1952-03-12

Mr. Speaker:: May I be permitted to make a statement at this time? Apparently my remarks on Monday have been interpreted by some members as changing the practice with respect to routine proceedings generally. I did not intend them to have that effect. I made my statement because I felt that last session I had allowed a practice to develop which permitted a member to rise at the opening of the house on a so-called question of privilege and to discuss certain matters which had taken place outside the house. That was a departure from our rules, and I did not think it was in the interests of parliament to allow it to continue. As Beauchesne states: "A question of privilege ought rarely to come up in parliament." He further states:
Wilful disobedience to orders and rules of parliament in the exercise of its constitutional functions. insults and obstructions during debate, are breaches of the privileges of the house.
These and other breaches of privilege, when they occur, should be brought to the attention of the house, and should be taken into consideration immediately and followed by the appropriate motion.
I do not need to remind hon. members that it is not a question of privilege whether a member should or should not have made a speech outside the house, or whether it would have been preferable to make it in the house. If the speech was made in wilful disobedience of the orders and rules of parliament, or contained libels on members, it would of course be a question of privilege which should be raised in the house. Otherwise the matter should be brought to the attention of the house by a question to the member or to the ministry when the orders of the day are called.
May I ask hon. members not to rise on questions of privilege unless they are satisfied that they are legitimate and not a so-called question of privilege.
My statement on Monday should not be interpreted in such a way as to prevent ministers, when motions are called, from
making important announcements of public policy. There is no positive rule to that effect, but it is a practice which has been sanctioned by usage both in the United Kingdom and in Canada. It has been my custom to allow the leader of the opposition to ask questions with respect to such statements. It is my intention to continue that practice. Of course no debate may take place at that time.
My anxiety is that I shall not, by any ruling I make, improperly curtail the rights and privileges of any hon. member, and I am confident that I shall have the continued co-operation of hon. members in my effort to carry out my duties in this manner.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Transport I table herewith summary of the revised pension plan for the Canadian National Railways.



QUESTIONS


Mr. Brooks:: 1.	Were the main switchboards of H.M.C.S. Inch Arran and H.M.C.S. Therese, now at the Saint John dry dock, sent to Montreal?
2.	If so, for what reason?
3.	What did it cost to crate and transport each of these switchboards to Montreal?
4.	What is the name and address of the firm that is doing the work on these switchboards?
5.	Is the work being done on a cost price basis or by contract?
6.	What is the estimated cost?


Mr. Bradley:: 1.	No.
2 and 3. Not applicable.
4.	Bedard-Girard Limited, Quebec, P.Q.
5.	Firm price contract.
6.	$8,589.



FORT LEWIS


Mr. Coldwell:: 1.	Was Canada charged by the United States for the use of training facilities at Fort Lewis by Canadian troops going to Korea?

Questions
2.	It so, how much per capita, per diem, was Canada charged for the use of billets, equipment, maintenance, United States training personnel, etc.?
3.	What is the total amount charged Canada to date for these purposes?
4.	Have United States authorities charged Canada for the use of United States facilities in Korea by Canadian troops on active service there?
5.	If so (a) what such facilities are used by Canadian forces? (b) what has been the total amount charged to date for the use of each of these facilities? (c) what is the per capita amount per diem charged for the use of each of these facilities?


Mr. Campney:: 1.	Canada was charged by the United States for maintenance support provided the Canadian army at Fort Lewis, Washington.
2.	$2.46 (U.S. funds).
3.	$2,519,883.78 (U.S. funds).
4.	The United States have charged Canada for the provisions of maintenance supplies and services in the Korean theatre.
5. (a) Services	(b)	Total amount	(c) Rate per capita per diem	and Supplies	paid, Nov. 7,	Advance	2 Bn PPCLI	2 Bn PPCLI	25 CIB1950-July 28,	party Nov. 7,	Dec. 18, 1950-	Feb. 17,1951-	May 6, 1951-1951.*	1950-Dec. 17,	Feb. 16, 1951.	May 5,1951.	Jul. 28, 1951.1950.	$(US)	$ (US)	$(US)	$ (US)	$(US)Quartermaster ..	1,264,086.88	1.8862	2.0927	.8727	2.0532Engineering 	54,423.50	.0848	.0812	.0812	.0812Signal 	23,298.09	.1403	.1343	.1343	Ordnance 	2,323,363.98	3.0679	3.0679	3.6937Chemical 	26,682.04	.0293	.0281	.0281	.0439Medical 	992,569.99	.0666	1.6422	1.6422	1.4699Transportation ..	598,323.02	.3527	.8753	.6853	.9502Total 	$5,282,747.50	$ 2.5599	$ 7.9217	$ 6.5117	$ 8.2921Payment to	the	United States	for services	and supplies	from July 28	to date is at
present under negotiation.



PROFITS OF TAXABLE COMPANIES

Mr. Balcom:: 1.	What were the total profits of taxable companies in 1951 compared with 1950?
2.	Of the companies reporting profits of $100,000 and over in 1951, how many increased their profits over those of the previous year?
3.	In what industrial divisions or classifications do these companies fall, such as manufacturing, mining, retailing, and so forth?
He said: I would like to withdraw this question for the time being, if I 'have permission.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.



GRANTS IN LIEU OF TAXES ON DEFENCE ESTABLISHMENTS

Mr. Balcom:: What money grants have been paid the city of Halifax, the town of Dartmouth, the county of Halifax, for 1951, in lieu of taxes on (a) H.M.C. dockyard; (b) national harbours board property; (c) other defence establishments?
He said: I would like to rephrase this question, and would ask permission to withdraw it.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.



SOLDIER SETTLERS


Mr. Fair:: 1.	How many soldier settlers of great war I were in debt to the soldier settlement board as at (a) January 1, 1951; (b) January 1, 1952?
2.	What was the total amount of indebtedness of those settlers as at (a) January 1, 1951; (b) January 1, 1952?
3.	What is the total amount paid in by the settlers, during the above period?
4.	In how many cases were reductions made?
5.	What is the total amount of reductions granted, during the year 1951?
6.	Have any foreclosures been made or quit claims been demanded, during the period under review? If so, how many of each?


Mr. Muich:: 1.	(a) 1,272; (b)	862.
2.	(a) $1,428,069.42; (b) $950,725.33.
3.	$375,382.50.
4.	388.
5.	$196,983.68.
6.	No.



NATIONAL DEBT

Mr. Mclvor:: 1.	What was the national debt of Canada at the beginning of world war I?
2.	What was such debt at the end of the war?

Questions
3.	By how much was it reduced before world war II?
4.	What was the national debt at the end of world war II?
5.	How much of this debt has been paid off since then?
6.	What amount of interest will the government pay on such debt this year?
7.	By how much does the government expect to reduce such debt this year?


Mr. Abbott:: 1-5. The net debt of Canada (total liabilities less active assets):
March 31, 1914	 $	335,996,850.14
March 31, 1919	 $ 1,574,531,032.44
Increase 1914-19	 $ 1,238,534,182.30
March 31, 1939	 $ 3,152,559,314.48
Increase 1919-39	 $ 1,578,028,282.04
March 31, 1946	 $13,421,405,449.21
Increase 1939-46	$10,268,846,134.73
March 31, 1951	 $11,433,314,948.07
Decrease 1946-51	 $ 1,988,090,501.14
6.	Interest paid on the public debt during the first ten months of fiscal year (i.e. up to January 31) amounted to $302,413,909. The figure for the year as a whole will be reported in the budget speech of the Minister of Finance.
7.	The reduction in debt in the current fiscal year will be disclosed in the budget speech.



OLD AGE PENSIONS-REDUCTION IN WAR PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES

Mr. Fraser:: 1.	How many pensions, if any, have been reduced by the Canadian pension board since January 1, 1952, on account of recipients of pensions now receiving old age security pensions without the means test?
2.	How many of these pensions are those of veterans of the first great war?
3.	How many are those of dependents of veterans?
4.	How many war veterans' allowances, if any, have been reduced by the war veterans' allowance board since January, 1952, owing to the fact that the recipients of the war veteran's allowance are now receiving old age security pensions without the means test?
5.	How many of these allowances were discontinued altogether?
6.	How many of (a) veterans of the first great war; (b) dependents of veterans?


Mr. Muich:: 1.	Disability pensions reduced, nil; widows' pensions reduced, nil; other dependents' pensions reduced, 475.
2.	Answered	by No.	1.3.	Answered	by No.	1.4.	Veterans,	5,580;	widows,	1,163;	total,
6,743.
5.	Veterans,	1,883;	widows,	141;	total,
2,024.
6.	(a) 5,547; (b) 1,163.



OLD AGE ASSISTANCE


Mr. White (Middlesex East):: 1.	In what manner is payment made to persons who are eligible for old age assistance who are confined to (a) county homes; (b) tubercular sanatoria; (c) mental institutions; (d) civic hospitals; (e) military hospitals?
2.	How are payments made to indigent patients, and in what amount?
3.	How are payments made to others and in what amount?


Mr. McCusker:: 1.	(a) Assistance is paid to a recipient if he is capable of handling his own affairs. If he is not (this decision is made by the provincial authority), the assistance is paid to whatever official of the county home or other person may be appointed by the provincial authority to act as trustee for the recipient. In the latter case the provision requiring payment of part of the assistance to the recipient must be applied, (b) Same procedure as under (a),	(c) Payment of old
age assistance to persons in mental institutions is affected by the provincial law referring to persons in mental institutions. In most of the provinces this results in payment to patients in mental institutions being made to the provincial public trustee on the patient's behalf. (d) Same procedure as under (a), (e) Same procedure as under (a).
2 and 3. Payments to indigent patients are subject to the same rules as all other payments. Except where the provincial authority otherwise decides in accordance with the regulations already quoted, the patient is entitled to receive payment of the full amount of assistance to which he is entitled under the act. How much of this is retained by the patient for his own use, and how much is paid by him to the institution for his care is a matter for arrangement between the patient and the institution.
In cases however where the provincial authority decides that the patient is incapable of handling his own affairs, it may appoint a trustee to handle the old age assistance

Questions
cheque on the patient's behalf and may-direct the trustee as to the amount to be retained for the patient's personal needs and the amount to be paid to the institution for maintenance.



WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCES


Mr. White (Middlesex East):: 1.	How many Indian veterans, not resident on reservations, are in receipt of war veterans allowance?
2.	In what manner is the war veterans allowance paid to them, and to how many (a) by monthly cheque; (b) by instalment?
3.	If paid by instalments, by what authority?


Mr. Mutch:: 1.	No statistical record is kept of Indian veterans as such.
2.	The case	of	an	Indian veteran	notresident on a reservation is dealt with in the same manner	as	the	case of any otherveteran. The allowance is paid by monthly cheque either directly to the veteran or if the war veterans allowance board or a district authority directs	that	the allowance	beadministered,	to	an	administrator.	The
administrator may be either the district office of the Department of Veterans Affairs or a responsible person appointed by the board or the district authority.
3.	Answered by No. 2.



IMMIGRATION'


Mr. White (Middlesex East):: 1.	How many immigrants who came to Canada during the past two years have been hospitalized because of tuberculosis, in the following groups (a) immigrants from commonwealth countries; (b) displaced persons; (c) all others?
2.	How many in each of these groups were discovered to have the disease within six months of coming to Canada?


Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: 1.	Cases reported to Department of Citizenship and Immigration: (a) 4; Ob) 2; (c) 8; total 14.
2.	(a) 3; (b) 1; (c) 4; total 8.



R.C.A.F. TRANSPORT ON SPECIAL FLIGHT FROM TORBAY TO GANDER, NFLD.

Mr. Higgins:: 1.	Was a Royal Canadian Air Force Canso aircraft dispatched from Torbay airport, Newfoundland, to Gander airport, on the night of November 22, 1951?
2.	If so, was a request made for the dispatch of the said aircraft, and by whom?
3.	If the request was acceded to, who made the decision?
4.	Did the said aircraft carry a German national employed by the Department of Economic Development of Newfoundland, named Broun-Wogan?
5.	What explanation was given for the necessity of such flight, and who supplied the information?
6.	What was the cost of the said flight, and who was to pay for it?

7.	Was a bill sent to any person or body for the amount due?
8.	If so (a) when; (b) was it paid; (c) when was it paid, and by whom?


Mr. Campney:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes. By the premier of Newfoundland.
3.	The Acting Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lapointe).
4.	Yes.
5.	The Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister) on December 29, 1951, quoting from a note from the Acting Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lapointe) said:
After reviewing the circumstances of the request and taking into consideration the assurances of the premier of Newfoundland that no civilian transport could be obtained, that this flight was urgent and that the flight involved transportation of a government official-not a politician-I felt that it might not be fair to throw upon a subordinate air force officer the responsibility for making what was essentially a ministerial decision, and I authorized the flight to be made on the basis of reimbursement in the usual manner of our out-of-pocket expenses.
6.	$233.85 to be paid by the Newfoundland government.
7.	Yes, to the provincial treasurer, province of Newfoundland.
8.	(a) January 9, 1952; (b) Up to March 7, 1952 payment has not been received by the R.C.A.F.; (c) Not applicable.



PETROLEUM OR NATURAL GAS RIGHTS


Mr. Wright:: 1.	Have agreements been entered into by the government providing for expropriation or leasing of the petroleum or natural gas rights of Indian reserves located in the province of Saskatchewan?
2.	If so, were tenders or bids called for in all cases prior to entering into agreements?
3.	Were the highest tenders or bids accepted in all cases?
4.	What are the names of the companies holding such agreements, and the location of the lands held under agreement or lease?


Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: 1.	Agreements have been entered into providing for the leasing of petroleum and natural gas rights in some of the Indian reserves located in the province of Saskatchewan.
2.	No, but that is the present practice.
3.	Yes.
4.
Names of companies-Location of lands- Permits
The California Standard Company, Kah-kewistahaw Indian reserve, 2; The California Standard Company, Standing Buffalo Indian reserve, 1; The California Standard Company, Ochapowace Indian reserve, 4; The California Standard Company, Piapot Indian reserve, 1; The California Standard Company, Piapot

surrendered portion (leases), 7; The California Standard Company, Sakimay Indian reserve, 3; The California Standard Company, Assini-boine Indian reserve, 5; Ajax Petroleums, Ltd., White Bear Indian reserve, 4; Canadian Superior Oil of California, Ltd., Ahtahkah-koop Indian reserve, 5; Canadian Superior Oil of California, Ltd., Kenematayo Indian reserve, 3; Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Co. Ltd., Fort a la Corne and Cumberland Indian reserves, 5; Imperial Oil Limited, Okemasis and Beardy Indian reserves, 3; Imperial Oil Limited, One Arrow Indian reserve, 1; Imperial Oil Limited, Cowessess Indian reserve, 4; Socony-Vacuum Exploration Co., Little Black Bear Indian reserve, 2; Socony-Vacuum Exploration Co., Okanase Indian reserve, 2; Socony-Vacuum Exploration Co., Peepeekeesis Indian reserve, 3; Socony-Vacuum Exploration Co., Star Blanket Indian reserve, 2; Petroleum Engineering Co. Ltd., Piapot Indian reserve, 2.



NEWFOUNDLAND FUNDS ON DEPOSIT WITH FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. Higgins:: Is there any money of the government of Newfoundland on deposit with the federal government which can be used by the Newfoundland government for development purposes?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Paragraph 2 of article 24 of the terms of union of Newfoundland with Canada reads as follows:
(2) Newfoundland will retain its financial surplus subject to the following conditions:
(a)	one-third of the surplus shall be set aside during the first eight years from the date of union, on deposit with the government of Canada, to be withdrawn by the government of the province of Newfoundland only for expenditures on current account to facilitate the maintenance and improvement of Newfoundland public services, and any portion of this one-third of the surplus remaining unspent at the end of the eight-year period shall become available to the province of Newfoundland without the foregoing restriction;
(b)	the remaining two-thirds of the surplus shall be available to the government of the province of Newfoundland for the development of resources and for the establishment or extension of public services within the province of Newfoundland; and
(c)	no part of the surplus shall be used to subsidize the production or sale of products of the province of Newfoundland' in unfair competition with similar products of other provinces of Canada, but nothing in this paragraph shall preclude the province of Newfoundland from assisting industry by developmental loans on reasonable conditions or by ordinary provincial administrative services.
In holding balances of the government of Newfoundland under this paragraph the government of Canada is acting in the relationship of banker to customer. Accordingly, it is not considered that the present balance should be made public by the government of Canada.
Questions



T.C.A. FLIGHTS FROM MONTREAL TO TORBAY, NFLD.

Mr. Higgins:: 1.	Have arrangements been made by T.C.A. to institute a direct flight from Montreal to Torbay, Newfoundland?
2.	If so, how many flights per week will be made, and when will the service commence?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: T.C.A. plans to inaugurate on April 27, 1952, a daily service with North Star equipment between Montreal and St. John's (Torbay), Newfoundland, with intermediate stops at Moncton and Sydney, in addition to two daily DC-3 flights between Montreal and all Newfoundland points.



GREAT LAKES WATER LEVELS

Mr. Lennard:: Has the government received at any time since January 1, 1950, any representations relative to, or complaints of, damage resulting from rising water levels along the great lakes?


Mr. Winters:: Yes.



ST. JOHN'S, NFLD., PUBLIC BUILDING

Gordon Francis Higgins: What is the present position with respect to the erection or purchase of a federal public building or buildings in St. John's, Newfoundland?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Negotiations are under way to purchase a site in St. John's, Newfoundland, for the construction of a federal building.



NATIONAL PARK


Gordon Francis Higgins: What is the present position with respect to the establishment of a national park or parks in Newfoundland?


Robert Henry Winters: Several sites have been
examined by officers of this department as to their suitability for development as a national park. No decision has been reached as to where or when the park will be established.



FRASER-BRACE TERMINAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY    LABOUR RECRUITING IN NEW BRUNSWICK

Gordon Francis Higgins: Is labour being recruited at Saint John, New Brunswick, by the Fraser-Brace Terminal Construction Company, for work in Newfoundland and Labrador?


Mr. Gregg:: Labour is not being recruited at Saint John, New Brunswick, at the present time, by the Fraser-Brace Terminal Construction Company for work in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Questions



FUNDS FOR VOCATIONAL TRAINING

Mr. Goode:: What steps are being taken by the Department of Labour to provide funds for vocational training in Canada in 1952?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Funds are being requested by the Department of Labour for vocational training in 1952 by a vote of parliament. This vote will be included with other votes of the Department of Labour covering 1952-53 operations, and will be tabled as part of the estimates for the fiscal year 1952-53.



ARMED FORCES-ENLISTMENTS AND DISCHARGES

Mr. Harkness:: 1.	What was the strength of the navy, army and air force as at January 31, 1951?
2.	What was the number of enlistments and the number of discharges during 1951 for (a) navy; (b) army; (c) air force?
3.	How many of the men enlisted on special short service terms for the Korean war have been discharged. and1 how many are still in the army?


Mr. Campney:: 1.	Strength of Canadian armed forces (active) as of January 31, 1951;
Royal Canadian Navy	 10,332
Canadian Army (active force) ..	33,785
Royal Canadian Air Force _______ 20,120
64,237
2.	See table below.
3.	Released (including deaths), 2,984; still in the army, 7,563.



INCREASES AND DECREASES IN CANADIAN ARMED FORCES (ACTIVE)

[Stage Direction]
-	Increases	Decreases	Enrolments	Other Increases*	Total	Releases	Other decreases*	TotalOffrs.	Men	Offrs.	Men	Offrs.	Men	Offrs.	Men	(a) Navy	476	3,684	ii	2	4,173	44	1,534	9	66	1,653(b) Army	1,132	19,716	508	1,494	22,850	187	5,767	32	3,593	9,579(c) Air Force	2,700	10,017	572	49	13,338	651	1,331	10	659	2,651Total	4,308	33,417	1,091	1,545	40,361	882	8,632	51	4,318	13,883
* Include desertions, apprehensions and adjustments between officers and men regarding commissions from the ranks or reversion to the ranks.

Mr. Dinsdale:: 1.	What are the names of the national parks in each of the provinces of Canada?
2.	How much money was expended by the Department of Resources and Development on each of these parks during the past fiscal year?


Mr. Winters:: 1.	Prince Edward Island, Prince Edward Island national park; Nova Scotia, Cape Breton Highlands national park; New Brunswick, Fundy national park; Ontario, Georgian Bay Islands national park; Point Pelee national park; St. Lawrence Islands national park; Manitoba, Riding Mountain national park; Saskatchewan, Prince Albert national park; Alberta, Banff national park; Elk Island national park; Jasper national park; Waterton Lakes national park; British Columbia, Glacier national park; Kootenay national park; Mount Revelstoke national park; Yoho national park.
2.	Prince Edward Island national park, $162,616.94; Cape Breton Highlands national

park, $1,273,100.48; Fundy national park, $834,890.36; Georgian Bay Islands national park, $1,273,100.48; Fundy national park, $70,308.13; St. Lawrence Islands national park, $42,619.27; Riding Mountain national park, $327,505.61; Prince Albert national park, $385,370.80; Banff national park, $1,191,888.36; Elk Island national park, $143,723.99; Jasper national park, $2,054,511.44; Waterton Lakes national park, $297,613.23; Glacier national park, $41,198.85; Kootenay national park, $1,589,955.95; Mount Revelstoke national park, $47,812.77; Yoho national park, $231,613.82.



CAMP SHILO


Mr. Dinsdale:: 1.	To whom was the contract for the installation of a water softening system at camp Shilo, as advertised under tender No. G-39-3A-494, awarded?
2.	What other firms submitted tenders on this contract?
3.	What was the amount of the tender in each
case?


Mr. Campney:: 1.	This contract has not yet been awarded.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Harkness:: 1.	How many immigration officers have been discharged for irregularities since January 1, 1950?
2.	At what points were they stationed when these irregularities occurred?
3.	What are their names and what were their rates of salary?
4.	Has any action been taken against them in addition to their dismissal from the service?
5.	How many immigrants were irregularly admitted to Canada as a result of their activities?
6.	How many of these immigrants have been returned to their countries of origin, and1 what is the present action contemplated as far as the remainder are concerned?
7.	Was Willi Bruntjen one of the immigrants concerned?


Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: 1.	Three immigration officers have been discharged because of irregularities in their immigration duties.
2.	Rome, Italy; Karlsruhe, Germany; and Montreal, P.Q.
3.	G. G. Wilson (Rome)
Basic salary	$ 2,904 per	annumTerminable Allowance	984 "	ijLiving	2,352 "	nRental "	1,015 "	itTotal:	$ 7,255 "	"J. A. Cianci (Karlsruhe)	Basic salary	$ 2,568 per	annumTerminable Allowance	984 "	tfLiving	3,285 "	*Total:	$ 6,837 "	n
J. M. Bourget (Montreal); Salary $2,904 per annum.
4.	None to date. Investigations are continuing.
5.	Investigations have disclosed that as a result of irregular activities of officers in question at Rome and Karlsruhe 75 immigrants were admitted.
6.	To date, 12 immigrants, have been returned to their country of origin (11 by deportation proceedings and one voluntarily), and 17 have been ordered deported and are now awaiting transportation to their country of origin. The remaining 46 immigrants are now under investigation.
7.	No.
Questions



NEW AIRPORT IN NEWFOUNDLAND

Gordon Francis Higgins: Is there to be a new airport constructed in Newfoundland this year?


Mr. Bradley:: No.



PLUMBING FIXTURES


Mr. Adamson:: 1.	What was the total value of imports of vitreous china or earthenware plumbing fixtures from Czechoslovakia since January 1, 1950?
2.	How many of the above imports from Czechoslovakia were bath tubs, toilet bowls, sinks, laundry tubs?
3.	How many plants in Canada manufacture vitreous china or earthenware plumbing fixtures?
4.	Are these plants working at full capacity?
5.	If not, at what percentage of capacity are they operating at present?


George James McIlraith: 1 and 2. Imports of vitreous china or earthenware plumbing fixtures are not classified separately in Canadian trade statistics. They are recorded under a general item which reads as follows:
Baths, bathtubs, basins, closets, closet seats, covers and tanks, lavatories, urinals, sinks and laundry tubs, of earthenware, stone, cement, clay, or other materials n.o.p.
and which includes fixtures of all materials except iron or steel, coated or not. Imports under this general item, from Czechoslovakia since January 1, 1950, were as follows:
January 1 to December 31, 1950, $4,708
January 1 to December 31, 1951, $2,652
3.	One only reporting to dominion bureau of statistics.
4.	Information not available in this department.
5.	Information not available in this department.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


Mr. Balcom:: 1.	Were tenders called during the period between July 1 and December 31, 1951, by the Department of Defence Production for any radar equipment?
2.	If so (a) on what dates; (b) what are the names and addresses of firms submitting tenders, and amount of their respective tenders; (c) what type and make of equipment?
3.	To whom was contract or contracts awarded?
4.	Was equipment manufactured in Canada? If not, where?


Mr. Dickey:: This question cannot be
answered in its present form. I have spoken to the hon. member, and he has agreed to drop the question and rephrase it.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.

Questions



WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCES


Mr. Goode:: 1.	How many veterans in Canada are at present in receipt of the war veterans allowance?
2.	What was the total cost for 1951?
3.	How many veterans in British Columbia are receiving the allowance?
4.	What was the cost for British Columbia in 1951?
5.	How many veterans in the municipality of Burnaby receive the war veterans allowance benefits?
6.	How many veterans in the municipality of Richmond receive the war veterans allowance benefits?


Mr. Mulch:: 1.	Veterans	 30,675
Widows	 8,577
Orphans	 147
Dependents (section 17(1) cases)	 725
Total 40,124
2.	Annual liability calendar
year 1951	 $24,170,556.00
Actual expenditure:
April 1, 1950 to
March 31, 1951	 $22,923,331.95
April 1, 1951 to
Feb. 29, 1952	 $21,774,642.58
3.	Veterans	 7,570
Widows	 1,466
Orphans	 4	(accounts)
Dependents (section
17(1) cases)	 147
Total 9,187
4.	Annual liability calendar
year 1951:	 $5,483,947.00
Estimated expenditure:
April 1, 1950 to
March 31,1951	 $5,272,366.31
April 1, 1951 to
Feb. 29, 1952	 $4,985,635.56
5 and 6. No record kept by municipalities.



PENSIONS FOR PERSONS PHYSICALLY INCAPACITATED

Mr. Fair:: 1.	Did the various provincial governments undertake a survey to find out, among other things, the number of physically incapacitated persons in Canada?
2.	If so, has the survey been completed?
3.	What are the particulars disclosed regarding the number, age and financial standing of those disabled persons?
4.	Will a pension scheme be introduced at the present session to relieve the distress of those persons?


Mr. McCusker:: 1.	All provincial governments are participating in the national sickness survey and it is anticipated that this survey will provide some information concerning the disabled in Canada.
2.	No.
3.	See answer to No. 2 above.
*4. The government does not plan to introduce a disability pensions scheme at the present session.



BANK OF CANADA ASSETS

Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	What are the individual items of more than $500,000 comprised in the "all other assets" of the Bank of Canada report, page 19, for the year 1951?
2.	Did the Bank of Canada own any gold at the end of the year 1951? If so, how much?


Mr. Abbott:: 1.	Accrued interest earned on Canadian investments, $10,923,533; cheques on chartered banks, $2,603,898; government of Canada bonds and coupons on hand and in transit, $1,076,278.
2.	No.



BREAD-COLOURING MATTER IN PRODUCTION OF BROWN LOAF

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Has the government received any representations since October 24, 1951, asking that regulations be made to ensure the purchasers of brown bread that they are obtaining whole wheat bread rather than the white bread dyed brown?
2.	If so, from whom have such representations been received?
3.	What progress has been made in dealing with this matter since the time of the last statement thereon, given to the House of Commons on October 24, 1951?


Mr. McCusker:: 1.	No.
2.	See answer to No. 1 above.
3.	The regulations concerning flour and bread standards and labelling requirements for bread have been redrafted and a meeting is being called for April 1 to discuss them with the milling and baking industry and others concerned.



INDUSTRIAL AND OFFICE WORKERS


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Has the government any statistics, later than those given in Hansard of December 3, 1951, as to the number of (a) industrial workers; (b) office workers, now on (i) a five-day week; (ii) a five-and-a-half-day week; (iii) a six-day week?
2.	If so, what are the numbers of each of the above groups of workers who are working for each of the periods indicated above?
*
See also pp. 1645-6.

3.	Do the figures given in answer to question No. 2 include bank employees and any others recently placed on the five-day week?


Mr. Gregg:: 1.	No later statistics available.
2.	See answer to No. 1.
3.	See answer to No. 1.
fisherman's harbour-port hillford, n.s.,



MAIL CONTRACT

Mr. Low:: 1.	Were tenders called for a mail contract between Fisherman's Harbour and Port Hillford, Guysborough county, Nova Scotia, in the year 1951?
2.	If so (a) how many tenders were received: (b) what are the names and addresses of those submitting tenders and the amount of each tender?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) With starting point at Port Bickerton,
5; with starting point at Fisherman's Harbour, 3.
(b) With starting point at Port Bickerton:
George Brinton Bingley,
Fisherman's Harbour	 $1,200
Edward Archelaus Kaiser,
Bickerton West	 1,225
Asa Harpell, Port Bickerton. .	1,399
Wilfred Harpell, Harpellville 1,425 George Nathaniel Jack,
Bickerton West	 1,800
With starting point at Fisherman's Harbour:
Asa Harpell, Port Bickerton $1,399 Brinton Bingley, Fisherman's
Harbour	 1,500
George Nathaniel Jack,
Bickerton West	 2,000



SHIPBUILDING CONTRACTS


Mr. Balcom:: 1.	How many ships have been ordered since January 1, 1951, in connection with the naval program?
2.	What is the construction value of such orders?
3.	What is the value and type of ships ordered, by provinces?
4.	What are the names and addresses of firms in Nova Scotia which were awarded contracts, and in what amount?


John Horace Dickey: With respect to this question and the one following, Mr. Speaker, thev cannot be answered in their present form. I have spoken to the hon. member and he has agreed to drop them and rephrase them.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.



CONVERSION OF FRIGATES AND MINESWEEPERS

Mr. Balcom:: 1. How many world war II frigates and minesweepers are being refitted or reconverted?
Orders for Returns
2.	What are the names and addresses of persons or firms which are performing this work, and what is the amount of each contract?
3.	Under what department is the work being carried out?


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


NATIONAL DEFENCE PROPERTIES


Mr. Fraser:: 1.	Has a commission been set up to inquire into fires which destroyed defence properties and defence supplies?
2.	If so, what are the names of the members of such commission?
3.	Has the commission made a report? If so, what were the findings?
4.	What was the total loss by fire in defence buildings, material and equipment in 1951, at what places did fires occur and what was the amount of loss in each instance?
5.	What was the total loss by fire in defence buildings and material and equipment during the first two months of 1952, where did fires take place and what was the amount of loss in each instance?


Mr. Campney:: Return tabled.



IMPORTS OF FUR PELTS

Mr. Lennard:: 1.	How many fur pelts were imported into Canada from January 1 to December 31, 1951?
2.	How many of each variety, and from what countries were they imported?


George James McIlraith: Return tabled.



GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES


Mr. Lennard:: 1.	In what magazines, newspapers, or other periodicals, did the federal government advertise government annuities, during the period from January 1, 1951, to March 1, 1952?
2.	What was the total cost of such advertising in each of these mediums?



PRECAUTIONS AGAINST FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE

Mr. Charlton:: 1.	Has any shipment of merchandise packed in hay, straw, or any other raw product of the soil, reached Regina or any other point in Saskatchewan from Europe during the last twelve months, which was not certified, by a properly qualified and authorized government veterinarian of the country of origin, as being properly disinfected before shipment?
2.	Are the clothes of immigrants entering Canada, from any country where foot-and-mouth disease exists, disinfected at port of entry?
3.	Have any cattle been imported from England, Ireland or Scotland during the past twelve months? If so, on what date and under what conditions?


Mr. McCubbin:: Return tabled.



PETROLEUM OR NATURAL GAS RIGHTS


Mr. Wright:: 1. Have any agreements or leases been entered into by (a) the government of Canada; (b) Canadian National Railways, with the Imperial Oil

Motions for Papers
Company Limited, concerning petroleum and natural gas rights owned by the government of Canada or the Canadian National Railways, and located in the province of Saskatchewan?
2.	If so, how many agreements?
3.	Were tenders or bids called for in all cases?
4.	Were tenders or bids' received from the Imperial Oil Company Limited?
5.	Was the highest tender or bid accepted in each case?



PRINTING BUREAU


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	What was the total amount of printing, by dollar value, done under the authority of the queen's printer during the year 1951?
2.	How much of this was done at the government printing bureau?
3.	How much was let out to private printing firms?
4.	With respect to the amount let out to private printing firms, to what firms were printing contracts let?
5.	What was the amount of printing, by dollar value, let to each of the above firms during 1951?
6.	Which of the above printing firms are authorized to use the union label of an allied1 printing trades council?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Coldwell:: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the government of Canada and the governments of the prairie provinces, from October 1, 1951, and March 1, 1952, regarding suggestions for the making of advance payments for wheat stored on the farm, and for the payment of storage to farmers in districts where elevator space is unobtainable, together with similar correspondence relating to the Prairie Grain Producers' Interim Financing Act, adopted at the fifth session of the present parliament?


Mr. Si. Laurent:: Subject to the usual reservation that the consent of the other governments concerned be obtained.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Major James William Coldwell: For a statement showing particulars of enemy-owned patents held by the custodian of enemy property as a result of the last war and subsequently disposed of by the government, together with the names of purchasers of such patents and prices at which they were disposed of.



ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS WITH UNHARVESTED OR UNDELIVERED GRAIN

Mr. Argue:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, memoranda and other documents exchanged between the government of Canada, or any department or agency thereof, and the government of Saskatchewan, the Saskatchewan wheat pool, the Saskatchewan federation of agriculture and the Saskatchewan farmers' union, between September 1, 1951 and February

28, 1952, in regard to methods of providing financial assistance to farmers with unharvested or undelivered grain.


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: With the same reservation as in the case of the first motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hazen Robert Argue: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, memoranda and other documents exchanged between the government of Canada, or any department or agency thereof, and the government of Saskatchewan, the Saskatchewan wheat pool, the Saskatchewan federation of agriculture, the Saskatchewan farmers' union, and local farm co-operatives, between September 1, 1951 and February 28, 1952, relative to (a) the importation and use of portable grain driers; (b) the shipment of damp grain to terminal driers by farmers and elevator companies.


Mr. St. Laurent:: With the same reservation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Diefenbaker:: For a copy of all communications that passed between veterinary officials either provincial or federal and the federal Department of Agriculture, together with all records since the 17th day of November, 1951, relative to the cattle epidemic of vesicular stomatitis or foot-and-mouth disease in Saskatchewan, also all certificates or statements of analysis showing the results of the chemical examination of suspected specimens of either of said cattle diseases.


Mr. Gardiner:: With the same reservation as stated by the Prime Minister.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Wright:: For a copy of any agreement entered into by the government providing for the leasing or expropriation of petroleum or natural gas rights on Indian reserves in the province of Saskatchewan.



INDIANS IN PRINCE ALBERT SANATORIUM

Percy Ellis Wright: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams or other communications from the Meadow Lake Indian agency to any Indians in the Prince Albert sanatorium from September 1, 1950, to date.


Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: I wonder if the hon. member would permit this to stand until I have had a chance to discuss it with him.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



RED RIVER FLOODS-COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE FROM CONSTRUCTION OF DIKES

Mr. Knowles:: For a copy of all correspondence between the Prime Minister and/or the government of Canada

and the premier and/or the government of Manitoba, dated since June 1, 1950, with reference to compensation to home owners for damages to their property or losses sustained by reason of the construction of dikes against possible future flooding of the Red river.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: With the same reservation as for the first motion, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
fisherman's harbour-port hillford, n.s.,

Mr. Low:: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Post Office Department and persons resident in Guysborough county. Nova Scotia, relative to mail contract between Fisherman's Harbour and Port Hillford, in the year 1951.



SUGGESTED COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: In
view of the announcements which have been made within the last forty-eight hours by the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa of measures that will curtail imports from Canada, will the Minister of Trade and Commerce state whether the government will give consideration to the convening of a British commonwealth trade conference in order to assure the preservation of trade?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the curtailments announced in the last two or three days arose from discussions that took place during a recent meeting of commonwealth finance ministers. The announcements were not unexpected. I believe it was agreed in London that each dominion would attempt to be self-contained so far as the use of dollars was concerned. That agreement is being implemented by the announcements that have just been made. I see no purpose in another conference, because I think the second conference could hardly overrule the decisions of the first.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: But I understood the Minister of Finance stated those discussions had nothing whatever to do with trade. I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether the Minister of Trade and Commerce was correct in saying that the finance ministers of the commonwealth, at their recent meeting in London, did discuss trade questions.


Douglas Charles Abbott: During the conference the finance ministers discussed financial matters, and the ability of the sterling area to obtain the necessary 55704-23i
Inquiries of the Ministry exchange to make purchases. In so far as trade matters are connected with paying for what one purchases, I suppose we did discuss that.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I submit that if it is appropriate that a question be answered, it is equally appropriate that the question be answered in such a manner as to be understandable to the members of the house. A question was directed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) with regard to the possibility of extending invitations for a British commonwealth trade conference. The answer given to the house was that this matter had already been discussed at meetings of the ministers of finance. In answer to a subsequent question the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) left the matter open and simply touched that point by saying that to the extent that the ability to carry on trade might be related to financial matters, probably to that extent the London meeting could be regarded as covering trade.
That, Mr. Speaker, is not an answer to the question. If the question was a proper one, it should be answered. Therefore, through you, I direct the question to the Prime Minister and ask him if he would consider extending invitations to the other governments of the commonwealth for a trade conference between the nations of the commonwealth.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman can take it for granted that when questions are raised here, they are always considered; but I can give no undertaking as to what the result of the consideration will be.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES RECOMMENDATION AS TO NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR UNESCO

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the recommendations of the royal commission on national development in the arts, letters and sciences, at pages 377 to 382 of its report, namely, that a body to perform the function of a national commission for UNESCO should be created, when may we expect the government to make an announcement regarding the matter?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The hon. gentleman sent me notice that it was his intention to ask this question.
356	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry My answer can only be the following: The manner in which these recommendations might be implemented, and the time at which that should be done, are still under consideration. It is not likely that the government will have any legislation about this matter to recommend to parliament during this session.



CANADAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: In view of press dispatches published in Vancouver, indicating that construction by Canadair of a plant in British Columbia is in contemplation, the purpose of the plant being for the production of transport aircraft, will the minister make a statement in that regard?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have seen the newspaper report in question, and I know of no plans of Canadair for building on the west coast.
#



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Will the minister say whether any steps have been taken to investigate the unemployment situation in the textile industry, or to inquire into the causes therefor? Will he also say whether he has received reports concerning the sale in Canada of nylon hosiery imported from the United States, and its effect on employment in Canada?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yesterday afternoon, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues the Minister of Defence Production, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Transport and I had the pleasure of meeting two delegations which dealt with the matters the hon. member mentions. All the submissions they presented to us are * receiving the consideration of the government, and I presume that perhaps some of the things to which my hon. friend referred might be discussed by my colleague the Minister of National Revenue.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Is the Minister of Agriculture prepared to make a statement on the result of his efforts to have the provincial embargoes against the movement of livestock lifted?


James Garfield Gardiner: At the moment I am not in a position to make a statement about that.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Will the minister state when our new dominion building at Charlottetown will be built?


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, the answer is a positive one, but as to the date I do not know.



QUESTION AS TO PAYMENT OF LESS THAN FLOOR PRICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. Earl Catherwood (Haldimand):: Is
the Minister of Agriculture aware of the fact that some packers are buying hogs at a price below the twenty-six cents per pound which the government set as a floor price? If so, is the government prepared to impose a penalty on purchasers who are not living up to these floor price regulations?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know whether all the packers in Canada are paying floor prices, but I shall get the information and make a report later.



OLD AGE PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: May I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare? Has the federal government received a request from the government of Manitoba, and possibly from other provinces as well, that the provinces be relieved forthwith of the necessity of making recoveries from the estates

of persons who were paid pensions under the former old age pensions act up to December 31, 1951? Will the government advise the provinces that henceforth they need not-


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe that is a question that could go on the order paper. I see no reason why it should not.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I just say this?-and I shall bow to your ruling-


An hon. Member:: No, it is not debatable.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I say-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I will hear the member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I say that on March 3, feeling that this was an urgent matter, I gave notice of the question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. He has had to be away because of illness. This was before you asked us, sir, to place such questions on the order paper, and before arrangements were made for questions on the order paper to be taken today. Having given the minister notice I felt I should ask it on the orders of the day. If you so rule, it will have to be put on the order paper and the answer delayed until next Wednesday. I suggest that in the circumstances, since the minister has had notice, he may desire the opportunity of answering the question now.


Mr. Speaker:: I shall leave it to the minister. If he feels he should answer the question, I will allow him to do so.


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The hon. member did give me notice of his question, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras) also discussed the matter with me. I can only say that the whole matter is one that is governed by the existing law, as the hon. member so well pointed out in his speech in this house on Monday last.



SALE OP BANNED PUBLICATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. J. Browne (St. John's West):: should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue if his attention has been drawn to the current article in the Ensign which states that books which should be forbidden are being sold openly by bookstores. One of these books is published by the Dell Publishing Company in the United States.
The Address-Mr. McCann


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I could not hear all of the hon. gentleman's question. I will take it as notice and give him an answer at a future date.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Speaker, hon. members may have noticed an item in yesterday evening's newspapers relating to the exemption from income tax for the governor general. I learned that His Excellency also saw the article in question, that he had been under the impression that it was only the official income of the governor general which was exempt from income tax, and that he had no intention of benefiting from any exemption from income tax so far as his private income is concerned. I make this statement to say that I intend to introduce an appropriate amendment to the Income Tax Act when the budget bills are under discussion.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, March 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. E. W. George for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Fair, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Bryce.
James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, my sole purpose in taking part in this debate at this time is to attempt to clear up some of the misunderstanding, ignorance and criticism with reference to the administrative side of the Department of National Revenue.
During the debate there has been considerable criticism-and I have no objection to criticism, but it has perhaps been more a matter of misunderstanding of the statutes and the regulations under which we have to work. I want to deal first with the customs and excise division of the Department of National Revenue.
During the debate the matter of the textile industry has entered largely into the discussion. Last night in this house the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees), as reported at page 337 of Hansard, said that he was glad that I was here and in the house, that he had some particular thing he wanted to discuss;

The Address-Mr. McCann and then he went on to say that as there were a number of textile mills in his own riding he would like to add his voice in asking the government to take steps to alleviate what amounted to a real depression in the textile industry. He said that the main cause of this depression is legalized dumping of American textiles.
That, Mr. Speaker, is a severe accusation to make. I do not think it can be verified by the facts that there has been any legalized dumping in this country at all. I am entirely in sympathy with the position of the textile manufacturers and workers in this country, because I am, like the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair), one of the representatives from the Ottawa valley. We depend upon the textile industry for employment, perhaps in the main or to a greater extent than upon any other industry that we have in the Ottawa valley. I believe there are some reasons which ought to be put before this house as to why the textile industry is in the position in which it finds itself today.
After the Korean outbreak, for instance, in June two years ago, it appeared that there might be a shortage of textiles. What was the result? The retailers in this country- the big departmental stores-stocked up as they had never done before. The manufacturing of textiles increased by over thirty per cent within an extremely short period. What do we find today? We find that those same retailers have on hand stocks that they have not yet disposed of. Statistics show that consumer buying and retail sales are up to normal. While I am not giving the figures in dollars and cents, those are facts that everybody knows. As a consequence of that position, the retailers are not in the market at the present time for increased supplies of textiles.
Another factor that has entered into the situation is importations of textiles into Canada, particularly from the United States. Let me say that the plight in which the textile industry finds itself in this country is not unique. It is the same position as that in which the textile manufacturers find themselves both in Great Britain and in the United States. As I said, there is another reason, and that reason is the almost parity of exchange that exists at the present time. Two years ago exchange was unfavourable to the buyer in Canada; at least the rate of exchange was ten per cent, and that was, of course, favourable to the United States seller. That condition has changed, and we are now on parity. That ten per cent difference in exchange was equivalent to a ten per cent additional tariff on the textile industry in Canada during the time that it was in effect.


The aocusation has been made that there has been a lot of dumping in this country. Let us see what is meant by dumping. Section 6 of the Customs Tariff Act provides for the imposition of an additional duty known as a special or dumping duty, in respect to importations of goods of a class or kind produced in Canada when, but only when, the import circumstances as defined by this section render the imported goods liable to this additional impost.
There appears to be a general assumption, particularly in periods of buyers' markets, that imported competitive goods are being "dumped" on the Canadian market if the import prices are below those of Canadian producers, and that a special and latent authority may be invoked to apply a dumping duty to those imports. Contrary to the popular impression that the application of this additional duty is by a latent and discretionary authority, the fact is that the imposition of this duty is entirely by statute. It is automatic and mandatory where liability as defined in the statute is incurred.
Generally, with some exceptions, section 35 of the Customs Act provides the valuation basis of imported goods for ordinary duty purposes, which is also the general valuation basis for determining liability to dumping duty. This value, in brief, is the fair market value of the goods when sold for home consumption in the country of export. The liability to dumping duty is incurred where the selling price to the importer in Canada is less than the fair market value in the country of export, as provided by this section. The extent to which the dumping duty may be imposed-and this is the application of it- is the difference between the value for duty purposes and the selling price to the importer in Canada, exclusive of all charges incurred on the goods after their shipment from the place whence shipment is made directly to Canada, but not exceeding fifty per cent ad valorem.
For a fuller understanding of the statutory basis of valuation of imported goods for ordinary and dumping purposes, and the circumstances rendering imported goods liable to dumping duty, the pertinent section of the Customs Act is section 35. Perhaps I might read it:
35. (1) Whenever any duty ad valorem is imposed on any goods imported into Canada, the value for duty shall be the fair market value of such or the like goods when sold for home consumption in the ordinary course of trade under fully competitive conditions, in like quantities and under comparable conditions of sale at the time when and place whence such goods were exported by the vendor abroad to the purchaser in Canada; or, except as otherwise provided in this act, the price at which the goods were sold by the vendor abroad to the purchaser in Canada, exclusive of

all charges thereon after their shipment from the place whence exported direct to Canada, whichever may be greater.
When valuation under that section is not ascertainable, valuation may be arrived at by another method under this statute. I read:
2.	When the fair market value of any goods is not ascertainable under subsection one, the value for duty of such goods shall be the nearest ascertainable equivalent of such value.
And when value is not ascertainable there is another alternative, such as in the case where like goods are not sold in the domestic market but are being produced exclusively for export. Valuation may be determined in that instance by two methods. The section continues:
3.	When neither the fair market value nor the equivalent of such value can be ascertained, the value for duty shall be the actual cost of production of similar goods at date of shipment to Canada, plus a reasonable addition for administration, selling cost and profit.
Or the value for duty shall not include the amount of any additional taxes, for instance, excise taxes and the like. It will be observed, Mr. Speaker, that valuation for duty purposes is predicated first on domestic market prices, or under subsection 3 on the cost of production in the country of export.
Section 6 of the Customs Tariff Act, which imposes dumping duty, reads in part as follows:
(1)	In the case of goods exported to Canada of a class or kind made or produced in Canada, if the export or actual selling price to an importer in Canada is less than the fair market value or the value for duty of the goods as determined under the provisions of the Customs Act, there shall, in addition to the duties otherwise established, be levied, collected and paid on such goods, on their importation into Canada, a special or dumping duty, equal to the difference between the said selling price of the goods for export and the said value for duty thereof . . .
That is, fifty per cent of the difference between the invoice price and the actual value of the goods. Then, subsection 2:
(2)	The special duty imposed by the preceding subsection shall in no case exceed fifty per cent ad valorem and the following goods shall be exempt from such duty:
(i) Goods of a class subject to duty under the Excise Act: *
(ii) Goods or classes of goods declared exempt by any order or regulation made by the governor in council.
(3)	Duties and taxes imposed in the country of export shall be disregarded in estimating the value for the purposes of said duty.
(4)	"Export price" or "selling price" in this section means the exporter's price for the goods, exclusive of all charges thereon after their shipment from the place whence exported direct to Canada.
Let me point out here that the provisions of section 35 of the Customs Act, which I have read, and section 6 of the Customs
The Address-Mr. McCann Tariff Act, are in conformity with the articles covering valuation for ordinary and dumping duty purposes in the general agreement on tariffs and trade, to which Canada, the United States, Great Britain, France, Czechoslovakia and other countries are all signatories.
The question as to the meaning of the word "fair" in the phrase "fair market value" which appears in section 35 (1) of the Customs Act, and section 6(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, has been considered. There is an understandable feeling that to be "fair" a "fair market value" should represent at least the cost of production of the goods with a reasonable addition for administrative expense, selling cost and profit. In the opinion of the Department of Justice, to whom this question was referred, a "fair market value" may bear no necessary relationship to production cost. A market value which is consistent, and not the result of temporary panic selling under extraordinary circumstances, may be a "fair market value" within the meaning of sections 35(1) and 6(1), although such value may be less than production cost. That is the opinion given by the Department of Justice.
It is a regular trade practice, both in the United States and in Canada, in respect to some seasonal goods, such as ladies' dresses, to reduce prices in the domestic market as the season advances, and they may be less than production cost. In the opinion of the Department of Justice, these low prices, when an ordinary trade practice and granted generally in the domestic market of the exporter, represent a "fair market value". A difficulty arises from the earlier season in the United States than in Canada due to the difference in climatic conditions. The reduced prices in the latter part of the season in the United States become generally effective in that market at a time and during the period in which the early season prices of Canadian produced goods would still obtain if not affected by competitive imports from United States sources.
There is special provision in section 43 of the Customs Act for the fixation of arbitrary values for duty purposes when authorized. Such values represent the value for ordinary duty purposes, and automatically involve liability to dumping duty. By this section, values may be established in respect to imported goods not entitled to entry under the British preferential tariff, where imports, while in accordance with the statutory values as provided by section 35, are under conditions such as to prejudicially or injuriously affect the interests of Canadian manufacturers or producers. Arbitrary values, however, are contrary to the valuation provisions of the

The Address-Mr. McCann general agreement on tariffs and trade, and may only be resorted to in respect to imports from signatory countries under the escape clause, article 19, of the agreement. This clause, however, also provides for withdrawal by signatory countries of a similar concession granted by them in respect to imports. So that if that method were used it would not be very long before there would be retaliatory methods, and perhaps in the long run we would lose.
I may say that in connection with the importation of goods both the importer and the exporter must take an affidavit, which is given to the department of customs and excise, that the goods are not sold below market value, and we require that in every case an invoice shall be signed by the vendor, and that it be produced covering the imported goods, bearing the following certificate of value:
That the said invoice also exhibits the fair market value of such or the like goods when sold for home consumption in the ordinary course of trade under fully competitive conditions, in like quantity and under comparable conditions of sale at the time and place of direct shipment to Canada, or the equivalent thereof, or where such fair market value is not determinable, the value shown is not less than the cost of production of similar goods at date of shipment to Canada, or the equivalent thereof, or where such fair market value is not determinable, the value shown is not less than the cost of production of similar goods at date of shipment to Canada plus a reasonable advance for administration, selling cost and profit, and that the said fair market value
(a)	is without any discount or deduction not shown and allowed and deducted on invoices covering sales for home consumption in the country of export in the usual and ordinary course of trade; and
(b)	is without any deduction on account of any subsidy or drawback of customs duty allowed by the government of any other country, or on account of any royalty actually payable thereon when sold for home consumption, but not payable when exported, or on account of the exportation thereof; or for any special consideration whatsoever-
Now, an affidavit almost similar to that is taken by the importer. It is in these words:
That the value for duty of the said goods as stated in this entry exhibits the fair market value of such or the like goods when sold for home consumption in the ordinary course of trade under fully competitive conditions, in like quantity and under comparable conditions of sale at the time and place of direct shipment to Canada, or the equivalent thereof; or if such fair market value is not determinable, the value shown in this entry is not less than the cost of production of similar goods at date of shipment to Canada, plus a reasonable advance for administration, selling cost and profit, and that the said fair market value (a) is without any discount or deduction not shown and allowed and deducted on invoices covering sales for home consumption in the country of export in the usual course of trade; and (b) is without any deduction on account of any subsidy

or drawback of customs duty allowed by the government of any other country, or on account of any royalty actually payable thereon, or payable thereon when sold for home consumption, but not payable when exported, or on account of the exportation thereof; or the amount of consideration or money value of any special arrangement between the exporter and the importer, or any persons interested therein, because of the exportation or intended exportation of such goods, or for any special consideration whatsoever; that if the value for duty of the said goods as stated in this entry is other than the value thereof as above specified such value for duty has, to the best of my knowledge and belief, been fixed and determined under the authority of the Customs Act at the value stated in said entry.
Now, we do collect dumping duties, where the law applies. Last year we collected $1,547,289. Those were special or dumping duties.


Frank Exton Lennard: On textiles?


James Joseph McCann: Yes, but I cannot give a break-down as to the particular articles against which these dumping duties were imposed. However, that is the figure with reference to the extra, special or dumping duties, as they are known.
I admit frankly that I do not know what the solution of the problem is. I do know, however, some of the alternatives. One of those alternatives would be to increase the tariff. Well, the general opinion among countries of the democratic world, as was shown at the Geneva meetings, has been that there should be a tendency toward freer trade. I believe we would be very unwise to take the position that we would have to give more protection to any industry in Canada at the present time.


Mr. Hees:: No one suggested that.


James Joseph McCann: I do not say the hon. member suggested it; I am only setting out the alternatives. Another alternative would be the matter of arbitrary valuation, whereby officials of the department would say arbitrarily what shall be the value of goods coming to this country.
In connection with ascertaining values I would point out that we have people in the United States, and in other countries, including Great Britain-and we used to have more than we have now-who are continuously giving us information with respect to fair market values in those countries. We receive the information through the trade sources we have in every country, and through our diplomatic service in those countries. Therefore we cannot be accused of not making an attempt to find out what fair market values are, and to apply duties where applicable. We cannot be accused of failure

to do everything we can to guard our own industry, consistently with the laws of our country.
I believe I have taken all the time I should take in dealing with this particular matter. I should like now for a few moments to deal with the taxation division of the Department of National Revenue.
Speaking in the house a few days ago the. hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), among what he chose to term the gripes he had-no, I believe he used the word "beefs"- said:
The next beef I have to deal with has to do with the taxation division, and particularly the taxation of farmers.
I do not know exactly the definition of the word "beef", but my own definition would be that it is a type of grievance about which a complainant has knowledge, but as to the accuracy of which he has not much confidence. However, last December when he was discussing this same matter the hon. member made the accusation that the administration of the Department of National Revenue has been playing politics, so far as the farmers are concerned. That accusation is entirely unfounded. I wish to refute it immediately; I do not think it does justice to the actual thoughts of the hon. member for Assiniboia.
As I said earlier, the hon. member took occasion to criticize the administration in connection with the taxation of farmers. As I said before, honest criticism is not resented, but when the hon. member gives his opinion that the administration is, to use his own words, "playing politics so far as farmers are concerned", the time has come for me to reply.
The first remark I have to make is to deny flatly this charge of political interference. In the seven or eight years I have been head of the department, I have prided myself that there was absolutely no political interference. My one aspiration was to do a complete and honest job, irrespective of politics. That, I submit, I have accomplished one hundred per -cent.
Each district office in the taxation division is charged with the responsibility of assessing and collecting the income tax arising within its area, and there is no understanding whatsoever, written or implied, that any class of taxpayer should be overlooked or in any way treated otherwise than as prescribed in the Income Tax Act. The taxation of farmers across Canada is absolutely free of any political bias. Anyone who has knowledge of the workings of our large departments of government will readily appreciate 55704-24
The Address-Mr. McCann this. The day-to-day administrative decisions must be made largely by or on the advice of officials who have no concern whatsoever with politics.
Judgment as to where to place the emphasis in collecting income taxes must almost invariably be exercised by these officials, because they alone have the required experience and knowledge. The officers who determine these matters in the taxation division are men in whom I have the utmost confidence-and I have been associated with them perhaps longer than any other minister who has been in the department over the years.
I believe that all hon. members who have had dealings with these officials will testify that this confidence is not misplaced. They are not infallible; they make mistakes, like the rest of us, but when they do they are honest mistakes. The government, as is its duty, keeps close watch on the administrative policies of the taxation division, but, I repeat, there has never been an instance to my knowledge in which these officials were instructed to discriminate either against or in favour of any class of taxpayer in any locality, for any reason. I can state positively that the same honest effort is being made to collect income taxes from farmers in the east as in the west. The fact that the amounts collected are smaller in some provinces than in others is due to circumstances other than any inclination either on the part of the government to play politics or on the part of the income tax officials to neglect their responsibilities.
Before going further, I should like to emphasize that the figures which have been quoted as the income tax paid by farmers represent only the taxes declared voluntarily. Substantial increases-in the aggregate for all classes of taxpayers they run to tens of millions of dollars each year-are obtained by the income tax assessors. Information regarding these increases is not compiled by the taxation division in a form which can be used to make detailed comparisons between the various types of taxpayers in different parts of Canada. Considering the fact that the annual income tax collections amount to thousands of millions, the increases obtained are not a large proportion of the total collections, and, for this reason, the published statistics are quite satisfactory for the purpose for which they are prepared. On the other hand, they do not properly reflect the administrative efficiency of the taxation division, and were never designed for this purpose.

The Address-Mr. McCann However it is not my purpose to quarrel with the various figures which have been presented, but rather to disagree emphatically with the conclusions which have been drawn from those figures. In the first place it must be appreciated that income tax is not calculated on the average income of a whole group in any locality but upon the actual income received by each individual taxpayer. No one can determine how many taxpayers of any type there are in any area, or how much tax they should pay as a group, except by ascertaining the net income of each individual in the group and applying the provisions of the Income Tax Act to the exact circumstances of each individual case.
Criticism based on averages can be very misleading. For example, by using authoritative average income and average exemption figures a case can be made that farmers in the east should pay no income tax at all and that farmers in the west should pay substantially more than they are now paying. I would not present such a proposition to the house because it is entirely ridiculous. I mention this observation merely to show how meaningless and misleading averages can become if they are used unwisely. Consequently I submit, if they are used, that the figures presented to the house on previous occasions properly prove only one fact, namely, that the aggregate of the income tax collections from farmers in the western provinces is substantially greater than that collected from the farmers in the eastern provinces.
I admit that immediately. This has been so for every year for which we have a record, going back as far as 1926. Even in the 1930's, with drought on the prairies and very low wheat prices, there was nevertheless more tax collected from prairie farmers than from all the rest of the farmers in Canada. It was not many years ago that certain segments of the public were criticizing the department because the taxes collected from farmers in the country as a whole were in their opinion too low and reflected partiality, or at least inefficiency, on the part of our administration. During the course of the past few years the affairs of the western farmers appear to have improved to the point where significant amounts of tax are now collected and accordingly the criticism has shifted to a comparison between the west and the east. The logical explanation would seem to be simply that farming in Quebec and the maritime provinces, with some exceptions, is not yet sufficiently prosperous to provide very much income tax revenue under the present levels of personal exemptions. Let me point out that even in the prairie provinces which most fMr McCann.]

people regard as predominantly agricultural -note this-fewer than one out of every five farmers are taxable and that the aggregate of taxes paid by persons other than farmers in the prairie provinces is more than five times that paid by farmers.
To use averages such as those set out on page 1541 of Hansard of December 3, 1951, in the speech of the hon. member for Assini-boia (Mr. Argue), to attempt to prove that a proportionately larger amount of the actual income tax due is being collected from western farmers than from eastern farmers, is erroneous. It may or may not be a fact that the taxation division is getting proportionately more of the tax actually payable from western farmers than from eastern farmers. I am not prepared to deny or to confirm this because I have not, nor has anyone else, sufficient information to prove the point one way or the other; but I do say very emphatically that these figures are of no real value when we are looking for an answer to this question.
Certain hon. members feel that we do not tax farmers in Quebec and Ontario with the same efficiency that we do out west. The fact is, however, that there are units of men specializing in the assessing of farmers' returns in the Montreal, Quebec and Sherbrooke offices just as there are in the prairie districts, and similar procedures are followed to find new taxpayers and to check the returns which are filed. The same holds true in Ontario. Let me cite some instances of what has been done.
During the past several years surveys have been made of the rural areas in all provinces of Canada, both in the east and in the west, to build up the tax rolls of farmers. These have generally involved the examination-I am disclosing some of the methods that we use-of municipal assessment records and the obtaining of information regarding specialized types such as tobacco and dairy farmers. For example, in the Montreal income tax district in 1946 such a survey was made which resulted in the issuance of 30,000 requests to farmers to provide information and the subsequent receipt of over 14,000 returns. The vast majority of these were determined to be non-taxable and the responsible officials did not consider at that time that large-scale investigation would prove effective in increasing the revenues. Similar surveys, but perhaps on a smaller scale, have been carried out on a more or less continuous basis in subsequent years in the Montreal and other income tax districts. The type of action taken has been varied between income tax districts in accordance

with the facts and circumstances, but it can be definitely stated that the same honest effort has been made to obtain income tax from the Quebec and Ontario farmers as from those in the prairie districts.
A staff of income tax assessors dealing exclusively with farmers has been maintained which is in relation to the expected revenues and the relative importance of farm activities from the income tax point of view in each locality. There are actually about eighty of these assessors in Ontario, which is more than in any other province, and this has been the situation for several years. The next largest staff of farm assessors is in Saskatchewan where there are about sixty. The staff of twenty odd in Quebec may seem small in comparison. Nevertheless a survey by departmental officials in 1950 of estimated staff requirements, which took account of all the available information regarding the possible revenue to be obtained from farmers and other relevant factors, did not recommend any substantial change or increase.
As in any department run on a businesslike basis, every effort is put forward to make the best possible use of the available manpower in our several income tax offices. Having regard to the potential tax dollars to be realized, the number of farm assessors in Ontario and Quebec is probably already high in relation to the number in western districts. The proportionately larger staffs are considered to be justified because the task of finding the comparatively few farmers who are actually taxable in an area such as Quebec is more difficult than in the west, and it is also more difficult to determine the actual income on which the tax should be based. These are the reasons. This is so because more of the business is done by cash in Quebec, the records maintained are usually inadequate, and the products sold are in great variety.
In the more prosperous farming areas in the west the number of products dealt in is generally smaller, the majority of sales are made in large amounts mainly at one season of the year, and records of many of these sales are readily available. Nevertheless a real effort has been made in all localities, and I assure you that this will continue. As indicated earlier, the rural areas are being continually surveyed in an effort to discover additional farmer-taxpayers. I can also state that very careful analyses of all internal and external statistics that bear on this subject are continually being carried out. If the results of further study indicate that the department would be justified in assigning additional personnel to examination of this class of return, you may be assured that the necessary steps will be taken.
The Address-Mr. McCann
Another instance may be cited of unfounded criticism based on general statistics. During the last session a member pointed out that there are many more farmers located in our Edmonton district than there are in the Calgary district but that the revenue from the farmers in the Calgary district was six times that obtained in Edmonton. The facts are that the taxing of farmers in both districts is carried out in exactly the same way and with equal efficiency but that the fewer farms in the Calgary district are larger and more prosperous, with the natural result that more revenue is obtained from the smaller number. These figures again illustrate the futility of attempting to reach conclusions from statistics alone regarding the amounts of tax which should be obtained from farmers in different areas where the circumstances are entirely different.
As I stated earlier, there is only one way to determine how many farmers should be paying income tax in any locality, and that is by definitely and accurately ascertaining the net taxable income of each individual farmer. On the other hand there are certain facts which were not taken into account in the figures presented to the house on the 3rd of December, 1951, which appear to explain a substantial part of the difference between income tax payments by farmers in the west and those in the east, particularly in the province of Quebec.
In the first place the occupied farm land and the average area per farm is substantially greater in the prairie provinces than in easterri Canada. For example, the province of Alberta alone has a greater area of occupied farm land than Quebec and Ontario combined. Furthermore the average size of farms in the prairie provinces is from two and one half to three and one half times as large as those in Ontario and points east. It is also a fact that the size of the farm family is so much larger in Quebec than for example in Saskatchewan that a farmer in Quebec will on the average have to earn almost $500 more each year before he will become subject to the same tax as a Saskatchewan farmer. To illustrate the significance of even this single factor it is pointed out that the aggregate taxes declared by Saskatchewan farmers in 1949 would have been reduced by about $1,500,000, if each of the 20,000 odd who made these declarations had been entitled to claim an exemption equivalent to that of the average Quebec farmer.
There are numerous other factors, such as the actual farm incomes, the expenses of operation, donation payments, the amount of supplementary income from investments and so on, medical expenses, the effect of special

The Address-Mr. Coldwell provisions in the law such as the averaging of income, which would have to be considered to get a proper and complete explanation for differences in income tax collections between different localities. It is virtually impossible to get together sufficient information to estimate the effect of each of these and the many other factors that go into the calculation of an income tax assessment. Sufficient has been said, however, to show the futility of jumping to conclusions on the basis of one or two factors only.
I have seen fit to put this explanation on record at this time, Mr. Speaker, with a view to clearing up some of the misunderstandings which I realize have existed with reference to both divisions of the Department of National Revenue.


Major James William Coldwell: Because I do not expect to be here most of tomorrow and Friday I am taking the opportunity this afternoon of participating in this debate because of a speech over the radio last evening by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). I am glad indeed that he is in his seat this afternoon; otherwise perhaps I would have hesitated to say what I am going to say.
First I want to thank the minister for sending me a copy of the speech he delivered. I was surprised at its content. Last Thursday when I criticized the Lisbon conference in this house I said I had no doubt my remarks would be misrepresented and misconstrued, but I did not think the Secretary of State for External Affairs would stoop to the deliberate smears in which he indulged last evening.
It has become apparent on this continent that constructive criticism made necessary by the demands of military leaders of NATO is invariably criticized as communist propaganda. I do not have to defend myself against the charge of communism. I have been an outspoken opponent of it all my life; but the inference that what I said the other evening and what was said by the national council of the C.C.F. was the Kremlin line is something the minister himself must know to be untrue. I want to say that I approved of the statement of the national council. Let no one think I was pushed into a corner by any members of our organization in approving of the statements that were issued in regard to international affairs. When the meeting was called I asked our national secretary to include international affairs on the agenda. I introduced the subject. I first made the criticisms that were included in the national council's statement; and I am going to say this afternoon that in regard to NATO at least the criticisms that were made were

justified and can be documented. Last evening the minister did not attempt to document any of his criticisms of our position.
After saying last evening that there is no danger of aggression from Russia, but that the Russians charged that we were trying to build up our strength in NATO as an aggressive military alliance-and I have disagreed with that-he said:
It is sad to see that the C.C.F. seem to be moving towards this position. The statement issued on Wednesday last by their national council charged that, and I quote, "NATO policies seem to have fallen completely under the control of the military." They found proof for this strange assertion in the fact that at Lisbon we decided on a program of 50 divisions for western Europe by the end of 1952 and 90 to 100 divisions, including Germany, by the end of 1954. These decisions the C.C.F. council described as "irresponsible and disastrous." That is exactly how the Kremlin would describe them. The C.C.F. then urges Canada to oppose vigorously the armaments goals set at Lisbon which they claim represent increases in the military program.
In fact, these goals do not represent increases but decreases over those that were set a year ago and which the C.C.F. approved.
Last Thursday evening I drew attention to an editorial in the London Times, a conservative or independent paper, whichever you care to call it, with an international reputation. That newspaper criticized the Lisbon statements in these words:
It is difficult to understand either the meaning or the purpose of the communique published by the council of the North Atlantic treaty in Lisbon. This states in words which seem almost to have been chosen for their ambiguity-they have no other virtue-that the member nations will provide this year "approximately fifty divisions in appropriate conditions of combat readiness." Only the most ingenuous will suppose that General Eisenhower will in fact have fifty divisions ready and able to fight in Europe by the end of the year. The exact figures are rightly secret, but the present force is generally believed to be rather less than half that number. Since no German divisions will be raised this year, since contributions from Greece and Turkey are not included in this total, and since France has been allowed to reduce her contribution from fourteen to twelve, it is not easy to see how this figure can be substantially increased. Certainly Britain is not going to send more divisions to Europe this year, and it would be surprising indeed if the United States were to fill the gap. The explanation probably is that the phrase "in appropriate conditions of combat readiness" is meant to include not only divisions fully trained and equipped for war but other divisions half-trained and half-equipped, reserve divisions like our own territorial units, and yet other divisions which so far exist only on paper. No doubt it is necessary to plan for such an expansion, but it is less obvious why it should be announced in this airy fashion.
Then it goes on:
Presumably the announcement was meant to impress someone; but it will not impress the Russians, who know very well the true state of affairs and who have the sense to realize that any real plans for real divisions would be kept secret. Indeed this imaginative total, with the still more

imaginative promise of 85 to 100 divisions in two years' time, seems to contain the maximum amount of provocation with the minimum amount of deterrent effect.
"The maximum amount of provocation." If that is what has been done, is that not irresponsible? And if the result is as the London Times has stated, won't it be disastrous? I used those two words, then, "irresponsible and disastrous". That is what the London Times says, not only what I say or what the C.C.F. says.
Now, it goes on to say this:
Perhaps it was meant to impress the European nations themselves, who will thus feel that something is being done on the grand scale to justify their effort and expense. Unfortunately, it is more likely to have the directly opposite effect of creating a sense of false security, and of glossing over weaknesses and omissions in the existing arrangements for defence.
Would not that be disastrous? Is that not irresponsible, to mislead the European nations to that extent?
Even if it is meant only to impress the American congress-and the whole communique has a very American ring-it may fail in its object for there is likely to be a sharp reaction when the American people realize that the fifty promised divisions do not really mean fifty divisions and that much money and effort will still be needed if Europe is to be made safe.
If that is the result of this statement, is that not going to be disastrous to the defence of the free world? Is it not irresponsible to mislead our great neighbours to the south as well as other people, to the extent that the Lisbon statement has misled them? I quote again from the article:
Part of the trouble is no doubt caused by a mistaken attempt to combine military security with political propaganda. The Atlantic community, it is felt, should behave in an open, democratic way.
There is nothing open, and nothing democratic in the manner in which this program has been undertaken.
To be effective, however, military planning, as the Americans are well aware when dealing with such matters as atomic energy, requires a measure of secrecy. To escape from this dilemma the Atlantic council has apparently hit on the device of a kind of mock publicity which pretends to tell everything while revealing nothing and boasts of divisions in nice round numbers of fifty or one hundred without giving away any vital information. It is a bad device because it effectively hides both the real progress that has been made and the weakness that must be made good. It also suggests that the planners, who as recently as November were talking quite happily of forty divisions in 1952, and who are now asking for fifty instead and for eighty-five or one hundred in 1954, do not really know what they want or what they need. Such erratic reckoning bears no evident relation to the real and calculable danger which has to be faced in Europe.
This ends the Times editorial.
To underline this statement, let me quote from some authoritative papers, but more
12, 1952
The Address-Mr. Coldwell briefly this time. What about the London Economist, one of the outstanding papers of its type in the world. In the issue of March 8, which has just been received by airmail, there is an article headed "Phantom Divisions". I may say that the Times editorial was headed "The Phantom Army". The Economist says:
The Atlantic council which assembled in Lisbon rashly allowed itself to say that some fifty divisions "in appropriate conditions of combat readiness" would be provided to defend western Europe in 1952.
As was pointed out on all hands, if combat readiness means the same as "ready to fight immediately" then the statement must be quite untrue and therefore inexcusable.
Irresponsible and disastrous, those are our words. The London Spectator of February 29, 1952, had this to say:
To talk of "fifty divisions in appropriate conditions of combat readiness" as the target to be reached by the end of this year is the most outstanding ambiguity. There is no pretense that the force which General Eisenhower or his successor will have under his command onj the continent of Europe by the end of 1952 will be anywhere near this figure.
Deceptive, irresponsible and if believed disastrous. I could quote from other papers, but I have chosen to quote from conservative papers instead of from a paper such as another I hold in my hand, the New Statesman and Nation.
Let us look more closely at the minister's statement. He stated that the new goals of fifty divisions in 1952 does not represent increases but decreases over those which were set a year ago, and which we of the C.C.F. approved in this house. First of all, let me say that I have never heard any mention of the number of divisions in this house or any support requested for any number of divisions. The New York Times on November 25 referred to the military targets for NATO in the following words:
Originally General Eisenhower was aiming at sixty or more divisions by 1954. The western big three still hope this target can be met; but they agree the emphasis in the next year should be on getting somewhere between twenty-six and thirty divisions in battle readiness. Presently SHAPE has the rough equivalent of twenty divisions but many of these divisions are raw recruits.
James Reston, the well-known correspondent of the New York Times, wrote on December 5, 1951, that General Eisenhower has implied that a situation of strength will exist in western Europe only if the western allies manage to have about sixty fully equipped divisions by July 1954, and about thirty of these available in 1952. To confirm that, last November the New York Times published a chart. I cannot put that chart on the record, of course, but what does it show? It shows that in February, 1951, General Eisenhower had seven NATO divisions in Europe. Then,

The Address-Mr. Coldwell that is in November, he had twenty-two divisions. The goal at the end of 1952 was twenty-eight divisions, and the goal by the end of 1954 was sixty divisions. All of a sudden we are told that we are to have fifty divisions this year and one hundred in 1954. The minister says there has not been any increase in the last year in the number of divisions planned, not any increase but a decrease. Well, I always thought that ninety was more than sixty. I always thought that fifty was more than twenty-eight.
Of those divisions in Europe, the maximum the United States will have there at the end of 1954, according to this chart, would be six. The remainder would be raised in Europe. The minister says there has not been an increase, but a decrease. What did NATO say? It issued a bulletin at the close of the Lisbon conference on February 24 of this year. Let me read paragraphs two and three from an original release dealing with the numbers:
By its resolution on the TCC report, the north Atlantic council agreed on specific policies and plans for building NATO defensive strength during the present year. NATO nations agreed to provide approximately fifty divisions in appropriate conditions of combat readiness and 4,000 operational aircraft in western Europe, as well as strong naval forces. It further provided a definite program for taking measures this year necessary to increase the defensive power of NATO in following years. This defensive force does not include the contributions of Greece and Turkey.
There was general agreement that this increase in defensive power will constitute an important increased deterrent against aggression. While not covered specifically by the council action at Lisbon, it was recognized that allied strategic air power is already a powerful deterrent to aggression and in the event of attack would be a most valuable addition to the defence of western Europe.
I understand the minister was chairman of the conference. How on earth he could go on the air last night and tell the people of Canada that the Lisbon agreement did not provide for an increase but, on the contrary, for a decrease, in the face of the statement of the organization itself, I do not know.


Mr. Pearson:: Mr. Speaker, possibly the hon. gentleman will allow me to clear up that point because I think he has, unwittingly, misrepresented what I said last night.


Major James William Coldwell: No.


Lester Bowles Pearson: He has quoted from a document issued by the conference of which I was chairman, which referred to an increase and which I stand by, because we did in that document and at our meetings increase our strength over what it is now. I was talking last night not of increasing our forces, because that was decided at Lisbon, but of increasing the goals agreed on last year, which is quite a different thing.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I have not been trained in diplomacy and probably I cannot talk in the manner in which the minister does. I am going to say that his words bear no other construction than the one which I have placed upon them. It is said that people use words to conceal thoughts. This must be an example of that practice; but it does not alter the fact that the smear last evening by the minister lowered him, I think, in the eyes of a good many people. Let me say this to the minister. I think perhaps he did it to say to a lot of people in this house: Shut up or you will be tarred with the same brush; because there are, sitting in this house this afternoon, men who have told me since I spoke on Thursday evening-and some of them are behind him at the present time- that they agreed with what I said last Thursday evening. Make no mistake about that. I presume that the minister may be worried because we had the courage to say on the floor of this house what a great many people were thinking and hesitated to say because they knew the kind of retorts to which they would be subjected if they did so. I took the chance, however, and I obtained the result that I expected, although 1 did not expect it from the minister.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I made no reference to your statement in my speech.


Major James William Coldwell: Oh, there was no reference to my statement? Well, never mind. That is pretty bad-no reference to my statement at all. But the statement which was issued by the national council was the statement that I said in the house last Friday that I was a party to and then had approved. On Thursday evening the statements I made in this house were entirely in line with the statement issued by the national council. So that excuse will not do at all.
The next thing I want to say is this. Apparently Dean Acheson did not have the view that the minister now says that he had. I have in my hand a verbatim copy-allegedly ait least-of Dean Acheson's radkntele-vision. address on February 29, when he returned from Lisbon, with regard to the matter we are now discussing. This is what he said, according to the New York Times of March 1:
The first thing we wanted to do at Lisbon was to reach agreement on a realistic plan for increasing NATO's military forces. The supreme command must be assured of the largest number of effective combat forces that can be developed this year, and we wanted to lay the groundwork for further increases . . .
Then he went on to say:
The estimates for 1952 were accepted as firm goals.

In the kind of world in which we live today, it is no good having goals unless you are going to reach them. The minister cannot get out of his difficulty in that way. The next thing was this. The minister says that what was done at Lisbon the C.C.F. members of this house-and other members too, of course-approved. What did we approve? At no time were any figures regarding NATO targets placed before this house. The estimates for Canada's contribution to NATO, the United Nations forces and for our own defence were placed before parliament on February 5 last year and were subsequently approved by the house, and we gave our approval to those estimates. I looked up the records last evening, carefully, after I had seen the minister's speech and I found that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) outlined the government's proposals. As reported in Hansard of February 5, 1951, at page 95, he said:
The role of Canada in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has now been determined in consultation with the other eleven nations. Canada intends to do everything necessary to carry out that role. The program put forward here includes everything necessary to do that.
That is the program of last year. Shorn of its details, the program envisaged Canada's obligations over the next three years. Those obligations involved an expenditure of approximately $5 billion. The Minister of National Defence said this:
To carry through these plans during the next three years the strengths of the three forces should be increased to about 115,000 full-time active service personnel and about 33,000 civilians.
That is what we voted for. That is what the house voted for. He also outlined the gifts that we had decided to make in equipment to European countries, and he said this:
This is a program, a large one for a country of 14 million people still involved in developing its natural resources and also facing the task of maintaining essential services over an area of 31 million square miles.
He placed the expenditure involved at over $5 billion. For this we voted, and the national council statement, which the minister criticized last evening, stated in its very first sentence "that we continue to support the North Atlantic Treaty Organization".


An hon. Member:: The McCarthy line.


Major James William Coldwell: What a slander! That slander went out over the air and was scattered widespread over the country.
May I digress for a moment, Mr Speaker. When I was in church last Sunday morning, I happened to pick up the leaflet in my seat. It told the story of a woman who had an uneasy conscience. She went to her spiritual adviser, told him that she had repeated gossip
The Address-Mr. Coldwell about her neighbours, and her spiritual adviser said: "Go to the market and get a freshly killed chicken. Walk away with it, and as you walk away, pluck it. When you have taken all the feathers off, come back to me." She came back and she said: "I have done what you told me to do; I have done my penance." She was then told: "Now, go back again and pick up the feathers". She said: "I can't. They are scattered to the winds. They are gone beyond recall." That is exactly what has happened with the kind of smear and slander that was put out over the air in this country last night by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). You cannot gather up the feathers. You cannot recall the slanders. They are there, and there are people who will repeat them and believe them because they want to believe them. So when we say in the very first words that we continue our support of NATO, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, this question: Does that appear that we are moving in the direction of the communist position? Obviously the minister's style last night was that of Senator McCarthy in the United States where already thousands of people are afraid to express an honest opinion because they may be characterized as subversive, communist, enemy of the state or what you will. The C.C.F. statement suggested that the armament goal set at Lisbon, for, as the London Times said, the military agreements, contain "the maximum amount of provocation with the minimum amount of deterrent effect." That is not my statement. That is the statement of the London Times, agreed to by the Economist and endorsed by the Spectator, and by other papers that have taken the trouble to go into this matter.
What did we urge? We urged what we have always urged from the beginning-and we supported this at the outset. We urged that a substantial proportion of the total sums involved in NATO goals should be diverted from crippling and excessive military preparedness to necessary rebuilding in Europe and elsewhere. I want to say to the minister and to the house that you cannot build defence when there is economic disease in Europe or anywhere else. We said that because we believe and believe honestly-and we are entitled to these opinions-that the policy outlined at Lisbon jeopardizes the peaceful and defensive objectives which brought the organization into being. Does that sound like a communist line?
Even before the Rome and Lisbon meetings, almost every responsible statesman in Europe had warned against overexpansion of military commitments. Mr. van Zeeland, when he was in this city of Ottawa in September of

The Address-Mr. Coldwell last year, here in this very chamber as chairman of the NATO meeting, spoke of a major menacing factor within the treaty organization. What factor did he say? The financial-economic pressures set up within member nations because of the armament program. This was echoed by the former chancellor of the exchequer of Great Britain, Mr. Hugh Gaitskell, by numerous statesmen in France where even today they have no government that can possibly remain in power more than a few hours. A significant statement was made by Mr. Churchill when he criticized Aneurin Bevan who, may I add, opposed the armament program in Britain last year. We supported Canada's program. But Mr. Churchill said that Mr. Bevan had been right for the wrong reasons. And last week, as I quoted last Thursday evening, Mr. Churchill said in the House of Commons that Britain could not fulfil the former three-year program in three years. She would need at least four. And yet, how many divisions are the United States to have in Europe by 1954? Six. Where are the others to come from? From Germany? Greece and Turkey of course are excluded under the Lisbon statement. Let me say this to the minister. Does he think that, when be used the word "disastrous" in his statement regarding our attitude on NATO and linking it with communism, it would not be disastrous if Germany was rearmed before she is integrated with the west? Would not that be disastrous? Should not integration come first? And yet the NATO people at Lisbon, were preparing to rearm Germany before any agreement regarding integration had been reached.
And should de Gaulle come to power in France, in view of the difficulties there, what then? And whenever the economic difficulties increase in France de Gaulle is that much nearer his objective of power. We all know that as far as the sterling area is concerned, that great group of nations comprising the United Kingdom and members of the British commonwealth-except Canada-and the Scandinavian countries were in the position where their economies were tottering last winter. The Netherlands is in a worse condition than some of the other western European countries.
From time to time the minister has spoken about the necessity for economic aid; but I cannot find where very much has yet been done regarding economic aid for the depressed peoples of the world. That is the only way in which we shall have a defence against communism.
In view of this, our strong words are warranted, and they were strong words in the statement and in what I said last Thursday


evening. I ask, were we not right in saying that the announcements made from Lisbon were, not in our opinion but in the opinion of these great newspapers that I have quoted as well, irresponsible, and may even become disastrous in the light of the economic situation that is developing in Europe?
I want to repeat what I said in effect the other evening. It is not we who are playing into the hands of the Kremlin, but those who are demanding more sacrifices from the overburdened, the harassed people of western Europe, who are all in danger of economic collapse, the collapse for which the Kremlin is waiting, because it believes that nation after nation may fall into its lap like ripe plums from an over-laden tree.
The minister stated that our statement was inaccurate in its facts and unfair and misleading in its conclusions. I think I have quoted sufficiently the relevant facts and conclusions, and I challenge the minister and anyone else to prove that they are inaccurate, unfair or misleading. Again I want to say that to endeavour to stifle honest, well documented criticism of any policy by smears, as in this instance, by gross inaccuracies as well, serves no useful purpose in this time of difficulty in which we live.
I have dealt only with these criticisms that the minister made in regard to the inaccuracy and the irresponsibility and the disaster the minister claimed was inherent in our statements. I could have gone into the matter of the vast expenditure proposed of $300 billion, and I shall probably do so when we are discussing NATO on a future occasion. I could have analysed that and shown how, if it is impossible for the European nations particularly to carry the burden today which, added up together in their budgets and including United States budget, amounts to about $212 billion, when you put another $100 billion on that you will see what will happen. United States congress is saying that they have to pare the budget this year. Are we prepared to vastly increase our expenditures? I would be prepared and my party would be prepared to support additional appropriations for economic aid so that the peoples of Europe and Asia could be weaned away from communist propaganda by the only manner in which they can be weaned away, namely, by improving their standard of living. That is all I have to say this afternoon, but, as the minister will understand, I deeply resent the slanders that went over the air last night from the mouth of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson).


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinlon):: Mr. Speaker, it is in no perfunctory sense that I extend to the mover (Mr. George) and the seconder (Mr. Gauthier, Lake St. John) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne my very sincere congratulations. And I should like as well to tender congratulations to the newest member of the house, the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Nickle), who, in his maiden speech in the house last Thursday night, made what I consider a very constructive and illuminating contribution to the knowledge of the house and to the quality of its debates.
This speech from the throne is likely to challenge competition with all others in the fact that it contains so little. It is the thinnest kind of throne speech one could well imagine for times like these. The great issues that should concern parliament and do concern the Canadian public today are not to be found within the scope of that speech. They lie outside it.
Those great issues today are the issues of overtaxation, inflation, the high cost of living and associated questions. We look in vain through this throne speech for any indication that the government is conscious of the need for taking prompt and effectual measures to cope with the difficulties created for the Canadian people by these policies of the governmen:.
Sir, the business of the house at this early stage of the session is, I think, deserving of comment. At the last session we had a committee to study the rules of the house. That committee laboured at least long and arduously and brought in a report at the end of the session recommending that the house should adopt permanently, by way of amendment of the rules, the hours of sitting which had been in vogue on an experimental basis during the fall session. It made other recommendations as well. Sir, I hope that the recommendations concerning the hours of sitting will not be overlooked at this session, and that the experiment which proved beneficial last year will be continued and made to operate under the rules of the house.
I urge again, as I have on other occasions, that the time of this house be conserved so far as possible by the use of committees of the house to undertake the detailed work of the session. There are two measures proposed in the speech from the throne this year, namely a revision of the Criminal Code and a revision of the Immigration Act, which it seems to me are matters eminently suitable for review in special or select committees of the house. I do urge again, as did my leader last Thursday, that every effort be made to facilitate the work of the house.
12.	1952
The Address-Mr. Fleming It can be done, with general approval on the part of all members, so as to avoid much of the overlapping that has existed in times past in the course of debate.
There is one aspect of the subject to which my leader referred in his speech last Thursday on which, for some reason or another, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) made no comment. When the leader of the opposition urged that there should be no thought given to a repetition of any fall session in this year 1952, such as we had last year, no comment was made in reply. Why the Prime Minister did not see fit to give the kind of assurance that ought to be given on that subject, I shall continue to wonder. But I do wish to echo what the leader of the opposition said, that this parliament cannot expect to maintain the respect of the people of Canada and at the same time cotntemplate a fall session this year. The business outlined in the speech from the throne does not warrant it. If the business of the house is organized so as to be carried out effectively, there will be no occasion whatsoever for putting the taxpayers of this country to the expense of a second session of parliament this year.
There were one or two observations by the Prime Minister in his contribution to the debate on March 8 that, I think, fell on our ears with a measure of surprise. In replying to the argument of the leader of the opposition that a duty rests upon private members, regardless of party, as well as upon members of the opposition, to scrutinize what the government does or proposes in the house, the Prime Minister said., as reported at page 170 of Hansard:
I have no quarrel with him-
He was referring to the leader of the opposition.
-for his suggestion that it is also the duty of the opposition, and even of all members of parliament, freely to express their minds about the propriety or impropriety of the administrative acts that it is the duty and responsibility of the government, under the constitution, to have carried out in the name of the sovereign.
Fair words, Mr. Speaker-fair words, indeed! They sound almost like an invitation to government supporters in the house to speak and think independently. But, in case we were likely to be impressed unduly by fair words such as these, we had only to look across at the treasury benches and see there, at that very moment, sitting cheek by jowl with the Prime Minister, that member of the government who last year, in very contemptuous tones, said, in this house to members of the opposition, "If we wanted to get away with it, who would stop us?"

The Address-Mr. Fleming And we have had so many and such abundant proofs that the true attitude of the government toward the house is reflected, not in those fair words of the Prime Minister last Thursday, but in that studied and contemptuous attitude taken toward the house by the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) on that occasion-yes, and on many others, as well!
However, there is a note of warning here for private members who have hitherto given their political support to the government, because the Prime Minister on this occasion did not choose to accept on behalf of the government the full blame, for blame it is, for the way in which the plundering financial policies of this government have been working a hardship upon the taxpayers of this country.
On that occasion he sought to share the responsibility for this unhappy and calamitous result with the private members supporting him in the house. He indicated even that it is their responsibility. Well, we of the official opposition have been saying that for some time, that those Liberal members in the house who, by their acquiescence, their timidity and their silence have permitted the government to impose upon the people of Canada those heavy and extortionate levies, must share with the government that heavy responsibility before the bar of history.
I recently turned up a verse of Shelley written over a century ago, but which could well have been written in the lifetime of this parliament to describe the way in which some members of the house, by their acquiescent attitude, have permitted themselves to be subjugated by the government. This is the verse:
Power, like a desolating pestilence,
Pollutes whate'er it touches; and obedience, Bane of all genius, virtue, freedom, truth, Makes slaves of men, and, of the human frame, A mechanized automaton.
The time has come in this House of Commons for the government to address itself to some very serious issues, and to pay a 'little less attention to its present concern for filling positions and dispensing patronage. On that subject alone I think the house would be interested to know what some Liberals in Toronto had to say not long ago about the way in which the government has consistently overlooked -the claims of the fair sex to appointments. This is a report from the Globe and Mail of Monday, February 25, concerning a meeting of the Ontario Women's Liberal Association. It reads as follows:
A charge that the government has consistently failed to accord recognition to women active in the Liberal party in conferring honours and making appointments was made Saturday by Mrs. Angus 
Gordon, convener of the political educational committee of the Ontario Women's Liberal Association at a meeting of the executive here. Mrs. Gordon said this was in the main the reason the association has difficulty in directing younger women into its membership. "We have in the ranks of Liberal women across Canada many outstanding women both willing and able to fill appointments to national and international boards", she said. She called upon Liberal women "to stand together and demand recognition of the work they have done and no longer show a willingness to be hewers of wood and drawers of water in political work."
One can admire at least the independence and the outspoken comments that fell from the lips of that distinguished lady. Is it too late, Mr. Speaker, to hope that something of that type of independence of approach may yet be expected on the part of some private members of the house who give their political support to the government?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: They treat women as savages.


Donald Methuen Fleming: "Hewers of wood and drawers of' water" was the expression, and perhaps it points to the fact that this government, in that respect as in so many others, is away behind the times.
We heard the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) announce last Thursday that on April 8 he will introduce his budget. I do not make bold to suggest the kind of budget the Minister of Finance ought to introduce in the house on that occasion. The minister has shown many times that he is not interested in suggestions of that kind coming from the opposition. But I am going to have some observations to make on this important subject today, and I do so without being deterred in the least by the very touchy attitude displayed by the Minister of Finance of late in the face of criticisms that are being levelled against the results of his policies.
It would better behoove the Minister of Finance, instead of being so critical of those who have criticisms to make, to address his efforts to removing the causes of outraged feelings on the part of many Canadian taxpayers whose businesses he is busily smothering under his arbitrary impositions. There is a very good test of freedom of expression offered here today. It appears from the remarks that the Minister of Finance made last Friday that he is seeking to discredit those in this country, and they are legion in number, who are criticizing his policies. I do not think the house is likely to see for a long time any more convincing demonstration of irresponsibility on the part of a minister of the crown than that offered to us last Friday by the Minister of Finance when he read in the house a letter written by an individual undertaking to condemn a certain

corporation, and said at the same time that he took no responsibility for the contents of the letter. Apparently he had not made the slightest investigation to determine whether the contents of the letter were true or false. He put it on the record anyway, and gave the most widespread publicity to something for which he himself admitted he was not prepared to take any responsibility. To my way of thinking that is proof abundant of utter irresponsibility.
What kind of budget should Canada be given this year? It should be a budget that will give the Canadian people needed reduction of taxation, that will relieve them from discriminatory fiscal burdens, and will eliminate waste and extravagance. The Prime Minister apparently sought to discourage criticism in the house on this subject by attempting on March 6 to sound the death knell of the hopes of so many Canadians who are burdened so heavily by the government's taxation imposts. At page 173 of Hansard he is recorded as having said:
But so long as the world situation continues as it is. I cannot hold out any hope to the Canadian people of any substantial reduction in the scale of the rate of taxation in this country.
The people of this country are not going to be satisfied to be pushed aside with remarks of that kind. Those of us who do not allow ourselves to have short memories with regard to this government's attitudes will, of course, treat this as equivalent to an announcement that there will not be a general election this year, and in the light of what happened in this country and in the house in the spring of 1949 will also be equally confident that regardless of what may develop in the world situation between now and then we will be told in the house on the eve of the dissolution of parliament that the world situation has improved, that the buoyant revenues available so fill the coffers of the government that sweeping reductions in taxation are at last possible, and that those reductions in taxes will then-not now- be a good thing for Canada. That is a little prediction in which I am bold enough to indulge today.


An hon. Member:: We have heard that before.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You will hear it next year in the house from the Minister of Finance, mark my words, and I hope you will take due note of what is said today in the light of what is going to be said then.


An hon. Member:: Whether or not there is an election we will hear it.
The Address-Mr. Fleming


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member apparently thinks there is going to be a reduction in taxes next year whether or not there is an election. I can tell him that the policy of this government is to soak the people until the eve of an election and then make good fellows of themselves by handing back to the people the money they have been taking from them by way of taxes.


Mr. Sinnotl:: That is nonsense.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is history. If it is nonsense it is nonsense that has been created in the form of history by this government.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Look back over the last four years.


Mr. Fraser:: This government carried out that nonsense.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The nonsense is in the policy of the government and in the submissive attitude of those in the house who give their support to the government's policies.


An hon. Member:: Including the hon.
member for Springfield (Mr. Sinnott).


Donald Methuen Fleming: Let us not have any more talk from the government about the impossibility of making reductions in the burden of taxation. Only yesterday the chancellor of the exchequer in the parliament at Westminster, in a country that is faced with infinitely more serious problems than we are and with a far more difficult financial picture facing the chancellor of the exchequer than faces our Minister of Finance, found it possible to bring relief to the taxpayers of Great Britain in the form of substantial reductions in income tax. There is an example for the Minister of Finance.
On the subject of credit restrictions I wish to say that I do not think anybody ever deluded himself that if fiscal measures of that kind were applied they would not hurt somebody in some degree; but look at the way the government went about the application of fiscal measures of this kind! Without applying them at an earlier stage and doing it in a reasonable way they waited, and when they did decide to act they acted harshly, suddenly and in a very discriminatory way. The discrimination is shown by the way in which these credit restrictions have singled out certain industries as particular victims for these policies of the government, the motor car industry, the leather goods industry, the tobacco industry, the electrical goods industry. These measures have not been uniform in their application. They have been grossly and cruelly discriminatory. We were told at the time that these policies, which were going to have the effect of reducing

The Address-Mr. Fleming the demand for materials for civilian production, were going to be so beautifully dovetailed with the government's policies with respect to rearmament. But what have we seen? Dovetailing? They simply have not had any relation to one another, and these industries and their employees have suffered harsh and discriminatory treatment on the part of the government.
When the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) suggested, as he did in this house two days ago in a flight into the realm of sheer fiction, that what is going on out in British Columbia, where certain retailers of electrical goods are offering people credit of $150 for a cup and saucer, is the result of legislation passed by this house last December in regard to resale price maintenance, how absurd it was! If he would get down and examine the facts, if he would use his talents in that way instead of making these windy speeches in the house, he would soon find out that what is being done out there as well as elsewhere in Canada is an attempt to meet these heavy and burdensome credit restrictions which the government has imposed. I hope the people of Canada will realize that they were not imposed by direct parliamentary enactment, but by order in council. Parliament has simply been informed after the fact.
In the meantime, following the same kind of government policies, we see unemployment mounting throughout the country, the direct and inevitable result of this floundering government policy. In my own city at the last report the registered unemployed totalled over 31,000, and the situation is relatively equally bad in many other urban municipalities. How this government can manifest such utter indifference to that situation I am sure will defy all comprehension! The answer given people who are going hungry today, and who are lining up at hostels, is "Oh, well, your problem is only seasonal. You are the victims of seasonal unemployment", as if to be told that is a substitute for food in their stomachs or decent beds at night.
Last week, commenting on this subject in this house, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) said they were receiving unemployment insurance. Well, by this time it should be fully understood by the minister, should it not, that unemployment insurance has been very slow in being paid. In Toronto the delays have been from two to five weeks in the processing of claims. I venture to say you will not find anywhere a better example of governmental incompetence than those delays which are imposing great hardship on people in this country who are entitled to better treatment. It is not their fault they are unemployed. He

gives twice who gives quickly; and those who are entitled to unemployment insurance should not be compelled to wait these long periods of time. It must be clearly understood also that the scale of unemployment insurance is not adequate for those who are breadwinners with larger families.
On that occasion I asked the minister about those unemployed who come into the cities in times like these. We used to call them transients, though that is not an accurate term. They come to the cities because they think there is work; they hear about so-called defence contracts, and naturally come to the industrial centres. I asked the minister what he was going to do about those people. With the most surprised and amazed look he turned to me and gave a reply to the effect that he was not prepared to make a statement on that matter at that time. That was last Thursday; we have not had the statement yet. In the meantime, because of the failure of the government's credit restrictions and taxation policies to mesh in with their policies of defence production, the government is simply throwing upon the municipalities the burden of meeting the needs of those unemployed; and that is not good enough. Apparently the government has no policy with respect to the employable unemployed. I say to you, sir, it is high time they had one, instead of leaving this burden to bear upon the already overburdened property owners in the municipalities.
Now I wish to make a comment on the subject of expenditure. Let it be clearly understood that this budget surplus of $721 million at the end of the ninth month of this fiscal year is not attributable to retrenchment or thrift on the part of the government. There has been no retrenchment; there has been no thrift on the part of the government. Even on non-defence expenditures the government has been spending on a bigger scale than ever before. You remember that dramatic moment last April while the minister was delivering his budget speech, when he came to announce that little $35 million reduction in estimated non-defence expenditures for this fiscal year as compared with last year. With almost a catch in his voice he turned around to thank his colleagues on the treasury benches for the way they had been sitting up at night working so hard to pare down expenditure, as though they had been digging their knives into these estimates until the blood ran. Well, it was a heroic moment. But what do we find? Far from that little reduction of $35 million in non-defence expenditures, which you will remember was less than one per cent of the total budget of $3,700 million, the minister has had to

announce figures showing that in the first nine months of this fiscal year non-defence expenditures were actually $37 million more than in the first nine months of the previous fiscal year. It is in view of such facts that the Canadian Chamber of Commerce recently said, in a brief submitted to the Minister of Finance:
The federal budget is now so large and the tax burden so onerous that higher taxes enter our costs of production more quickly than under less stringent circumstances and are reflected in higher prices. Thus at a high level of taxation the stabilizing influence of a balanced budget tends to weaken and become less effective. The chamber therefore feels that a searching examination of government expenditures in all departments should be made: economy in government is as essential to the economic health of the country as economy in business is to the health of business.
As between the so-called two old parties differences of approach as far apart as the poles have become crystal clear in connection with this question of taxation and its function in our economic and political system. You will find the theory of the government in the speech the other day by the Prime Minister, as you will find it in many other speeches from the government side. Referring to the fact that in the first nine months of this year each family in Canada paid in taxation $250 more than was required to meet the legitimate expenses of government, the Prime Minister said at page 172 of Hansard:
And if the amount of commodities had remained what it was and there had been $250 more purchasing power for every family of five-well, in my simple logic I would come to the conclusion that that would have added to the inflationary pressure instead of the fact of its having been withdrawn as purchasing power adding to the inflationary pressure.
There you have it. The theory of the government is that they are conferring a favour upon the people by relieving them of this burden of surplus purchasing power. They say they are doing a good thing for the people, that they are managing the economy, and therefore they soak the people and at the same time say it is a good thing for them.
The approach of the Progressive Conservative party to this question of taxation is poles apart from that sort of approach. We say that taxation should be designed to meet the legitimate expenses of government. As for debt reduction, we say it should be budgeted for, that we should plan to retire debt in a systematic way. But we say the people are best able to manage their own affairs; and we lack no evidence that the people of this country are much more economical in the management of their own funds than is the government in the management of the funds
The Address-Mr. Fleming of the people. Let me quote very briefly what was said by the Montreal Star of February 20 on this subject:
The traditional principle of public finance is that a government should carefully estimate its expenditures and then take from the taxpayers only what it needs to carry on for the next twelve months. The money is our money, not the government's money, and no government has the right to take a nickle more than it needs to provide the services which parliament has agreed are necessary.
We in the official opposition know, even if the government does not, how this heavy taxation is hurting the people.
The government is also busy explaining the subject of the budgetary surplus. The government is busy trying to make a virtue today out of a non-budgeted, adventitious surplus, although the government was not prepared a year ago to practise the same virtue, because the budget surplus estimated last year was a mere $30 million. There was no lip service given then by the hon. gentleman opposite to the virtues of a big budget surplus, and the public I am sure is not going to be overwhelmed by all the nonsense that is being talked today by the government about the value of this surplus when they did not think enough of the subject last year to aim for one. We see today that in nine months this budget surplus has amounted to $721 million. In other words, the Minister of Finance made an error to the tune of 2,300 per cent in his calculations of the surplus, and we are not through with the year yet. In the face of that fact the government is today cheekily trying to make a parade of the fruits of this gross and colossal blunder.
We of the Progressive Conservative party have an entirely different view of the budget surplus. We want to see careful, accurate budgeting. We demand an end of this loose guesswork on the part of the Minister of Finance. We want to see the budget balanced with some reasonable provision for a budgeted plan of debt reduction, but we do not want any of these adventitious surpluses to tempt the spending appetite of this government. In the midst of warnings from the treasury benches that the government surplus may be less by the end of the year, I simply add that apparently the government are already devising ways and means of relieving themselves of what may be an embarrassingly heavy surplus by planning more expenditures. That is what they did a year ago. At that time they saw that the budget surplus was going to amount to something like eighteen times what they had estimated. They got busy and found ways in the dying moments of the fiscal year to spend $150 million in order to get that surplus down to ten times what the minister had estimated.

The Address-Mr. Fleming
I ask, sir, where are the January figures? It is the practice to issue those figures of revenue receipts and expenditures in the Canada Gazette on or about the 20th of the month following. We have not seen those figures that were due around February 20. We are now into March, so where are the figures for the tenth month of the fiscal year?
How did this budget surplus come about? It came about, first, by grossly, unforgivably and misleadingly inaccurate budgeting; second, by punishing rates of taxation; third, by utterly unnecessary increases in taxation last year. At that time, Mr. Speaker, we of the official oposition warned the Minister of Finance that his increases were quite unnecessary to meet the additional costs of our rearmament. In business a surplus is regarded as something of an accomplishment, because it is usually the result of prudent management. But it is not so in government. The surplus in this case is the result of the government having taken more out of the pockets of the people than they needed to meet the legitimate expenses of government. I recall, sir, a statement made by one of the great chancellors of the exchequer, a man who was known as the iron chancellor, Philip Snowden. In one memorable speech he said that any government that takes so much as a sixpence from the people more than it has budgeted to take from them is taking money under false pretences. What will you say then, sir, of a government that has already, in nine months, taken twenty-three times more from the pockets of the people than they budgeted for by way of surplus?
Then we have the hon. member for Coast-Capilano making a speech here two days ago with great enthusiasm. He praised the virtues of this adventitious surplus and decried the efforts of everyone on this side of the house to bring a little realism into the fiscal policies of this government. All the way through he talked about "we"; "we" did this and "we" did that. It was rather strange to hear such talk from him. I was not clear whether he was using the royal or the editorial "we". I am not forgetful of the fact that the hon. member has been in favour in government circles for only the last couple of years. Those of us who were in the last house will remember the same hon. member was made to pay the price for showing a little independence in his expression of views back about 1942. If ever a member was snubbed by the government, it was the member for Coast-Capilano. He was living proof to the Liberal supporters of this government that they had better keep in line. But now, somehow or 
other, since he has been taken back into the fold, he feels he must display all the zeal of the convert.
He made some extraordinary statements which you will find on page 269 of Hansard, and I take a moment to deal with those. He said:
However, when R. B. Bennett was minister of finance he was always out too.
You see he was admitting that his own minister was out in his calculations.
In 1931 he was out not eight per cent but seventeen per cent in his estimate of revenue; and not up, but down. The next year he was exactly the same; he was seventeen per cent down, and had a big deficit.
Mr. Speaker, the facts are very different. In 1931 the government of the day, which had come into office in the previous late summer, was obliged to carry on with the budget brought in by the Mackenzie King government in the spring of 1930. That was the budget that governed the country in the fiscal year 1930-31. It would interest you no doubt, Mr. Speaker, to know that in that famous May-day budget of Mr. Dunning's there was not a word said about an estimate of revenue. It is a most extraordinary budget speech, and I recommend that hon. gentlemen go back and read it. The minister went through his whole budget speech without ever giving the house or the country an estimate of revenues. You will find that mentioned in a speech made by Mr. Bennett on page 1811 of Hansard for May 6, 1930.
The following year Mr. Bennett did bring in a budget, and it is true that he estimated revenues of $403 million, and the revenue, in a situation that no one could have foreseen at that time with the development of a depression, dropped to $335 million. The difference was $68 million for the year. Today this government runs up an error in their estimates creating a surplus of $68 million in just three weeks. Yet, here is the member for Coast-Capilano, a member who supports a government that is running up a budget surplus of $80 million a month, complaining that Mr. Bennett, in the face of an unprecedented situation, was out $68 million in a whole year! It is true that in the following year, when Mr. Rhodes, not Mr. Bennett, was minister of finance, and in the face of a situation that this country shared with all the countries in the world, there was a disappointment of $62 million in estimating the revenues. This amounts to less than the miscalculations of this government amount to in three weeks, and in the face of the plainest of warnings. Enough, however, of this expedition of the parliamentary assistant into the realm of fancy!

I am obliged to bring my remarks to a quick conclusion. This policy of high taxation has deliberately created high prices. Look at what is happening today in our indirect taxes. Prices are so much higher on many commodities than in the United States simply because of our heavy load of indirect taxation, which the United States wisely does not attempt to emulate.
We have smuggling going on at the border as a result, as well.
As the result of increases in direct taxes, here we have the Bell Telephone Company of Canada applying for and obtaining vast increases in rates. Why? Principally because the Minister of Finance has heaped up the taxes upon them. We are facing the same thing in the city of Toronto; we are facing a proposed increase in the rates of the Consumers' Gas Company. The country is faced with increased railway freight rates. Why? Because this government insists upon heaping up the burden of taxation, direct and indirect. We warned them last year these consequences would follow.
I say that the time has come-and this is my final word, Mr. Speaker-when this government should be told to let the people handle their own money. We want to develop the resources of this country. We have to have capital. That capital must come from the savings of the people and from profits. We must have that kind of capital. We must have savings. We cannot have them if the government is going to go on fleecing the people of this country by gouging them with these heavy taxes. We are depending today far too heavily on foreign capital for the development of these resources. We want to see more Canadian capital going into the development of our own Canadian resources. We must have increased savings. We must have increased earnings in Canada. We cannot have those as long as the weight of federal taxation in this country is so seriously retarding Canadian enterprise.


Mr. A. W. Siuari (Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to congratulate the mover (Mr. George) and the seconder (Mr. Gauthier, Lake St. John) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. At the opening of parliament I feel that our member from New Brunswick did a fine job, and that the hon. member for Lake St. John is a credit to his constituency for the effort he put forth in the house that day.
In the remarks that I will make this afternoon, in no way do I wish to leave the impression in this house that they are critical of the assistance given to the agricultural
The Address-Mr. A. W. Stuart industry in Canada. As I have stated before in this house, the wealth of any country can come from three sources only, namely from land, from sea and from forests. The living conditions in any country are based upon the prosperity of these primary producers. I endorse the government's action in the consideration and the financial assistance which they have given and are still giving the agricultural industry. My criticism is that other primary producers are denied the same generous treatment.
At this time my remarks will be, to a great extent, in connection with the fishing industry; and at this point I want to say that I believe the hon. member for Digby-Yarmouth (Mr. Kirk) and the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey), in the remarks which they made yesterday, would have the support of all the fishermen in the maritime provinces, and they are to be congratulated on the effort they made.
I shall endeavour to present facts in the time at my disposal and to give credit where credit is due. Of the Department of Public Works I want to say that they have provided wharves and breakwaters to protect the fishing fleets of many of the communities where fishing is carried on extensively. I can assure that department that the fishermen are exceedingly grateful. The Department of Transport have provided buoys, lights, whistles and other aids to navigation for which, again I may say, the fishermen are extremely grateful. Some assistance has been given to encourage the building of cold storage facilities. In a small way this assistance has been of help to certain parts of the maritime provinces. At this point, however, I should like to put on the record some of the assistance which the agricultural industry is receiving and has received for many years. I am doing this in order that I may make comparisons as between the agricultural industry and the fishing industry. The record that I shall quote from for the next few minutes is called "Agricultural Assistance, War and Post-War" published by the Department of Agriculture. It is up to date. The latest changes have been registered in this book. I should now like to place on the record a list or table of the different subsidies and the different ways in which assistance is given to the agricultural industry; and I am reading from the table of contents of this publication.
Feeds; freight assistance policy; feed assistance; coarse grains; drawback payments; processing feeds; sugar beet pulp.
Fertilizer and lime.
Dairy products: Fluid and concentrated milk, butter and cheese; cheese export; cheese premium and factory subsidy.

The Address-Mr. A. W. Stuart
Livestock and livestock products: hog premiums; hog freight assistance; hog breeding; bacon export; freight assistance on feeder cattle and lambs; sheep raising, wool, egg export.
Fruits and vegetables: apples; berries for jam; vegetable canning crops; potatoes, potato storage warehouse construction; white and yellow-eye dried beans; white beans; dehydration.
Seeds.
Compensation to farmers for cultivation of milkweed.
Rebate on flax scutching machinery.
The wheat acreage reduction program.
The prairie farm income payments scheme.
The Prairie Farm Assistance Act.
In addition to this, I just want to mention these items, and I want it distinctly understood before I make any mention of them that I am not criticizing in any way the assistance that was given with respect to the several items that I will mention. In addition to what I have already mentioned, there is a 'payment of $65 million that was made by the Department of Agriculture in 1951-just last year-to the Canadian wheat board to be distributed to the wheat growers of western Canada. There was the Fraser valley flood where $14 million of the money of the Canadian people were spent. Again I have no criticism to offer. Then there was the P.ed river flood. I have not the figure for that but I believe it was somewhere in the neighbourhood of the same amount. There were several disastrous fires in connection with which the people affected received benefits from the federal government. I endorse that action in every way in the world. With respect to the wheat that they were unable to harvest in western Canada last fall, the farmers have received assistance. That assistance has my wholehearted support. Just a few days ago in this house legislation was passed to provide assistance for those who had been affected by the foot-and-mouth disease which has broken out in western Canada. Again I support the government's attitude in that respect in every way.
At this point I might mention that in our fishing industry we have had maladies which were perhaps just as serious to that industry as is this foot-and-mouth disease to the cattle producers of this country; but no financial assistance was given to the fishing industry. We had an outbreak among the sardines in the early thirties, and it was an exceedingly serious thing. Thousands of tons of sardines were condemned by the inspectors at the canneries, for which the fishermen would get perhaps one-tenth of a cent a pound as fertilizer. We went through that period. The outbreak cleared up for a while but it returned again, and we have had it off and on for the last twenty years. But all during that period not a single dollar was paid out of the consolidated fund of this country in
[Hr. Stuart (Charlotte).]
order to assist any of those fishermen. The matter has been brought to the attention of the government on many occasions, but I suppose that perhaps it has not been brought to their attention forcibly enough.
In the last ten years $20 million has been spent to assist the apple growers in the Annapolis valley. I am going to have very little to say on this score, because perhaps my remarks would not meet with the approval of quite a few hon. members, but I just want that amount to go on record. Over $20 million is an enormous amount of money to be used to assist one small branch of the agricultural industry.
During the discussion in this chamber on the foot-and-mouth disease suggestions came from hon. members sitting here that, if carried out, would have made money available even to working men in packing houses. They would have received some sort of compensation because of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in western Canada. If that discussion had continued for a few more days they would have reverted back and back until indirectly thousands and thousands of people would have been involved. Why men working in packing houses should be considered for compensation in a case of this kind when they have unemployment insurance is something that I fail to understand. If these people were out of work and without any means of supporting themselves I again would be prepared to endorse it. But I believe that the legislation we already have on the statute books and already in force will take care of the situation.
I now want to turn to page 2 of this report, from which I read a few minutes ago, to cite a few items that come under the support of the Department of Agriculture. Subsidies were paid on agricultural machinery, binder twine, rope, bags and bagging, feed, fertilizer, harness and saddlery, lumber, pesticides, petroleum and woodenware, and bees. When I look at that list and I see included binder twine and rope subsidized for the agricultural industry of this country, I look back to my own county down in the maritime provinces and realize that netting that we were buying in 1945 for 70 cents a pound is costing today $2.40 a pound. There has never been any suggestion of a subsidy to fishermen to buy twine. Where ten pounds of twine are used in western Canada for the purpose that it may be used, thousands of pounds are used in the Ashing industry all along that coast line.
Then we come to rope. The hon. member for Digby-Yarmouth yesterday put on the record the cost of building lobster traps, and included in that cost was rope, which is very

The Address-Mr. A. W. Stuart
necessary. Thousands and thousands of pounds of rope are used every year in that industry. Today we are paying nearly four times the price that we paid for it in 1945. There has never been any suggestion that there should be any subsidy payment of any kind to these fishermen.
There is one other small item in the list, pesticides, which brings me to coal tar. Coal tar is a product which is used extensively in the fishing industry. I think that item of "pesticides" or "insecticides" may be used for the same purpose as coal tar in many cases. Coal tar is used to protect netting, and in some parts of the maritime provinces it is necessary for them to dip their entire lobster pots in the coal tar to save them from the marine borers. In 1946 we were paying $4.50 a barrel, and I believe it did get up to $5 in the latter part of the year. It is a tar that is very thin and it is utterly impossible to use it for any other purpose. Today that tar is $22 a barrel and the fishermen are still paying the sales tax. I brought this matter to the attention of the Department of National Revenue. They are still paying over $2 a barrel tax on coal tar. Again if that had a subsidy payment, or even if that tax were removed completely, it would be a great assistance to the fishing industry.
Another item that is mentioned here is petroleum. I am not sure just what petroleum means, or what it would cover in this item to the benefit of the farmers, but I can assure you that in the fishing industry a great deal of petroleum is used. So far as this government is concerned there has never been any thought of assistance to the fishermen in that regard. Another item that is mentioned is lumber. Just what that word covers, or what territory it takes in, again it is impossible to explain; but lumber is used in all branches of the fishing industry. A subsidy or any assistance given to the fishing industry would be greatly appreciated.
On page 3 of the same report there is this brief statement;
To make more short-and-intermediate term credit available, the dominion government in 1944 passed the Farm Improvements Loan Act. Chartered banks are guaranteed against loss up to 10 per cent of the amount loaned by them under the act (a maximum of $250 million).
In maritime language that is a lot of money. Further down the page appears this brief statement:
New activities in the postwar period include a commitment on the part of the dominion government to support farm prices. The Agricultural Prices Support Act of 1944 states:
"In prescribing prices the board shall endeavour to ensure adequate and stable returns for agriculture by promoting orderly adjustment from war
to peace conditions and shall endeavour to secure a fair relationship between the returns from agriculture and those from other occupations."
Those would be very kind words indeed for the men engaged in the fishing industry. They would be glad to realize that that would apply to them. It would give them a great feeling of security if they knew that the paragraph that I have just read also applied to the industry in which they are engaged.
I want to go back for a few minutes to an item that I found. I was just searching at random for a few items for comparison. I found one on page 6 of the estimates for 1951-52, namely, item 43, which reads;
To provide assistance for the replacement of maple production equipment.
When I saw that item I realized immediately that the maple products of this country would be a very small item in comparison with the fishing industry. When I looked at the item I found that for some few years we have had an annual grant of $500,000 given to that industry. I immediately tried to find out just what this $500,000 was voted for. I was informed yesterday that a few years ago it was discovered that maple syrup was of a much better quality if all the containers used in its manufacture were of aluminum. Since that time the federal government has voted $500,000 annually to buy aluminum pails for the maple syrup industry of this country. I am using this as a comparison. When you compare that industry, which operates about two weeks out of fifty-two, with the fishing industry you find that during that same period in 1951 $240,000 was paid out by the fisheries support board. Many hon. members may have the feeling that the Fisheries Prices Support Act applies the same as the Agricultural Prices Support Act. I want to assure them and the people of this country that there is no comparison whatever. In the year 1951, $240,000 was paid out under that act, and each and every dollar was paid to the salt codfish industry in Newfoundland. Not a single dollar came to any one of the other provinces, and that amount is only 50 per cent of the amount that was paid to the maple syrup producers of the Dominion of Canada. When I look back and I see a record, such as this-and this is one that I picked at random-I begin to wonder. Then I looked a little further down. I see my friend, the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruick-shank), sitting over there.


Mr. Cruickshank:: I want to ask a question.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: That is all right. I shall be very pleased to answer if I can.

The Address-Mr. A. W. Stuart


George Alexander Cruickshank: Will the hon. member agree that 55 per cent of the fish produced in Canada is produced in British Columbia?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: No; I might be able to agree as to the quantity, but not as to the quality.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The records are there.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I can say that two-thirds of the fish canned in the maritime provinces is canned in the county I represent, with a population of 25,000.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Do you agree that 55 per cent of the fish produced in Canada comes from British Columbia?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I have not the figures. I cannot agree, because I have no figures.


George Alexander Cruickshank: And my second question: Is the hon. member in favour of bringing in cheap vegetable oils, tax free, to compete with the farmers?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I am pleased to answer that question, and I am so pleased that the hon. member has asked it. In the little county from which I come we have the biggest sardine industry in the world, and use millions of gallons of edible oils.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Do you want it tax free?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: That oil is brought in from the United States because we do not produce a sufficient quantity in Canada to take care of the requirements. That is soybean oil brought in from the United States; and if there is any suggestion made in any way to interfere with bringing it in duty free, at any time while I am a member in the House of Commons, I shall rise in my place and oppose it with all my strength.


George Alexander Cruickshank: And I will oppose, too.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: All right. Then, looking over the item a little farther down I see an item for something in excess of a million dollars, for-
Fruit, vegetables and maple products, and honey, Including grant of $5,000 to the Canadian Horticultural Council.
I find that the greatest part of that vote was to buy boxes, barrels and other containers for the berry producers of British Columbia. And I am not quarrelling with that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Just a moment, now;
I am not quarrelling with that. But down in the maritime provinces we have been buying boxes for a long time. Down in the maritimes the people engaged in the fishing industry
[Mr. Stuart (Charlotte) .1

need pails, hogsheads, tanks and other containers; but I have yet to hear any suggestion that there should be any subsidy paid in that connection.
I am not quarrelling with the people out there, if they need these things-but in that connection I find in the same book from which I read earlier a statement by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) which might be of interest:
In other words, the government has become responsible for the financing of the berries. We have an undertaking, both from the producers and the provincial government, which has been much concerned with the matter, that acreages will be cut down this year to a point where they will more nearly approach the possible market. I may say that the acreages have been cut down somewhat by the floods and they are undertaking to cut them even more.
And the last paragraph:
It is not a floor price that is being put under berries. As a matter of fact, the greater part of it is to pay for the containers the cost of which we guarantee.
That is a statement from the records of the Department of Agriculture, and I believe it is correct. Again I should like to say in passing that I fail to understand why every branch of agriculture requires this assistance, and why at the same time the fishing industry is completely ignored. This has been brought to the attention of the house by members from Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Quebec and British Columbia; but it is utterly impossible to make them understand that this industry, this enormous fishing industry we have in Canada, has much to do with the economy of the country. Half these people who go down to the sea in ships produce this food under conditions under which a farmer would turn his back. I am speaking from experience, because I have been on the water both winter and summer. I did not go out on the water for six or eight months, and then take my family south for the winter. I did not go on the water for six or eight months and then sit by the fireside for the remainder of the year. I was on the water twelve months of the year, and I believe I am in a position to understand just what these men have gone through, down through the years.
I do not believe it will be found that they are asking for any special privileges. That is not what they want. I have only two or three moments left before the six o'clock adjournment, and in that time I would point out that during this last year the sardine industry of the islands of Grand Manan, Campobello and Deer island was nearly a complete failure. Those fishermen took what remained of their lifetime earnings last winter,

and they purchased materials, the wood and twine necessary to build sardine weirs. Many ol them borrowed money. Last spring they built the weirs once again, but the industry was a complete failure.
This winter has been a very windy and tough one along the coast line. Those structures need repairing. But, again, because of the complete failure of the industry last year, the fishermen have not the cash to put back into it this year, and their credit is exhausted. It is a pretty bleak outlook.
This matter has been brought to the attention of the Department of Fisheries, and I hope that some way may be found to give assistance. This cannot continue indefinitely, a condition where one primary producer is singled out for special consideration, while at the same time another primary producer is
12,	1952
The Address-Mr. A. W. Stuart completely ignored. That set-up will not work in a democratic country. We must try to equalize the assistance given.
Before adjourning the debate may I say that, in looking over the situation, we must face the fact that these primary producers are the backbone of the country. Without them there is nothing. It is what they take out of the soil, out of the sea and out of the forests that brings about the prosperity enjoyed here.
On motion of Mr. Stuart (Charlotte) the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we will continue this debate.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March 13, 1952