of Commons. I do not think the bill should have been introduced at this time. There are other nations of the British commonwealth, and there is not an Australia day, a New Zealand day, an India day, or a South Africa day. They have other names for their days of celebration. I do not see why we have to depart from the old word "dominion". There are many old people in the country who cherish the name and who remember the days of 1867 when this country became the Dominion of Canada. It seems to me that it is a tie binding our provinces to one another. In the old biblical days there was a phrase "dominion from sea to sea". I think we are a little premature, that we should wait a while and not be in a hurry about these matters. I do not know why we should want to call our day of confederation "Canada day". It has been called Dominion day ever since confederation in 1867 and I do not see any reason for changing it. I think the time for that has yet to come.
There are probably some people in the riding of the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane (Mr. Cote) who would like to call it Canada day. I do not know that there is any legislation in the statutes of Canada that prevents them from doing so. If the hon. member were advertising the day in his own territory he could call it Canada day and I do not think anybody would find fault with him or his people. I am sure I would not, and if I were there I would certainly be glad to celebrate with him, whether he advertised it as Canada day or Dominion day.
One of the greatest statesmen of Canada, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, was proud to call it the Dominion of Canada. Other leaders were also proud to do so. The former prime minister, Mr. Mackenzie King, called it the Dominion of Canada many times in his speeches in the house during his thirty years of service. Sir Wilfrid Laurier said that the nineteenth century belonged to the United States and the twentieth century would belong to the Dominion of Canada.


Mr. Sinclair:: And the Liberal party.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I am glad you mentioned that because within the last fifty years
Canada Day
Canada has not developed either commercially or in population as rapidly as the United States, and probably that is one of the reasons why.


James Sinclair: Oh no.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: You brought the matter up. With the exception of a few years we have had a Liberal government in power since 1896.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Hear, hear.


James Sinclair: By choice of the people.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: In 1896 when Sir Wilfrid Laurier came into power he set a precedent in the house by leaving the previous Speaker in the chair. If I were forming a government I would be happy to pay you the same compliment, Mr. Speaker. It is hard to tell because times change-


George Alexander Cruickshank: Especially leaders.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: My party might have the opportunity. I think this measure is a lot of nonsense and is taking up too much of the time of the house. So far as the change is concerned I am opposed to it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief in my remarks because one of my younger colleagues can see me now, having lost his vanity and purchased a pair of glasses. Strange to say-


James Sinclair: Open season now.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Yes, open season. I do not believe the name should be changed. I am perfectly satisfied with Dominion day. If it were to be changed I do not think it should be Canada day at all. It should be Fraser Valley day. That would suit everybody. I think I know something about Canada. I have had the privilege of travelling in all parts of Canada.


James Sinclair: You were born in the United States, though.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Yes, as my young colleague says, I was born in the United States, our great and friendly neighbour to the south. I had sense enough to get out, however, when I was eight months old. I do not want to take too much time; I do not want to speak until nine o'clock. Some of my colleagues came from the country from which my mother and father came; that is Scotland, which next to Canada is the greatest country in the world.


Mr. Mclvor:: Question!


George Alexander Cruickshank: I have never had the privilege of visiting Ireland. You know, I do

Canada Day
not get these trips; I am not flown all over the world. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion the finest legislation brought down since I have had the honour of being a member of this house was the citizenship bill which was brought in under Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King. Through the generosity of the people of my riding I am sure of being returned at each election, something of which some of my junior colleagues from the province are not so sure. By a little scrimping here and there I have been able to buy a new automobile, and I drive home each year. Up to the present I have had to go home through the United States in order to be sure of paved roads.


Mr. Lesage:: You are killing time.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Me?


Jean Lesage: Yes; you are killing time because you are afraid of a vote.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Well, I do not know that I am as much afraid of a vote on this matter as my Quebec friends were afraid of a vote on the margarine question. I do not know why I should be afraid of a vote on this subject. You know, Mr. Speaker, with the possible exception of Saskatchewan the province from which I come has a more cosmopolitan citizenship than any province in Canada. When I was a young man I used to hear that everyone who came west came from Bruce county, Ontario. Those of us who live in British Columbia and Saskatchewan, however, have come from all parts of the world. Mention was made a few moments ago of the richest country in the world, the United States, whose population is made up of people coming from all over the world. I do not believe that in Canada we should have anyone called French-Canadian, Irish-Canadian, Swedish-Canadian or anything of the kind; I believe we should all be called Canadians. In two great conflicts, though not directly attacked, Canada played a part that no other country could surpass or equal; but we can still carry on as a dominion.


Alcide Côté: What kind of dominion? The Dominion of New Zealand?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I think we have the finest dominion in the world.


Alcide Côté: Clarify what you mean by a dominion.


George Alexander Cruickshank: We have our status. As a previous speaker said, no one tells us what form of justice we shall have, or what kind of laws we shall have. We formulate our own laws. We elect our own parliament by free, secret ballot. I am not very fond of all this pomp and pageantry, but I agree that nothing binds the British empire together as much as our loyalty to His Majesty the King.
tMr. Cruickshank.]


Jean Lesage: Let us call Canada a kingdom, then. It is not a dominion.


George Alexander Cruickshank: My friend has an opportunity equal to mine to rise in his place and speak. I come from a province that is predominantly British.


An hon. Member:: You have nudists there.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Yes, and that is one of the reasons we want to remain in the British commonwealth of nations. If we had our way in British Columbia those same Doukhobors would be sent back behind the iron curtain where they came from.


Hazen Robert Argue: Just put some clothes on them.


George Alexander Cruickshank: It was my misfortune today to have to listen to a speech made by the hon. gentleman who just interrupted. Along with many other hon. members I have had to do that many times before, but that is part of the price we have to pay for sitting in a free, democratic House of Commons elected by the people of Canada. As I said, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to delay this vote.


Jean Lesage: The filibuster champion.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I have never had any experience in this filibuster business, as some of my junior colleagues have, and I am not very sure what a filibuster is. As a matter of fact I had two invitations to free dinners this evening. You know, my father and mother came from Scotland, and we like free meals; so it was with much regret that I turned down those invitations. I am here tonight because I thought between eight and nine o'clock it was possible some mention might be made of the pipe lines, and 1 wanted to be present. You see, there are two bills, No. 131 and No. 132.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I knew I would get out of order if I kept on going. You know, this country means a great deal to a Canadian who had the high privilege of serving in the Canadian forces. I remember that in 1916 I had the opportunity to visit Paris, a beautiful town, one of the most beautiful in the world. At that time, however, I was not a member of parliament; I was not flown over there-


Alcide Côté: On a point or order, Mr. Speaker, I do not think this hour should be devoted to the meanderings of the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank), who is not discussing the matter before the house.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Well, I do not know whether I am speaking on the point of order

>r whether I am speaking of the beauty of Paris. In the year 1916 I had the privilege of visiting that town. At that time I was sent to Paris at the expense, and through the generosity, of the Canadian people, but I was receiving $1.10 a day. I was not flown there while receiving $10,000 a year, as happened to some others. But I enjoyed Paris as well as the others, Mr. Speaker. I am simply emphasizing that, so long as we maintain unity within Canada and the great commonwealth, whether it be under the name of Canada day, Dominion day or Fraser Valley night, it makes little difference, provided we remain within the allied peoples of the world who believe in freedom and democracy. I can see no reason for endangering that unity by changing the name.
I had the privilege of visiting Quebec city, along with some of my junior colleagues, to attend the Canadian Legion convention. We attended a beautiful service on Sunday afternoon on the plains. The only thing to which I objected was that they walked us out there, instead of giving us a ride. It was all right for me, because I am in better physical condition than some of my junior British Columbia colleagues. I was quite proud during that visit-


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Probably the junior members are used to flying around.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I do not know. It is bad enough, Mr. Speaker, to receive advice from the left and from the right, but when I receive it from the other side it makes it difficult.
I do not want to delay this vote, Mr. Speaker.


James Sinclair: Why not go back to Paris.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Yes, I will, because it was as a representative of the great Dominion of Canada that my regiment, along with other regiments from the British empire, was there. I am proud to say that my regiment was commanded by a colonel from the city of Montreal-some people called him a French-Canadian, but I called him a Canadian. Almost every regiment within the British empire was represented, and we were reviewed by the President of France. It was a great honour and a privilege, Mr. Speaker. It was shortly after Vimy and the name "Canada" had won the respect of every citizen of France. As a matter of fact I have not the time to go into all the details, because I do not want to delay things. I will tell you how I happened to be there.


Mr. Carroll:: May I ask the hon. member where he finds the authority for calling this Canada the Dominion of Canada?
Canada Day


George Alexander Cruickshank: Well, I do not know; I have never had the privilege of being a former judge, so I am sorry to say I cannot give the legal definition. I will give you the definition that I learned when as a small boy I was taken to the first of July picnics by my mother. We did not have the picnics that you have today. We went in a hay wagon to a little country picnic, but it was on Dominion day, the first of July. I was brought up to believe that this country is equalled by no other. The legal status of Dominion day, I cannot give you.


William F. Carroll: There is support for Dominion day, but I asked the hon. gentleman his authority for calling this Canada the Dominion of Canada.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Again, Mr. Speaker, I must say that I have not the information to answer that question, nor the legal knowledge. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I do want to say to some members that one of the great things the Dominion of Canada has done is to provide us with one of the finest libraries in the world. It is available to every member. In addition to that the people of Canada, through their generosity-and apparently some members do not realize it-have provided us with a legal branch. If any hon. member's legal knowledge is limited, he can secure the desired information from the legal branch.


William F. Carroll: I was merely trying to help the hon. gentleman.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I have enjoyed receiving advice from every side, and especially from junior Capilano. I am now receiving advice from one of the members I revere most in this house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I must inform the house that the hour reserved for private and public bills has expired. The house will resume the business that was interrupted at six o'clock.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed 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. Macdonnell (Greenwood), and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Alexander Haley Jeffery: Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock I was in the course of being interrupted by one of His Majesty's loyal opposition, I believe
1886	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Jeffery the member for Victoria, Ont., (Mr. Hodgson), who asked me about the rent paid for the new income tax building in London. I should like to inform the house, sir, that according to my recollection that building contains between
35,000	and 40,000 square feet of floor space. According to the information given to me by the member for Victoria, Ont., the rental is approximately $70,000. I ask the hon. member where, in any good-sized city, he can rent good space for less than $2.50 per foot. I defy him to have found, even at the time the contract was signed, space in a new building such as this, well lighted, for any lesser amount.
The member for Middlesex East (Mr. White) referred to a delegation that came to Ottawa about an agricultural building and arena which is being erected in London. I had the honour of being with that delegation when they interviewed the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). My impression from that interview was that the minister and his officials were open to persuasion with regard to a further contribution to this project. Where the hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. White) got his press report I cannot figure out. I should like to know, because I cannot get the newspaper from London down here within forty-eight hours. Where he got it, I do not know, but I will say this. When that proposition started out the whole building was to cost $1,200,000. I was on a delegation that came down to get a donation from the Department of Agriculture, and we succeeded in getting a grant of $200,000 toward that building, which, as I say, was to cost $1,200,000.
I want to say, in fairness to the province of Ontario, that they duplicated the sum. We now have a proposition which is being built in the city of London, and which is to cost between $1,600,000 and $2 million. This delegation came down to see the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to see if they could get help. They were told by the minister that if the province of Ontario would make recommendations to the federal government, to the Minister of Agriculture, they would give consideration to it. He did not promise money, but he said:	"We will give
good consideration to the representations of the province of Ontario that there is necessity for more money to help this project."
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that I,, have known the hon. member for Middlesex East for some years, and I respect his honesty and his sincerity, but I do think that he has been misinformed and perhaps misled by people outside this house in some of the information that he gave to the house today.


There is just one more thing that I should like to associate myself with, namely, the speech of the hop. member for Leeds (Mr. Fulford), who spoke of the difficulties that Canada is experiencing in her trade with the West Indies. I had representations from three large factories in my constituency. The owners of these factories say that their trade with the West Indies has been cut off entirely, and as a consequence their factories will be shut down from six weeks to four months during each year unless they can replace that trade somewhere else. I do urge this government to make strenuous representations to the government of Great Britain that they allow the West Indies to open their natural trade with Canada.


Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, over a period of a great many years young Canadians have been leaving this country in small numbers to join the Royal Navy, the British regular army and the civil service of Great Britain. In the past, every year, opportunities have been offered to the senior cadets of the Royal Military College to take up commissions in the royal engineers and other regiments of the British army.
On June 5, 1946, a convention was signed dealing with the question of dual taxation. Under article X of that convention it was arranged with the United Kingdom government, and Canada agreed, not to tax pensions paid by the government of the United Kingdom to persons who were residing in Canada. Of course that applied not only to Canadians who had left Canada and had seen service with the British forces, but also to immigrants from the United Kingdom who were in receipt of pensions. I believe a reciprocal condition applied whereby any Britisher who had served in the Canadian forces, and was in receipt of a pension and retired in the United Kingdom, would not be taxed by the United Kingdom authorities. Of course I am not referring to the disability pensions, because disability pensions are not taxable either in this country or in the United Kingdom.
However, I feel that that convention has not worked out in the best interests of Canada or of Canadians. In the first place, very few Canadian pensioners are now living in the United Kingdom, but we have quite a large number of Canadians who have served in the forces of the United Kingdom, or the services of the United Kingdom, and have returned to Canada, and we have a very large number of United Kingdom pensioners who have immigrated to this country.
Unfortunately the regulations place a very great hardship upon the British pensioner who is now resident in Canada, because he is liable to the United Kingdom income tax

if he is in Canada, and he is assessed on a formula which takes into account the sterling value at the current rate of exchange for any Canadian dollar income enjoyed by that pensioner over and above his pension. The effect of devaluation has been, of course, to increase the amount of any such dollar income in terms of sterling, and thus to increase the liability of the pensioner to the United Kingdom income tax. At the same time the pensioner has received a blow on the other cheek as the result of devaluation which, of course, reduces the dollar value of the net amount remitted to him.
The imperial pensioners who have income in Canada have therefore been subjected, since last September, to a twofold reduction in their net income. They are in fact taxed by the British government on their pension and by the Canadian government on the Canadian income, and the rates of taxation in both cases are based on the total income.
I have a case in my constituency of a warrant officer who had served for 27 years in the British army and the Royal Air Force. His pension did not come within an income tax bracket in so far as the British tax is concerned, but he has come to Canada and he is earning a living here. The net result is that his earnings here have placed him in a bracket whereby his British pension becomes taxable in Great Britain; and in every case where a British pensioner is working in this country it raises his tax group both in Great Britain and probably in Canada as well, and in consequence of the devaluation which took place last September, these people are under very considerable handicaps.
Of course the British rate of taxation on income tax is much higher than the Canadian rate. On the British income tax rates anyone with an earned income of $2,000 would be taxed, if he were a single person, at $392. If he were married with two children he would be taxed, under the British rates, at $148; whereas, under the Canadian rates, if he was a single person he would be taxed only $150, and would not be taxed at all if he were, married with two children. Then, if we go to higher brackets, we take the case of the British taxpayer who has an earned income of $4,000. If he were single he would have to pay $1,112, whereas if he were married with two children he would have to pay $847. On the other hand, the Canadian with the taxable earned income of $4,000 would have to pay, if single, approximately $510 and, if married with two children, he would have to pay only $269.
I know these regulations are in accordance with the convention signed in 1946. My object
The Budget-Mr. Pearkes in speaking briefly tonight is to ask the minister if he will consult with the British authorities to see if something cannot be done to alleviate the difficulties of our own Canadian men who, at the request of the British authorities twenty or thirty years ago, left this country and rendered a service in the forces of the United Kingdom. I would ask also whether something cannot be worked out with the United Kingdom authorities to see if those pensioners from the United Kingdom who have taken up residence here in Canada cannot have some easement of this heavy burden of taxation placed upon them because of this dual taxation convention, which has not worked out to the best advantage of Canada and Canadians.


Mr. J. W. Noseworihy (York South):: Mr. Speaker, there are I suggest a great many reasons why this year of 1950 should be a momentous year in Canada's economic history. We have just come through three or four of the most prosperous years we have ever known. That prosperity I believe is due to a number of factors. There is the fact that there was accumulated during the war years considerable purchasing power in the pockets of the Canadian consuming public; there is the fact that there piled up a great demand for consumer goods; and the fact that through ERP we were able to find markets for much of our farm produce. These were'years in which the government income increased by leaps and bounds, and surpluses reaching into the hundreds of millions piled up. Part of this condition was also due to the disposal of wartime assets, rather than to any direct policy or any stimulation by government policy.
This would seem to be a year in which Canada could go on expanding her economy, a time when we should seek to raise still further the living standards of our people, a year in which we should seek to provide greater employment for our people, a year in which we should move forward to the development of our natural resources for the benefit of our people-a year, in other words, in which Canada should be expanding and growing, a year in which we should be able to bring to this country immigrants for whom we should be in a position to provide houses and employment, immigrants who could help build a Canadian prosperity.
When we look at the budget we find little in it-as little, in fact, as we found in the speech from the throne-to encourage us in the belief that 1950 will prove to be any such year. The budget has been designated as a stand-pat budget-a stand-pat budget

The Budget-Mr. Noseworthy at a time when this country and its government should be seeking to expand our economy rather than to mark time.
The minister takes the position that most of the estimated revenue in the coming year will be required to meet the present commitments of the government, and that no further expansion of social services can be expected without increasing the present forms of taxation, or imposing new taxes. Apparently the government is not prepared either to increase present taxes or to impose new taxes for the purpose of extending social services.


Mr. Marlin:: They have been extended this year to the extent of $60 million.


Joseph William Noseworthy: It has no longer any faith in the future expansion of our trade and industry to the point where greater income may be realized from existing forms of taxation. While the government does not wish to impose new taxes or to increase present taxes, it apparently sees no hope of any further expansion of our trade and industry to the point where the government can commit itself to any expenditures other than those to which it is already committed.
It is in my opinion the absence of that faith and vision in the future of this country that is the most disappointing feature in this year's budget. We have learned in recent years from a great" many of the most outstanding and progressive economists, and we have learned from the government itself, that it is the responsibility of gpod government to direct the economy of the country, that it is the function of good government to assist in the development and expansion of our trade, that it is the function of good government to maintain domestic expenditures on consumer goods, that it is the function of good government to encourage and to assist in expenditures on capital goods.
We have been taught from government white papers, government green papers and cabinet ministers' speeches that it is the function of government to raise the standard of living of our people through adequate housing, through full employment and by expanding social services. These are the policies that from 1945 until the election of 1949 the government led us to believe were and would continue to be its policies. If anything is clear from the budget speech it is that the government has departed from those principles and has reverted to the policies which had such disastrous results in the pre-war years. The government has reverted to the policy of leaving the fate of the future entirely in the keeping of private enterprise. I submit that that is

a job which private enterprise cannot be expected to fulfil in the best interests of the country. I shall touch with a little more detail on one or two of these points which I have raised already.
In the white paper of April 1945 and the green book of August 1945 the government pointed out with great care that in order to maintain full employment in the country it would be necessary to maintain our trade with other countries, particularly with the United Kingdom. They pointed out most carefully that while to some extent that trade would depend on world conditions, yet there were many things the government could do. There are many things which this government has not done and is not proposing to do in the present budget.
There was specific reference to the fact that adjustments of tariffs might be made to regulate and increase foreign trade. Today our great difficulty is finding markets in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom is unable to buy our goods because of a lack of dollars and we just have not found enough intelligence in our government to devise a means by which we can get our goods to England in return for the goods she wants to sell us.
I should like to congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) upon his report of a few days ago that a committee of Canadian businessmen has been appointed to assist in finding investment opportunities for Canadian capital in sterling area countries. According to our best economists that is one thing that would assist in enabling sterling area countries to buy our goods.
There is not much evidence that the government is doing anything in the way of reducing tariffs on goods from sterling area countries in order to promote trade between Canada and those countries.
So far as I know the only step the government has taken to encourage the investment of Canadian capital is the setting up of this committee. A few weeks ago when the leader of this group suggested that one remedy for our trade situation would be the acceptance of sterling for Canadian goods and the reinvestment of that sterling in sterling area countries the minister objected and said that Canada needed all the capital she could find for investment in Canada. Apparently the government is beginning to see a little light and has given its blessing to the establishment of a committee of Canadian businessmen for the express purpose of finding opportunities for investment in sterling area countries. That is a move in the right direction on which the minister is to be congratulated. We can only hope that during

the year the government will seek other means of making it possible for those countries which need our products, particularly our food products, to be able to buy them.
According to the statements made from 1945 to 1949, the keynote of government policy was the maintenance of full employment. There has been considerable unemployment in Canada during the past winter but government spokesmen have said that this is seasonal, that it is due to the climate and hard winter, that everybody, including God, is to be blamed except the Liberal government. If the government had put into effect early last fall the policy which it set forth so clearly between 1945 and 1949, if it had been ready as it said it would be to initiate government projects or projects of public works in those places where unemployment appeared, a great deal of suffering would have been avoided this year.
There have been more workers employed this year than in any other year, but we must expect that as our population increases and as we bring immigrants into the country. Notwithstanding that increase in the number of employed people there were over 400,000 registered unemployed in the country this winter. That bespeaks a great deal of suffering on the part of many of those 400,000 and their families. In fact that situation would affect at least one million people.
It all was entirely unnecessary. In spite of our cold winter-we expect cold winters in Canada-in spite of our seasons, all this was avoidable if the government had carried out the policy which it laid down in the government papers published in 1945 and which it proclaimed during an election since that time.
With the coming of spring there is no doubt the number of unemployed will be reduced and by midsummer it may reach the normal level. But of necessity we must ask ourselves, what preparations are we making for next year? Next winter may be just as hard as this winter has been and it is quite conceivable that there will be just as much and probably more seasonal unemployment next year.
Are we going to drift into another year and again see a million people in Canada affected directly by unemployment when, if we are to believe government speakers, if we are to believe the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), these things can be avoided as a direct result of government policy? There is nothing in the budget to indicate that the government proposes
The Budget-Mr. Noseworthy to take any measures now to avoid a repetition of the unemployment situation that we saw in the past winter. I think it is quite conceivable that, without interfering with private enterprise to which the government is so closely wedded, the government could undertake the establishment of secondary industries in those areas which are affected every year by seasonal unemployment. It is quite conceivable that the government, without interfering with private enterprise, could establish some such secondary industries which could be kept in operation during those months when there is seasonal unemployment in certain areas, and when private enterprise just cannot meet the need.
Another of the projects forming the policy of the government, and from which the government has departed, is the provision of low cost housing, houses that can be purchased or rented at prices that ordinary working-class people can afford. I have said before during this session that the houses being built today under the National Housing Act, and which range anywhere from a minimum of $8,000 up, do not come within the reach of the ordinary workingman's budget. It is hopeless for a man working for $40 or $50 a week, or in a great many cases for much less, to attempt to pay for an $8,000, $10,000 or $12,000 house during his lifetime. His income does not provide him with enough money to pay economic rent on such a home. Private enterprise has not entered this field. It is not profitable for private enterprise to build houses today at such prices as working-class people can afford to buy or to rent.
Great Britain has been experimenting during the post-war years with prefabricated houses. They now have no fewer than 14 different types all of which are reported to give good satisfaction to those living in them. They are experimenting with the different types in order to find which will be the most durable, which are the most comfortable, which require fewer man-hours in the factory and on the building site. In that way they are seeking to evolve the best possible type of house that can be constructed to meet the needs of the British people. There is no indication that our Liberal government is giving any leadership whatever in that field. Here is a field that has been vacated by private enterprise. No matter how considerate the government may be of private enterprise there is no conflict with it on the part of the government by giving some leadership and assistance in the promotion of housing projects to meet that need.

The Budget-Mr. Noseworthy
I want to call attention again to the question of immigration. When the government announced that it was establishing a new Department of Citizenship and Immigration the country expected to hear from the government that it had adopted some policy of bringing immigrants to this country. A great many people in Canada were particularly interested in bringing people of British stock to this country. That involves two or three things. In the first place we take it for granted there is no point in bringing people to Canada unless the government is prepared to stand by its policy adopted in the post-war years of maintaining full employment. There is no point in bringing immigrants to Canada if they are simply coming here to displace Canadians in their jobs. Before we adopt any such policy of bringing immigrants to Canada the first essential is that the government must have an established policy for maintaining full employment not only for Canadians but for those we bring into the country.
In the second place, if we are going to bring immigrants to Canada in any considerable numbers we must make some provision whereby these people can be housed. Again there is no point in bringing immigrants to Canada if they are to push Canadians out of the rooms, apartments and garages in which they are still living. If we are going to bring immigrants to Canada we must first be sure that we have a housing policy which is a going concern, and that housing accommodation will be available for the people who come to our shores. One measure that was expected of the government when the new department was created was that some means would be found to overcome the difficulty which British immigrants have concerning the amount of money they can bring to this country. England and the other sterling countries have found it necessary to limit drastically the amount of funds that may be taken out of their countries by emigrants. It was hoped that the government would be able to find ways and means whereby that difficulty could be overcome, possibly by the advance of credits against money held to the accounts of these people in their countries of origin, or by some other means. One thing is certain; many thousands of people in this country expected the government to set to work on that problem and at least seek a solution. There is nothing whatever in anything the government has brought down this session, in legislation, in the speech from the throne or in the budget, to indicate that the government is grappling with the problem or what they are doing to solve it.
fMr. Noseworthy.]

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to raise two points with respect to our present taxation structure. Last year we had some tax revision which gave certain companies further exemption from taxation. I wrote the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) a letter posing this question: What tax will a man, with a wife and no children and receiving a salary of $5,000, pay this year? The answer was that this man's tax would amount to $510. My second question was: what tax will a man with a wife and no children, who is in receipt of an income of $5,000 from dividends, be required to pay? The answer was:
If the same person were in receipt of similar income from dividends received entirely from taxable Canadian corporations his tax would amount to $114.
In other words the first man pays a tax of $510; the second man, in receipt of the same income coming entirely from taxable Canadian corporations, pays only $114. To me that does not seem right. I may be prejudiced; I do not get my income from dividends, but a great many people in this country are asking why a man on salary should be required to pay $510 while the man whose income is obtained from dividends should get off with $114.
I posed another question. In the tax legislation last year there was what is called a capital cost depreciation allowance. Equipment costing less than $50 is put in class 12; and I find that doctors, dentists and other professional men having equipment costing less than $50 may take 100 per cent depreciation. I asked whether a tradesman, a carpenter or plumber, who had equipment in the form of workmen's tools costing less than $50, could also take 100 per cent depreciation when making up his income tax return. The answer I received was:
... it would all depend upon the manner in which the tradesmen received their income. If they were in receipt of salary or wages no deduction would be allowed therefrom for the cost of any equipment. On the other hand, if they were in business-
Like a dentist or a doctor.
-they would be entitled to claim the capital cost allowance provided under the Income Tax Act.
I pose this question to the house: just where is the fairness in permitting a man in business for himself to claim 100 per cent depreciation on equipment used in his trade or business, while the man working for a salary or wages is not permitted to claim any depreciation at all on what may be identical equipment? Those are two features of our present tax structure that seem unfair, and I submit them to the minister or his assistant for an explanation.


Mr. G. F. Higgins (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, during the course of the panegyric

he delivered yesterday, the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Weaver) thanked God for the billion dollar mentality of the ministers opposite and remarked how glad he was that they were not penny wise and pound foolish, like the opposition. It is to that particular phrase, "penny wise and pound foolish", that I want to direct attention in connection with one particular phase of the operation of Trans-Canada Air Lines.
I believe all hon. members are proud of the way Trans-Canada Air Lines are operated. At times there may be some little disagreement as to certain engine functions, but as far as the safety of the aircraft is concerned, or the pilots and crew, there is never any question as to their reliability in every way. Trans-Canada has established a high reputation among the air lines of the world; of that there can be no doubt. Also there can be no doubt of the value of the tourist traffic to Canada; and instinctively associated with the tourist traffic is the word "American" because I believe it is the Americans we are chiefly interested in bringing to Canada. What is happening in the operation of the passenger planes of Trans-Canada Air Lines? Whether it is happening all over Canada I do not know, but certainly it is the case in the east. Any time there are spare seats, any time the plane is not filled with passengers, the empty seats of that passenger plane are used for the transportation of express.
I ask you to consider this matter of the planes that Trans-Canada are flying, with their highly trained and competent crews, on this air line of which we are so proud. When these planes are not completely filled with passengers, express packages are put on the seats not being used by passengers. They are not put in the luggage compartment. In some of these planes have been such articles as bird cages, milk churns and various types of boxes that might have contained anything. The captain of one of these planes is quite upset about the matter, and I have reason to believe he is not alone in that. I have been informed by him that at one time during a flight that was rather bumpy, at a time when there were a number of women passengers on the plane, some of these boxes that were piled on the seats contained flowers. I do not know, but I believe that is the case. They looked rather like coffins. One lady who was rather hysterical because of the bumpy trip suddenly started screaming, "Look at the coffins; no wonder we are going to die". The poor captain of the plane had a difficult time.
The reason for mentioning this matter is that I do not think it is fair to Trans-Canada Air Lines' reputation; I do not think it is
The Budget-Mr. Higgins fair to the personnel of these aircraft that such conditions should be allowed to continue. There is no question about being penny wise and pound foolish when one considers the small amount of money that is being saved by using the passenger space for cargo in that manner. It may well be that the reputation of Trans-Canada may be destroyed. It may be all right for Canadians to travel in that way, but when the great American tourist comes into this country, what explanation is going to be given to him if he is put in a passenger plane and luggage is piled on top of him? It is a question that may well be directed to those men with the billion dollar mentality. It certainly puts the crews in a difficult position. They do not like it, but they are told they have to do it. I say, Mr. Speaker, that is an extremely unfair position in which to put these highly trained personnel.
While on air matters, I should like to mention that at the moment the Gander field is restricted to the use of Boeings. These Boeings are large aircraft. As you know, practically all the major United States air lines have converted to Boeings, and it means that during the period of the restriction, whether it be three or four weeks, these air lines are practically unable to carry passengers through Gander. Gander has the highest landing fee of any airport in the world. A return I received last fall indicated that, so I presume the same situation still exists. At all events on planes up to
110,000	pounds the landing fee is $150, and it is $15 for each additional 10,000 pounds over and above that figure. When one recalls that every day the gulls are not walking on the fog some 1,400 passengers travel through Gander, the amount of revenue lost can easily be realized.
Returning to this question of being penny wise and pound foolish, I may say that revenue is being lost because the runways are not put in a condition to receive heavy traffic. I do not expect that to be done in a day, but it should certainly be remedied at the earliest possible moment. We must remember that the military planes of this day are rather heavy, as well as the commercial planes. Unless the runways at Gander are put in shape, that airport will not be able to handle any heavy military traffic. I understand that a survey has recently been made, but I do not definitely know the result of it. I am told that coating the runways would be sufficient to keep out the water; whether that is so, I do not know. We must remember that the Gander airport was built before these heavy planes that are now being used were thought of. This airport will have to be modernized.

The Budget-Mr. Higgins
There is one other point I should like to mention before I leave this subject. While returning home during the Easter recess I thought it was high time some form of patrol was set up, similar if you will to the present type of patrol on the ground that we know as the traffic patrol. At the major airports today large numbers of transport planes are attempting landings at the same time, and in addition a large number of private planes are flying around. These private planes are by no means fitted to obey the regulations which they are supposed to know. They are not all fitted with radio and the other apparatus that will enable them to land in all weather. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that an expenditure on that type of thing would be justified. Something in the nature of fast patrol planes should be available at the major airports of this country, because we have to remember that no matter how skilful the pilots are, no matter how fine our planes are, one joy-rider in a private plane can wreck the best pilot in the finest transport in the world.
When I suggest that to you, all we have to remember is the accident that happened last November at Washington when a large DC-4 was coming in for a landing, having been given permission by the tower. This plane had its flaps down and was levelling off, when a Bolivian pilot in a war surplus machine cut the plane in two. As a result fifty-five people died. Now, Mr. Speaker, that accident might easily have happened at Dorval airport outside Montreal instead of at Washington. I submit that it might be as well if we in Canada took time by the forelock, and set up something in the nature of a traffic patrol over our airports. It may be necessary also to restrict certain major airports to the use of transport planes. I do believe that something will have to be done, and done quite soon. It is not so many years ago when there were no traffic policemen on the road, and not so many years ago when we did not have to bother driving motorcars. It is necessary now to have traffic policemen to take care of the joy-riders.
I am only dealing with one or two subjects tonight, but I should like to deal with a problem arising out of the recent setting of bombs in planes. If possible I believe some form of X-ray machine should be set up to examine the baggage going into the plane. I know the air lines are not particularly anxious to adopt anything that would slow down their service, but after all we have to remember the safety of the general public. Even if such a possibility could not be worked out, the mere fact that it was being tried, the mere fact that the public did not know


that it had not been worked out, would I believe be a great deterrent and might discourage would-be murderers of that type.
There is one other matter with which I want to deal. I am going underground this time, Mr. Speaker. Some two or three days ago I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) a question with respect to the sale of 300,000 tons of Bell island ore. I am afraid that I got very little satisfaction from the reply. The situation is this. On Bell island there is a community with
2.000	men employed in the work of the iron mines. At the present time only 1,000 of these men are working, which means that
1.000	men are unemployed. There is a very serious situation on the island as a result of their not being able to sell iron ore.
On the 17th of March past, as good a day as any, I suppose, for tall stories, the Premier of Newfoundland announced that a sale of
300.000	tons of iron ore had been arranged. Why I am particularly interested in this matter is that the island is right in my own constituency, and there are a couple of thousand men who are continually writing me letters and asking me questions about it. Therefore at Eastertime rumour made the rounds and credit was given to the Minister of Trade and Commerce for this order. He was supposed to be the person who made the arrangements in connection with this ore. I am unable to get any answer from the Minister of Trade and Commerce, except that it is a matter between private interests that normally his department would not be interested in. In the hope that the minister may possibly at his leisure read these remarks I am repeating the question. I hope that he will remember the situation that exists down there and make a statement one way or the other, either that this order is going to be given or that he has no knowledge of it whatsoever, or at least put the minds of these people at rest, because what is happening down there now is that a number of young men are leaving Bell island and are trying to get work on the mainland. If a definite assurance were given that this order was going to be placed, that trouble would be all over. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I would plead with the minister, if he has the opportunity of reading my few remarks tomorrow, to give thought to the fact and do as the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew) did the other day. He gave us a very reassuring statement.
Before the Easter recess we were told by the Minister of Fisheries that if we did not talk so much about fish we might get more help. Perhaps we were talking too much, but at least during this present week he gave us a most reassuring statement. I am afraid

I have adopted the same tactics in addressing the Minister of Trade and Commerce on this matter in the hope that he will give us the same help that the Minister of Fisheries gave with respect to the sale of salt codfish.


Mr. J. H. Dickey (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, in introducing his budget, and in placing before the house the resolutions which we are now discussing, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) gave a very detailed and generally encouraging review of the national economy.
I am very glad to say, Mr. Speaker, I believe there are signs that the maritime provinces will in the next few years participate in this national prosperity to a degree which it has not always been our privilege to share.
In taking part in this debate this evening it might not be inappropriate for me to make a few remarks on the present economic condition of the maritime provinces, and of Nova Scotia particularly, and the outlook for the immediate future. Of necessity, Mr. Speaker, these remarks will be incomplete, and will be based only on the information which it has been possible for me to gather.
We in the maritime provinces, and in Nova Scotia, can look back over the last ten years or so as a period of pretty solid progress in our economic life. This progress and improvement in our economy has been marked as well by a quite striking change in attitude. There is a feeling of confidence and optimism in the people of the maritime provinces today that I do not think has been found in those provinces in a good many years. The existence of that feeling of confidence and optimism is a very promising sign for the future.
It is true, Mr. Speaker, that we still have to cope with the effects of certain historic disabilities which have in the past seriously retarded our economic development. It is also true that at the present time some of our basic industries are being affected by the dislocation of world trade and currency problems in a very distressing manner. However, in spite of this, the present situation is quite favourable and the outlook for the future can give us cause for some considerable optimism.
We in the maritimes, Mr. Speaker, are quite satisfied that our provinces by the sea are the pleasantest places in which to live, not only in this country but in any country of the world. I say that without any disparagement of the beauties and the advantages of many other parts of this country. But we have not been satisfied in the past that our young people have had opportunities for economic advancement in these maritime provinces equal to the opportunities enjoyed by young
The Budget-Mr. Dickey people in other parts of Canada and in the United States. The result of this economic pressure has been a progressive and a very considerable migration of the young people of the maritime provinces to the west and to the United States.
The other day I was struck by the remarks of the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris), who spoke of the very large number of Canadians and descendants of Canadians in the United States. I am sorry to say that the great majority of these ex-Canadians and descendants of former Canadians have sprung from maritime stock. The hon. member for Danforth is quite satisfied that the national policy of tariffs and protection has been a good thing for Canada. From some points of view he is probably right, but I should like to point out to him that the national policy, which he considers to have been a success, was one of the great factors which caused that migration from and depopulation of the maritime provinces, which he now deplores.
In the period from 1871 to 1941 the population of the maritime provinces increased very slowly. The whole area did not participate in the tremendous expansion of the Canadian population which took place during those years. In that period the total population of Canada increased 212 per cent while the population of the maritime area increased only a mere 47-3 per cent. It was unavoidable that this area could not enjoy the economic stimulus of the great increase in population. The maritime area which, prior to confederation, had been the most economically sound and most prosperous of the British colonies of North America, suffered very severely in an economic way.
In each decade from 1871 to 1931 the maritimes failed by a very large margin to hold their natural increase in population. But in the decade from 1931 to 1941, while the natural increase was still not held, yet there was a change in trend and there was quite a marked increase in the rate of increase in population of the three maritime provinces. This trend has been continued, and in the decade from 1941 to 1951 it is expected that the maritime provinces, Nova Scotia particularly, will have had the greatest increase in population of any decade since 1867. This trend, I submit, is not only a symptom of better economic health in the maritime provinces, but it does provide some raw material for continuing development in the future.
The economy of the maritimes has traditionally been based on the primary industries of farming, fishing and lumbering. A very large proportion of the total production of
1894	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Dickey the three provinces has been from the products of the farm, the sea and the timber woods. I should like in this short summary to deal first, as briefly as possible, with the present situation in connection with these three basic industries.
Farming in Nova Scotia has always been mixed farming, with in some localities important emphasis on dairy farming and on fruit growing. The gross value of farm production in Nova Scotia has more than doubled over the last ten or twelve years. At the same time our farmers' costs have increased. In spite of this, the last ten years have been years of very considerable prosperity for our farmers. The production of poultry, eggs, meat, dairy products, hay and other mixed farming produce has been increased materially.
One very important factor in this farm prosperity has been the federal government's freight assistance policy in connection with the movement of western feed grains to eastern Canada. This essential policy has kept production costs for our farmers down to a level which enabled them to produce economically, and has prevented them in the last few years from being completely put out of business, in the poultry and meat-raising sections.
Some of the most fertile land in the maritime provinces is the dikelands or marshlands bordering the bay of Fundy and Minas basin. These are the storied meadows of Grand Pre, the home of Evangeline, and other similar areas which comprise in all over 45,000 acres of extremely fertile and easily tilled land. These lands were very largely diked and reclaimed from the sea many years ago by the earlier settlers and were farmed for many years with profit. However, during the years of depression and low farm prices it was impossible for these fields to be maintained, and in many instances valuable land went back to the sea.
It was recognized that if any real rehabilitation of farming and agricultural life in the maritime provinces was to be achieved, these lands would have to be recovered. I am glad to say that for some years a policy has been in operation to achieve this end. A beginning was made in 1944 with a program sponsored by the federal government, the provincial government and by the owners of the land. This policy was continued for several years and was very successful. However, it was recognized that such a policy was not going to be adequate to achieve the ends desired within a reasonable length of time.
For that reason this parliament adopted the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act


of 1948. Under that act the federal government assumed the responsibility for the construction of dikes, aboiteaux and breakwaters in order to reclaim those lands from the sea. The provincial government and the owners have retained the responsibility for draining and preparing this land for use, and for bringing into operation a proper method of cultivation. A substantial start has already been made on a program whicli is expected to last for at least five years. An engineering and administrative organization has been set up in Amherst, and the expectation is that construction work to a value of about one million dollars will be carried out this summer.
This program is a good example of constructive and beneficial federal aid to agriculture in the maritime provinces, and I wish to express the satisfaction which we in the maritimes feel in the action of the federal government in co-operating with the provinces to the end that these very important marshlands should be brought again into proper cultivation.
The apple industry is a trouble spot in our agricultural picture. In just a few weeks now the great orchards of the Annapolis valley will be in full bloom, and the people of that valley will welcome visitors from far and near to celebrate with them their apple blossom festival. They will celebrate that festival in spite of the fact that war-born difficulties are still causing uncertainty and great concern for the future of the fruit growers in the Annapolis valley.
I am glad to say that a gradual improvement in the situation is being achieved, largely through the co-operative efforts of the federal government and the provincial government in assisting fruit growers to help themselves.
One important aspect of the activities being undertaken under federal and provincial auspices is the elimination of a large number of varieties which found a ready market in Great Britain before the war, but which cannot be marketed at the present time, and for which it is not expected any future market will be available. The federal government is making substantial contributions toward this process of eliminating unprofitable varieties.
Another means by which the industry is being assisted is through the provision of modern cold storage and packing facilities. Federal assistance to the amount of $200,000 has been made available and has been expended, in co-operation with the province, on the construction of eight cold storage plants and warehouses for the use of the apple industry. It is heartening to see that

this co-operation is having good results already. The rehabilitation of the industry will be a gradual process and may take some years, but the good effects are being felt already. In this connection I should like to quote from the Annapolis Valley Post Road, published at Kentville, Nova Scotia, the issue of March, 1950, as follows:
Kentville, March 15-Cold storage stocks of Nova Scotia apples have been in steadily rising demand since early in February and during the past week or two the plants have been hard pressed to keep up with the rush of orders. R. K. Bowlby told a general meeting of the apple board early this month. The sales manager stated that this increasing demand included requests for varieties which had been refused earlier in the season when heavy supplies of local apples were available to all markets from common storage. He stressed the important fact that the heavy and increasing demand prevailed although f.o.b. prices for Nova Scotia apples had been maintained at a higher level than those for western and central Canadian apples.
Mr. Bowlby stated that Nova Scotia McIntosh and Delicious had been selling respectively at f.o.b. prices 55 cents and 65 cents a bushel higher than British Columbia supplies of these varieties in eastern Canadian markets. "Furthermore," he said, "we could have sold a lot more apples in Number One and fancy grades of McIntosh and Delicious if these had been available."
The completion of this policy of the elimination of unprofitable varieties will ensure that in future years there will be no shortage of marketable varieties in the No. 1 and fancy grades to meet this extraordinary demand.
I should like to deal briefly with the great Atlantic fishing industry. I am glad to say that the prospects for the continued prosperity and growth of our Atlantic fisheries are as bright as they are for any other branch of our economy. Federal and provincial assistance to the industry have had no small influence in bringing about the present healthy condition and its outlook for the future.
The production of Atlantic sea foods in Nova Scotia reached an all-time peak in 1946 when the landed value was over $20,500,000. Since that time we have had to face drastically and rapidly changing market conditions as well as a decrease in the available supplies of certain important species. In spite of these facts the dollar value of production for 1949 was only 15 per cent below the peak of 1946.
We have had difficulty in retaining our traditional markets for dried and salted fish in the West Indies and Europe owing to exchange difficulties, but as those markets became unavailable to us new markets for fresh and frozen fish were developed in central Canada and central United States. The result was that a high volume of production was maintained. These new markets are capable of greater exploitation and expansion
The Budget-Mr. Dickey and as the currency problems of our old customers arc solved the previous demand for salted and dried fish should return with the result that our markets should be consider ably greater in the next few years.
There has been a realization in the industry that a steady demand can be built up only by providing reliable and constant supplies. The only means of ensuring constant supplies is the adoption of modern methods of catching and processing fish. The federal grants for the construction of modern fishing vessels have been of great assistance and the policy of increasing the number of trawlers and draggers to be licensed is setting the stage for further development in the industry.
The federal government is assisting materially in the construction of modern freezing and cold storage facilities. The important fisheries carried on from the port of Halifax and Lockeport are concentrated around freezing and cold storage facilities which have been either built or contributed to by the federal government. The federal government has constructed a modern pier at Louisburg, and this along with modern freezing and packing facilities to be constructed will provide a centre for important development in fishing at this port. A similar development is planned at Petite de Grat, also on Cape Breton island. The existence of these facilities and the demand that a steady supply of fish will create will be of benefit to the shore fishermen by providing them with a market for fresh fish which they have not always enjoyed in the past.
Quick transportation to market and proper methods of merchandising are essential to the development of our markets. The federal Department of Fisheries has been giving careful consideration to questions of this kind. They have carried out extensive and successful experiments in the design and operation of new refrigeration cars and the question of better and more appropriate equipment for retail outlets is receiving attention. The fate of the fishing industry in the last analysis depends Upon the condition of the product when it reaches the ultimate consumer and the Department of Fisheries is to be complimented on the manner in which it is attacking the problems of the fishing industry.
Lumbering is one of our ancient and basic industries. It is of twofold importance. It is important, first, as an industry and, second, because it provides a cash crop for many of our farmers on the pulpwood and pit prop side of the industry. Peak production was achieved during the war but the loss or restriction of the British market for softwood lumber has created great difficulties.

The Budget-Mr. Dickey The industry is tackling the difficult task of meeting the different requirements of the United States market, and some progress is being made in that regard. Well sustained demand in the home market because of the extent of construction work has been of great assistance. I should like to bring to the attention of the government the necessity of the employment of native woods in construction wherever possible. Particularly at the present time I do not consider that changes should be made to, for instance, metal windows and sashes in the eastern part of Canada. The lumber industry requires this outlet for its production at the present time, and experiments with new types of windows have not worked out successfully in the Atlantic climate.
I should say something of the mining industry and the production of minerals in the province. I do not propose to do so, however, except to point out that the production of coal in our Nova Scotia mines gives us one of the very important raw materials on which a great part of the industrial development of the province depends. The six million odd tons of coal produced by the maritime mines is the basis of the very considerable industrial developments in Sydney, Pictou county and other parts of the maritimes.
In the industrial field there has been a satisfactory expansion of activity over a wide field. I am glad to say that a considerable measure of diversification is becoming apparent. I should like to review briefly some of the more important and significant developments which have taken place in recent years.
The Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation, whose manifold operations are centred on Cape Breton island, is one of the main producers in Canada of coal and basic steel. It may interest hon. members to know that [DOT]this company is the largest single employer of labour in the whole dominion with the exception only of the two great railway companies. The steel industry of the Sydney area is one of the most important concentrations of heavy industry in Canada, and I am glad to say that there are prospects of great expansion.
Speaking at the annual meeting of the Sydney board of trade on April 12 Mr. L. A. Forsyth, K.C., who I may say is the new president of the company, a native Nova Scotian and the first Nova Scotian to head this great industrial enterprise, is reported in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of the 13th of April as follows:
"The coal and steel industry of this province^ stands upon the threshold of a new era of prosperity


and of increasing importance as a national economic unit," L. A. Forsyth, K.C., Nova Scotia-born president of the vast Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation, told the annual meeting of Sydney board of trade tonight.
This company, Mr. Speaker, has undertaken a very important expansion program. They have just completed the construction of a $5 million coking plant which gives the corporation the most modern coking facilities of any steel company in the world. With the assistance of the dominion government the company has embarked on a $15 million program of modernization of its collieries all over the maritime provinces. This program calls for a 50-50 sharing of expenditure between the federal government and the corporation in the purchase and installation of modern cutting and loading machinery which will thoroughly mechanize the collieries of the company. This same program is being made available to the independent operators of the maritimes, and if it is brought to a successful conclusion the maritime mines will all be thoroughly mechanized and will be in a position to produce coal in much larger quantities and at a much more economic cost.
The discovery and development of very important deposits of iron ore in Quebec and Labrador has caused considerable speculation over the possible expansion of heavy industry in the maritime area. That is not a field in which I am in any sense an expert or upon which I can express an opinion, but it seems to me it is logical that the coal and limestone resources of the maritime provinces provide the nearest and most convenient location for the construction of facilities to process the products of the new iron mines. I understand that some informed opinion is to the effect that financial and trade barriers will be the only obstacles that will stand in the way of this development. If that is so, Mr. Speaker, I urge the government to give early and earnest attention to these questions so that if financial or trade barriers are going to be any deterrent to a logical development of this kind those problems can be met well in advance in order that the resources of the maritimes can be utilized in this way.
Other recent developments of an industrial nature in Nova Scotia have been more modest than the plans of the great Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation but they may not necessarily be less important in the long run. The list of developments underlines the extent of the diversification which has taken place. I shall not be able to go into this matter fully, but I should like to mention a few of the important developments which are under way. In April, 1949, just

a year ago, the Fairey Aviation Company of Canada Limited established its plant at Eastern Passage in Halifax county. This company is a subsidiary of the Fairey Aviation Corporation of Great Britain, and is undertaking the repair and modification of aircraft of all kinds, both military and civilian. The company is already operating at a very satisfactory rate. It is hoped that as time goes on they will be able-and this is their plan-to develop the design and construction of aircraft, particularly aircraft for use by the air arm of our fleet, as that is the branch of military aviation in which the parent company in England is engaged.
In addition to its aircraft interests the company plans to manufacture a line of plywood dinghies which have a very fine reputation in England for their sailing qualities. Already this company employs almost three hundred people, with a weekly payroll of about $12,000; and it is using local labour, which it has found to be excellent. In one year of operation the company has expended in the Halifax area for wages and supplies locally acquired over $600,000. It is using modern premises built during wartime for the Clark-Ruse Aviation Company. It is a waterfront site alongside the Eastern Passage air base.
The establishment of this company in a war-constructed plant reminds us that to a large extent post-war industrial expansion in this country has depended upon the availability of plants built during the war either by the government or with government assistance. I recall to the government that wartime necessities were considered to make it imperative that a great proportion of this construction be in the central provinces. Since the war new industries have been drawn to the central provinces because of the existence of those facilities and the labour force which had been built up around them. The few plants built in other provinces, such as Nova Scotia, have been used; but their number and type were very limited. During the war requests were made for the greatest possible decentralization of this development, but that was not found feasible. The cost of these war plants was borne by all the taxpayers of Canada, but the post-war benefits have not been equally enjoyed. I submit that this consideration provides a valid reason for the government giving very careful attention to the provision of all possible assistance to industrial expansion in areas which could not be looked after during the war.
One field in which this is possible and necessary, Mr. Speaker, is that of shipbuilding. Halifax Shipyards Limited and the
The Budget-Mr. Dickey other east coast yards are located in ice-free, year-round ports. These are ports which are essential to this country in wartime, and it is equally essential that they have adequate facilities for the construction and repair of all types of ships. These facilities should not be permitted to deteriorate, and their skilled tradesmen should not be lost, through lack of use during peacetime. Available work for the shipyards should be allotted with these considerations in view, and these companies should be placed in a position to maintain their equipment and personnel in order to make their contribution to the general economic life of the area. Halifax Shipyards Limited is now completing three large army transports being built for Argentina. This contract was obtained by open bidding in the world market just after the war. In the interim conditions have changed, so that now it is not possible for a Canadian shipyard to profitably compete for orders of this kind in the world market, and they cannot be expected to do so as long as present conditions continue. A start will soon be made on an $8 million anti-submarine vessel for the Royal Canadian Navy, and we are hoping that Halifax shipyards may have an early opportunity to bid on the new highway ferry which will be built for service between Yarmouth and the eastern United States. I submit to the government that further plans for construction and for the repair of government vessels. should be brought forward in order to maintain the essential activities of these shipyards.
A very interesting development in Halifax has been the establishment of the factory of Cossor (Canada) Limited. This company is an associate of the famous A. C. Cossor group of companies in England, who are leaders in the field of electronics. The company proposes to undertake the design and production of electronic equipment of all kinds.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Did they not chase the president out of that company?


John Horace Dickey: Not to my knowledge. This company is also carrying on research and development in the field of electronics. Already they have produced complex electronic training devices for the Department of National Defence, and are doing modifications, reconditioning and maintenance of marine radar, airborne radar and all other types of electronic equipment. This company manufactured the prototype of a television receiver, the first to be built in Canada, and it also has the prototype of a high quality radiophonograph.
The importance of an industry of this kind to a port like Halifax cannot be overestimated. Shipping of all kinds is installing

The Budget-Mr. A. L. Smith and using radar and other electronic equipment to an ever-increasing extent. Modern fishing vessels are employing electronic equipment to enable them to find and catch more fish; and the existence of this company in Halifax will enable this process to be carried on to an even greater degree.
I had intended to tell the house of a number of very important developments in smaller industries in the province, but I see my time is nearly up, so I shall content myself by saying that some very important developments are taking place along this line. All these developments add up to this, that a very considerable expansion has taken place in the industrial capacity of the province of Nova Scotia. Current industrial production is almost exactly fifty per cent of the total production of the province. That is very different to the situation that existed only a few years ago, when a very large proportion of our total production came from the primary and basic industries.
At the outset I pointed out that the economic probabilities for the maritimes in general and for Nova Scotia in particular were favourable, in spite of certain difficulties and dislocations which were affecting our basic industries. One important activity of the federal government which has, in my opinion, a very beneficial effect upon the maritime economy, is the co-operation of the federal government with other like-minded nations in the progressive removal of trade barriers throughout the world. The economy of the maritime provinces always develops most favourably under conditions of freer trade, and I urge the government not only to meet other governments half way, but to meet them more than half way in an effort to remove the shackling effects of tariffs and other obstacles to world trade.
I should like to compliment the government on the assistance it has already given to agriculture, fishing, mining and industrial development in the maritime provinces, and compliment the provincial governments as well on the co-operative efforts which they are carrying on with the federal government. These activities must be continued, and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the Nova Scotia and maritime members will continue to press for additional activity in this field, in the knowledge that everything that is done to expand and improve the economy of the maritime provinces cannot fail but be of benefit to the economy of this country as a whole.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Mr. Speaker, I cannot let this opportunity pass without mentioning to you what a thrill it is to me to be permitted to speak at this time.


By that clock on the wall, it is now six minutes to eleven. I want to assure you, sir, that I appreciate what a wonderful thing it is for this country, that on a Tuesday night at this hour we should have every seat in the house occupied, some of them by two members, one sitting on the other's knee; all the ministerial benches filled-they need more room to expand of course-but they are all filled and the galleries are crowded. It is an inspiration to any young fellow like myself, and I therefore intend to fix up the whole country from one end to the other.
I cannot let what has just been said by the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey) pass. He began quite well with the country of Evangeline. I listened, and I thought in a moment-I think Longfellow wrote that poem,-I should hear the wafting of those gentle noises from the murmuring pines and the hemlock that sit like the druids of old, and all that sort of thing. I thought we had a new druid-they were wise men-who would tell us something of great interest to the country. Before he finished I was through every back yard within fifty miles of the city of Halifax, and that is a long way from the murmuring pines and hemlocks. In fact, so far as the hon. member is concerned, they ended up in those marshes which the sea has claimed from his favourite, and my favourite, province of Nova Scotia.
The hon. member did say one thing that interested me a great deal, and in this I think I can help him. He talked about fish, and the difficulty experienced in obtaining markets for their fish. I want to assure him of this, that there is a wonderful market on his doorstep, and that is the parliamentary restaurant in which there has not been a decent bit of fish since this session began. If they would just get some fish up there, all the waves emanating from that and going across the country would make everybody fish conscious. We are fish conscious now, but for the opposite reason.


Angus MacInnis: It-sounds like fishing to me.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I thought I heard the hon. member from the other coast saying it was fishing. He should be an excellent judge, because I have tried the fish from that part of the country, too. I know the salmon they have out there, and I love it in cans but not otherwise.
I should like to turn to some remarks-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Try some Winnipeg goldeye.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am sorry that I am getting so deaf I miss these opportunities.
I want to turn to a remark made by another speaker, and that is the gentleman from

Churchill (Mr. Weaver), who had me carrying things out in a wheelbarrow. I heard that much of his speech. On the 7th day of January he made a speech in Flin Flon. At that meeting he was asked why, in the House of Commons, he had voted against the allowance of union dues paid by labouring people in connection with their income tax. He made what I thought was a clever and yet naive reply. He said, "You know, those cabinet ministers down there are human, and if I had not voted with them in this, I would not be able to get anything for the constituency of Churchill". That is politics as it should be played; I think that is smart. Unfortunately in Flin Flon they also have telegraph instruments and newspapers.
I intend tonight, and I am quite safe in saying tonight, to discuss two subjects which you, sir, may regard as of minor importance. May I make this promise, that I will not tell you about anything in the city of Calgary or in the province of Alberta, but will endeavour
The Budget-Mr. A. L. Smith to confine my remarks to these two subjects which I think are of national importance. The first is the treatment of veterans of the old North West Mounted Police, today the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and the second is an effort to have the government remove the necessity of obtaining a fiat when a citizen, who is injured by the government, its agencies or companies, wishes to seek redress.
With that, sir, it being eleven o'clock, I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall continue this debate.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
1901
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, April 26, 1950