1952-04-30

Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege with respect to a matter that has come to my attention since the house met yesterday. I find that the chairman of the committee on defence expenditures made reference at a meeting of the committee to the announcement that had appeared that Mr. Vernon Kemp had been appointed my personal assistant. He drew from that certain inferences which I think were wholly unjustified and very improper.
I might say that Mr. Kemp, as I think the hon. member for Spadina should well realize, had been discussing this matter with me for some considerable time before the incidents occurred at Petawawa. What I am objecting to particularly are the words used by the chairman of the committee-


Mr. Sinclair:: On a point of order, is it in order for the hon. member to refer to the proceedings of the committee at the present time?


George Alexander Drew: -in referring to this subject.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. A point of order has been raised. I did not raise it myself as there appeared to be no disapproval of the leader of the opposition discussing in the house what took place in the committee.


Mr. Fulton:: He is discussing a report in the press.


George Alexander Drew: I am not discussing procedure in the committee; I am discussing the newspaper report. I am discussing the fact that in reference to this appointment the chairman of the committee used these words, that it was a part of Drew's gestapo.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am afraid I cannot allow-


An hon. Member:: Steamroller.


Mr. Speaker:: -a discussion at this time of what took place in the committee, whether a newspaper report is involved or whatever it may be. If the hon. member objects to the
newspaper report he can raise his question of privilege in the committee but not in the house.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I am not a
member of the committee, and I am referring to something that is definitely a matter of privilege. I have stated what I wish to state-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: -and I am making these remarks with the expectation that the hon. member for Spadina, who I believe will wish to do so, will indicate that these words were not intended in the manner in which-


James Sinclair: What words?


George Alexander Drew: -in which they were spoken, because the hon. member for Spadina on many other occasions-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: -has indicated that he would not wish a matter of that kind to stand in that way. I am referring particularly to the term, "Drew's gestapo".


Mr. Croll:: If I am in order, and I presume I am-


Mr. Speaker:: The proceedings have not
been in order. The matter should not be raised in the house. It should have been raised in the committee. However, it has been raised in the house, and if the hon. member wishes to speak at this time I will not object.


David Arnold Croll: To clear up the matter, I want to assure the hon. member and the house that no reflection was intended upon the hon. member.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I think we should endeavour to keep our proceedings regular. I am sure the leader of the opposition could go to the committee and state his objection there. I cannot permit it to be done here because the house does not know what the hon. member is discussing. I do not know what he is discussing, and there is nothing before the house. I think the hon. gentleman will agree that the objection to what took place in the committee should be made before the committee.

Questions


George Alexander Drew: Since you have said you thought I would agree, Mr. Speaker, I may say I do not agree. I think this is the proper place to raise it.


An hon. Member:: Study the rules.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The leader of the opposition has said he thought this was the proper place to present his objection and for that reason he presented it. My ruling is that it is not the proper place, that it should be presented to the committee.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. J. Baier (The Balllefords) presented the first report of the standing committee on agriculture and colonization, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Fernand Viau (St. Boniface) presented the first report of the special committee on redistribution, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. W. Winkler (Lisgar) presented the first, second and third reports of the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, and moved that the first report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Thatcher:: What money, if any, was paid in the past fiscal year to civilian employees of the Department of Transport serving at Port Churchill, in the form of special or northern allowances, in addition to regular pay?


Mr. Benidickson:: 


$16,470.07. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OFFICES IN SYDNEY, N.S.
Mr. Gillis:: 1.	How many federal government offices are located in Sydney, Nova Scotia?
2.	From whom are they rented?
3.	What rent is paid per year by each department?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	Four; Income tax office, unemployment insurance commission; 319 George street.
Fisheries department, transport department; 337 Charlotte street.
2.	319 George street, rented from Mr. Joseph G. Azar; 337 Charlotte street, rented from Mr. M. R. Chappell.
3.	$30,562.25 per annum for building at 319 George street; $2,640 per annum for offices at 337 Charlotte street.


COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT
Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	What was the total expenditure, paid or incurred, for (a) legal fees and disbursements; (b) other costs and expenses not included as legal fees and disbursements in connection with the trial of the prosecution of the alleged western flour milling bakers' committee?
2.	Are there any outstanding accounts for solicitors' or counsel fees that have not been submitted?
3.	Who were the counsel for the prosecution, and how much did each receive?


Mr. Garson:: 1.	Costs and expenses in connection with the prosecution of the alleged combine in the bread-baking industry in western Canada have been as follows:
Preliminary hearings:
(a) Legal fees and disbursements, 194849, $3,516.35;	1949-50, $21,240.09;	1950-51,
$212.50; (b) other costs and expenses, including fees and expenses of witnesses, 1948-49, $373.55; 1949-50, $6,666.64; 1950-51, $2,233.60.
Trial of the prosecution:
(a) Legal fees and disbursements, 1950-51, $33,240.13; 1951-52, $22,353.92; (b) other costs and expenses, including fees and expenses of witnesses, 1950-51,	$12,566.18;	1951-52,

2.	None, as far as is known, at this time.
3.	Counsel for the prosecution, and amounts received (including payments for stenographic and other assistance) were as follows:
(a)	Preliminary hearings:
Mr. C. S. Blanchard, Q.C., fees and disbursements, 1948-49, $1,376.35; 1949-50, $13,999.66; 1950-51, $87.50; Mr. H. W. Riley, Q.C., 194849,	$2,140.00;	1949-50,	$7,240.43;	1950-51,

(b)	Trial of the prosecution:
Mr. C. S. Blanchard, Q.C., fees and disbursements, 1950-51,	$19,236.80;	1951-52,
$11,174.97; Mr. H. W. Riley, Q.C., 1950-51, $14,003.33; 1951-52, $11,178.95.


CANADIAN MARITIME COMMISSION
Mr. Coldwell:: 1.	What are the names of the personnel who comprise the Canadian maritime commission?
2.	When was each appointed to his present position on the commission?
3.	What occupation had each held just prior to appointment to the commission?
4.	What are the present duties of each of these officials?
5.	What is the salary of each of these officials?
6.	What authority does a commissioner have with regard either to the issuing of licences or permits, or with respect to any other matter, pertaining to the shipment of grain on the great lakes?
7.	Who are the owners of the great lakes boats operating under Canadian registration which hauled grain last year?
8.	What are the names of those boats not registered in Canada, which were licensed or given permission to operate on the great lakes in the grain haul last year?
9.	Who are the owners of these boats?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1.	J. C. Lessard, chairman; L. C. Audette, Angus McGugan.
2.	J. C. Lessard, December 13, 1950; L. C.
Audette, November 1,	1947, (reappointed
November 1, 1951); Angus McGugan, June 10, 1948 (reappointed November 1, 1950).
3.	J. C. Lessard, deputy minister of transport (appointment still held); L. C. Audette, foreign service officer, Department of External Affairs; Angus McGugan, manager, Canadian Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Association.
4.	To direct the activities of the commission along the lines laid down by the Canadian Maritime Commission Act, 11 George VI, chapter 52.
5.	J. C. Lessard, nil; L. C. Audette, $10,000; Angus McGugan, $10,000.
6.	None.
7.	Abitibi Navigation Company; Beacons-field Steamship Limited; Canada Steamship Lines Limited; Colonial Steamships Limited; Reoch Steamship Company Limited; Inland Lines Limited; Mohawk Navigation Company; Northwest Steamships Limited; N. M. Paterson & Sons Limited; Quebec and Ontario Transportation Company Limited; Upper Lakes and St. Lawrence Transportation Company Limited.
8.	S. S. Annik; S. S. Ragneborg.
9.	Sterner S. Muller, Bergen, Norway; Ragnar Nilsson, Vasterik, Sweden.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


AGRICULTURAL MARKETING ORGANIZATIONS


Mr. Herridge:: 1.	What agricultural producers' marketing organizations have asked for price support since January 1, 1950?
Questions
2.	What applications were given favourable consideration, and what price floors were established?
3.	What applications were rejected, and for what reasons?



RADIO STATION CHRC

Mr. Viau:: 1.	Is there a radio station CHRC in the city of Quebec?
2.	If so, is it privately owned or affiliated with the C.B.C.?
3.	What are the names of its directors?
4.	If affiliated with the C.B.C., under what class?
5.	Was it added to any network of the C.B.C. for commercial programs in 1950 and 1951 upon request of any sponsor? .
6.	If so, how much did it receive from the C.B.C. in 1950 and 1951 for commercial network service on the basis of a network card rate?
7.	What other revenue did it receive from the C.B.C. in 1950 and 1951?



MOTION FOR PAPERS


Mr. Gillis:: For a copy of the report made to the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys on possible coal development and economic conditions in Inverness county, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia.


Mr. Prudham:: For the information of the hon. member for Cape Breton South, I know of no report that would have been made to the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys in reference to the possible coal development and economic conditions in Inverness county. However, I believe such a report has been made to the department of mines of Nova Scotia by Dr. Lewis Young, a geologist who was working for that department.


Clarence Gillis: The report may not have been made to mines and technical surveys; it may have been made to mines and resources before the department was changed around, but my information is that a Dr. Haites did make a report of that nature to the federal department. I do not know who would inherit it.


George Prudham: My officials have no knowledge of the report. However, I shall ask them to have another look, and perhaps this motion could be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



NATIONAL FILM BOARD


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister ot Resources and Development) moved:: That a special committee consisting of the following members, namely, Messrs: Beyerstein, Boisvert, Browne (St. John's West), Cannon, Carroll. Carter, Coldwell, Courtemanche, Decore, Dinsdale, Ferguson, Fraser, Gauthier (Sudbury), Gauthier (Portneuf), Henry, Jutras, Knight, MacLean
1732	HOUSE OF
Committee on National Film Board
(Queens), Macnaughton, McWilliam, Murray (Cariboo), Richard (Ottawa East), Robinson, Smith (Moose Mountain), Whitman, Winters, be appointed to consider the operations of the national film board as set forth in its annual report with authority to send for persons, papers and records, and to report from time to time, and that the presence of at least ten members shall constitute a quorum; that standing order 65 be suspended in relation thereto.


Mr. Coldwell:: Is the minister going to make a statement on this matter?


Robert Henry Winters: I do not think the house would expect me to say much at this time, Mr. Speaker. From time to time hon. members have requested that the annual report of the national film board be referred to a committee of the house for detailed study. The government has considered these requests and is of the opinion that it would be in the public interest to set up such a committee to provide its members with an opportunity to study the annual report of the board, and at the same time to give the government film commissioner and his officials a like opportunity of explaining the board's operations. I so informed the house on March 17.
Since its inception, the national film board has become more and more integrated with Canada's national growth and has played an increasingly important part in the development of our national status, largely through its- assigned role of interpreting Canada to Canadians.
I am sure most Canadians feel that the national film board is doing good work, and they will welcome this opportunity of having a detailed study made of the board's activities as reflected in its annual report. The commissioner and members of the board are similarly pleased to be able to have discussions with members of a committee and, through them, to provide Canadians generally with an opportunity to learn more about how this important government agency serves the public.


Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):: am pleased, Mr. Speaker, as I know other members of the house are, that the minister has at last consented to the establishment of this special committee on the national film hoard. It is about five or six years late, hut it is better late than never. The question as to why the committee was not set up before is not a $64 one, because I feel quite jure that if it had been, the findings of the aommittee would have certainly embarrassed ;he then minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no, no.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Oh, yes, would absolutely have ambarrassed the minister who was then in iharge of the national film board. For some fears this board has been what one might 

call a hot potato, and the different ministers have tossed that potato from one to the other, saying, "I don't want it, you can have it; it doesn't belong to me." If there had been an inquiry by a committee in those early days, I am quite sure the findings of the committee would have embarrassed the government as well. There is no doubt about that.
I feel quite sure that before the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters), who is now in charge of the national film board activities, came into the house he wondered why that board had been called a white elephant-in fact, a herd of white elephants. I feel quite sure also that after the minister was installed in his office, and took charge of the film board, he had reason to know why the board had been criticized. For a number of years it was just a place into which the taxpayers' money was dumped. There is no doubt that the taxpayer did not get dollar for dollar value.


An hon. Member:: Dispense.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I hear a Liberal member saying "dispense", and I quite realize why he said that. The Liberals never like to be criticized in any way at all. They always feel they are one hundred per cent right-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: -and in most cases they are one thousand per cent wrong. However, if that hon. member had just waited a moment he would perhaps have heard something that he would have applauded. I am going to say that I feel, and I know many others do as well, that under the present minister, with the use of a little common sense, this national film board will develop into something that is useful to the people of Canada. This film board has greatly improved since the minister took over.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I am glad the Liberal members are applauding, because I know that they did not applaud five, or even three, years ago, despite the fact that they knew the national film board was not doing its job.


Mr. Riley:: That means we are making progress.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes, you are making progress slowly in the national film board, but there is still room for improvement.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: But in the right direction.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: But in the right direction, and that is only because you have had constructive criticism from the Conservative party.
The minister who is now in charge of the film board installed a business management

firm to check into the affairs of that organization, and it was about time. I feel that since that check was made and a report issued, the film board affairs have been in much better shape; they are on a sounder basis. The affairs of that board were certainly on shifting sands before that time. The minister saw that the former director of the film board was kicked upstairs, and a new director put in his place. I say "kicked upstairs" because I believe he went to the United Nations. I have heard very good reports of the new director, both from his own employees and other sources. We shall wait, however, until we are in the committee to find out exactly what this new director has been doing. He has accomplished quite a bit, and he has had a big job.
I should like to read an article which appeared in a magazine entitled Canadian Photography, a monthly booklet issued for professional photographers throughout Canada. A few years ago this magazine was not very favourable to the national film board, because, in many ways, the board was stepping on the toes of professional photographers. The article which appears in this magazine was published in Toronto Saturday Night. The date on which the article appeared in Toronto Saturday Night is not given, but it appears in the February issue of Canadian Photography, and reads as follows:
When Mr. Arthur Irwin left Maclean's magazine just over two years ago to take over the national film board, this appointment aroused great public interest. When it was announced recently that his two-year appointment had been extended indefinitely, no one paid any attention.
The change is a tribute to Mr. Irwin's accomplishments. It reflects the fact that two years ago the film board was "news" not because of its films but because of rather general doubts about its efficiency. Now the film board only gets into the news, it seems, through flattering reviews of its productions.
The public flurry of two years ago was largely based on allegations that the film board was harbouring communists and was too bad a security risk to make secret films. But the more serious and significant complaint was that it was a badly organized unit, suffering from all the waste and inefficiency which goes with bad organization. The communist scare was Mr. Irwin's first worry, and it was one of the quickest and most easily solved. The real effort of these last two years has been the unspectacular and unexciting grind of trying to establish a more efficient organization.
With a new and vigorous board behind him, Mr. Irwin has won the confidence of his staff and has brought much better order into the film board's operations.
That proves the statement I made a few minutes ago.
It is to be hoped that no restrictions will be placed on this special committee that is being set up to study the national film board activities. The committee should have full
Committee on National Film Board sway, and should be allowed to call in representatives of the Canadian motion picture industry, the Canadian commercial photographers, the Canadian press photographers' association and any other organization that is interested in motion pictures or photography.
This year the national film board is going to cost the taxpayers of Canada over $3 million. The minister might say: Oh, no; it will not cost that. What is the estimate for 195253? I will not say it is only $2 million; it is the large amount of $2,919,951. In 1951-52 it was $2,600,000 approximately. There has been an increase this year of over $317,000. On top of this we have the expense that the Minister of Finance has in having his officials in the national film board to check on the accounts, pay the accounts, and so on. We also have the accounts of the Minister of Public Works for the twelve different buildings which the national film board occupy in Ottawa and the other buildings that they rent throughout Canada and in other places. The national film board must show the committee where this money goes and just what use is being made of it. The committee must find out whether the pictures produced are what the Canadian public wants, and also if they are just what are needed for our children and also for our adult education.
I am a great lover of good motion pictures, and I know that a good many other hon. members are also. In fact, I know that the Minister of Agriculture is.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is so much talking in the house that it is difficult for me to hear what the hon. member is saying.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I just said, Mr. Speaker, that I know the Minister of Agriculture is a great lover of motion pictures, because he goes to good shows on Wednesday nights, when we have the night off. I generally meet him there. I also like good motion pictures.


Mr. Gardiner:: We pick the same kind.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: A few years ago, however, the documentary films put out by the national film board were not worth much to the public at large owing to the fact that the details in them were not correct. On numerous occasions in this house I pointed out some of those details.
This committee should also find out just what advantage the national film board is to the various departments of the government, and whether it would be better for those various departments to get their motion pictures made by commercial film corporations.
The national film board was set up in 1939, just before the war. I have here the resolution that was read in the House of Commons on Tuesday, March 7, by Mr. Euler, who introduced it.

Committee on National Film Board Mr. Murphy: Give the year.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: 1939. It is to be found at page 1661 of Hansard of that year. The resolution was as follows:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to cTeate a national film board empowered and directed to review and report on government film activities and to discharge such other duties as the governor in council may request: and to authorize the governor in council to appoint, and determine the salary of, a commissioner, to be the chief executive officer of the board. Also to provide for the appointment of an interdepartmental committee to centralize government film distribution.
At that time the Department of Trade and Commerce was the one in which all the films were made, and this national film board was set up in order to combine the operations. When asked for an explanation by the hon. member who now represents the constituency of Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), Mr. Euler went on to say further:
The purpose of the bill which is to be founded on this resolution is fairly, if briefly, described in the resolution itself, but I might add something to acquaint the committee with the purposes of the bill. Perhaps primarily the reason for the framing of the bill is the fact that the film has become a very important and powerful factor in the dissemination of information, the production of entertainment, and for publicity purposes generally and it is growing constantly. Various departments of the government-I need not mention them particularly, but at least five or six departments of the government -have had in the past their own film activities entirely independent of one another.
Mr. Euler went on to say further:
There is also provision for an executive officer of the board, who is designated in the bill as a commissioner. He will be the only paid official. It will be his duty to act under the instruction or supervision of the board in its practical work of co-ordination and that sort of thing.
He further went on to say:
It might not be necessary to include that in the bill, but it is thought well to give that committee an official standing. The members of that committee will be drawn from the departments which have film activities, the chairman to be the commissioner himself.
He also said:
I may add, in conclusion, that this board is not being established with the intention of providing jobs for anybody. There is really to be only one paid man in the organization.
He said further:
That has not been considered. But the only other paid official might be a clerk or a stenographer.
In Hansard of March 13, 1939, Mr. Euler set out just what the films were costing Canada at that time. The total for the fiscal year 1937-38 amounted to $51,998.75. In 1947-48 the national film board cost the taxpayers of Canada $3,514,940.
On more than one occasion in this house I have said that the various departments of government should be allowed to select their

own firm for making their films and developing them. I know that some departments of the government have done this; but under the present set-up I believe that each department has to pay to the national film board a fee of some 10 per cent over and above what the commercial firm charges. When the late Hon. Ian Mackenzie, a former minister of veterans affairs, was in office, I know that on more than one occasion he had private commercial firms make films for his department.
In their policy declarations and resolutions, 1951-52, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce had this to say:
The Canadian chamber of commerce generally endorses the minority report on the national film board of the royal commission on national development in the arts, letters and sciences, in which it is recommended that two or three members should be appointed to the board of the national film board as moderators, with the duty of examining objectively all plans of the board. The national film board should not extend its operations. The film act should be amended so that it is no longer necessary for departments of the federal government to secure their films through the national film board.
I mentioned what the total cost of the national film board was to the public in 1947 and in 1948. About that time I put a question on the order paper. In 1947 the expenses for employees, salaries, wages and expense allowances totalled $1,844,000 and some odd out of a total of $3,514,000. That shows that most of the money went into salaries and expenses instead of into pictures. This is how that $1,844,000 odd is made up: Total expenses for Canadian employees amounted to $242,814.04; total salaries for employees in Canada were $1,384,831.89. The cost of foreign offices maintained outside of Canada amounted to $138,959.05; the salaries of employees outside of Canada amounted to $57,825.06; expenses, including allowances of employees in offices maintained outside Canada, totalled $20,464.10. That amounts to $1,844,894.14, and was for salaries and expenses alone.
In conclusion I wish to say a word in regard to the distribution of films in Canada. It is the general belief in Canada that these different film councils that are set up are maintained by money supplied by the national film board. That is not so. These councils are set up locally, and the different organizations in the different municipalities or districts all chip in. I think in my district they pay $2 each. There are dozens, in fact hundreds, of different organizations that chip in. Then these different organizations are permitted to have films free, and the loan of a projector. The different councils have to buy their own projectors, I understand, and that is one thing that I should like to mention

to the minister. Proper instructions should be given to someone in these councils, despite the fact that they are locally maintained, in the care of motion picture projectors. I know of many instances, not only in my own district, but in other districts, where projectors are sent out with an operator to a school or to some other organization, and after they start to run the machine they find that it is out of kilter and will not work properly. It not only gives the local film council a bad name, but also reflects on the national film board.
I know our film council in Peterborough is well managed and directed, because my own dentist is the president of the council, and I know that he has as much pull as anybody in Peterborough. He is also a good manager.
I am also pleased to say that I have a daughter on that council who represents the Imperial Order Daughters of the Empire, which in turn represents some twelve or more other branches and chapters of the Imperial Order Daughters of the Empire in the Peterborough district. These film councils do not distribute just national film board pictures. In most instances they have to buy their own films. If they had to depend on the national film board reels altogether for their distribution I am sure they would have to fold up. In many instances they buy films produced by other motion picture companies in Canada, and I suppose some of them are imported. I know of one firm that operates in Ottawa, Crawley Films, that makes excellent pictures. There is nothing better in the United States than the films the Crawley firm makes. We have other firms in Canada making good pictures.
As I said at the beginning, I am pleased that this committee is being set up, and I hope that the minister will see that no restrictions are put on its proceedings.


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, during the years from 1945 to 1949, or the early 1950's, I had the honour of being the minister in charge of or responsible to the government for the national film board. The hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) has been the self-appointed, or probably appointed by his party-


Gordon Knapman Fraser: No.


James Joseph McCann: -critic of the national film board. The occasions on which he has voiced that criticism-and I have no objection to the criticism-were when the appropriation or estimate to sustain the national film board was before parliament. My appraisal of his ability and of his right to make the criticisms which he did are based upon the
Committee on National Film Board fact that he visits the picture shows once or twice a week. I could never find anything in his criticism more substantial than the evidence which he put forth that might come as a result of that attendance. The national film board-


Gordon Knapman Fraser: You did not listen to me very attentively.


James Joseph McCann: Just a minute; you have had your opportunity. He claims that the national film board has been a hot potato, that it has been a place in which the government found they could dump public money. The record will show that these are his accusations.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is right.


James Joseph McCann: It has never been a hot potato. For a number of years the board was under my jurisdiction, until in the view of the Prime Minister my duties as Minister of National Revenue were such that I had enough work without continuing the national film board. When the department of mines and technical surveys was established, that duty was transferred to the present minister, my colleague, the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters).
Let us go back for a minute or two over the history of the national film board. It was established in 1939. The idea of establishing it was to co-ordinate the services in the several departments of government that had to do with the matter of publicizing their activities by using a new medium of communication and a new medium of education. These various departments of government used films, and it was thought that it would be advantageous and economical if these several activities were co-ordinated into one department or one agency. That agency became the national film board.
I admit immediately that during the years 1939 to 1945, under the direction of Mr. John Grierson, who was then the head of the board, these activities were spread perhaps beyond what they would have been in peacetime, and our expenditure ran up to several millions of dollars-I forget the exact figure-and the number of employees was up in the neighbourhood of a thousand.
After the war, in 1945, when I took the department over, I began a policy of retrenchment. Anyone who will look at the estimates for the national film board in the years 1941 up to 1950 will see that there was that retrenchment, both in dollars and in personnel. Therefore although I am not jealous of the few words of commendation which my hon. friend has directed toward the Minister of Resources and Development, I wish to state that the policy of the national film

1736	HOUSE OF
Committee on National Film Board board as it is at the moment was initiated before the present minister came into office-and I am sure the minister will bear me out in my statement, because he sat on the board when I was the responsible minister.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Settle that with him.


James Joseph McCann: I wish to tell the house that the national film board was not intended to be, nor will it ever become, a money-making agency of government. It was set up for several purposes, one of which was to have documentary films.
Let me explain what that means. Up until a few years ago, what was the record of great national events throughout the world? Unless they were written in a book we had no record of them. The film offered a new medium through which we could have great events in our history placed on the record and kept there for ever, in order that generations yet unborn would be able to see what the world was like one or two hundred years before they came along.
Then, the national film board was established for educational purposes. It was there for entertainment purposes, for purposes of instruction, and for all the other purposes of a new industry such as the film industry in the present-day world.
Those are the reasons the film board was set up, and they are the reasons today. If the board is going to spend more money this year than it has in previous years, or if it spent more last year than it did the year before, the reason for the increased cost is the increased cost of wages and of the materials they use in their work.
Last October in the visit of Her Majesty the Queen to this country we witnessed one of the great events in our history. The national film board did a splendid job in preparing an excellent film known as "Royal Journey". That film has been shown in our own country, and it has been sold in the United States so that it may be shown there. On balance the crown will have some considerable profit from it.
I do not intend to speak at length; but I hope the hon. member for Peterborough West will be a daily attendant at the national film board inquiry. I welcome the inquiry, and have suggested it on previous occasions. The government and the national film board have nothing to fear from the most minute inquiry that could be made into the activities of the board; and if the hon. member for Peterborough West wants to put forth his criticism or ask questions he will receive suitable and satisfactory answers.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: May I ask the minister a question?


An hon. Member:: You made your speech.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: You do not want to answer the question? All right.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased indeed that the committee is about to be set up. In common with other hon. members I have asked over the years that such a committee be established, not because I felt that the national film board had been guilty of anything that required investigation, not because of anything it had not done, but so that the board might have an opportunity of explaining to hon. members, and through them to the country, the work it is trying to do.
I was glad indeed the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) spoke as he did about the board and its activities. He mentioned the film "Royal Journey," which has been acclaimed, everywhere it has been shown, as to colour, technique and conception, as one of the outstanding films of modern times. The national film board is to be congratulated upon the magnificence of that production.
When I hear criticisms of our national film organization I like to review the prizes and awards that have been made for documentary and other films to public and semi-public organizations both here and elsewhere. Those of us who have noted the awards made will have been quite pleased with the number obtained by the national film board.
A few years ago there was considerable criticism of some of the board's employees. I am very glad indeed that that criticism has not been continued. Mr. John Grierson has often been mentioned in this connection, but I note that at page 51 the Massey report refers to Mr. Grierson as "a distinguished British producer of documentary films", and points out that he was asked to make an investigation and to report his findings. Whatever Mr. Grierson's private views may be-and I do not know what they are-I think this country does owe the first commissioner some gratitude for having laid the foundations for documentary film projects which have brought acclaim to this country.
From time to time I have met people from the United Kingdom and from South America, as well as from the United States, who have told me that they have seen some of the documentary films issued by the film board. Those people have spoken in the most enthusiastic terms when referring to the films.
I know of nothing that has given Canada better and more competent advertising than the films produced by this national organization, and I think we should recognize the work that has been done.

The sittings of the committee will give hon. members an opportunity of looking into the organization of the national film board and the extent to which it is associated with any minister of the crown, or with the government or, indeed, with the house. My own view has been for a long time that the national film board might well be placed in the same position as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-in other words, divorced from political control in any respect, and set up, as is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, as an independent organization responsible to parliament and reporting through a minister to the house.
I believe the present plan has within it some dangers. I do not think that at the moment those dangers are of great consequence, because I do not believe the present commissioner would allow the national film board to be used in any sense as an organ of propaganda for the government of today, or any succeeding government. I do not think the present commissioner would do that. I have the utmost confidence in his integrity and ability, and I am not afraid that that would happen under the present circumstances. But I still think that in the interest of the national film board and of parliament it would be well for the committee to go into the organization of the board and to inquire into its association with the government. Then if the committee sees fit it might recommend that the board be set up as a corporation similar to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which in my opinion, and also in the opinion of those who make the awards for broadcasting, has done a remarkably fine job in the field of radio.
I believe that the national film board at the moment is doing and can do an equally fine job with respect to the cinema. After all, as the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) pointed out, there are many people in Canada who derive a great deal of pleasure and recreational as well as educational benefit from attendance at the cinema. I do not often go because I do not have the time, but I agree with the hon. member that it is a modern form of entertainment which can be both educational and enjoyable.
Without the national film board we would have to rely to an even greater extent than at the present time on the medium of Hollywood films or films coming to us from across the sea for any interpretation of Canada. Most of the films shown in Canada are of United States origin, to a lesser extent they are of United Kingdom origin, and to a very small extent of European origin. I think it is in the interests of national unity and the building up of national 55701-110
Committee on National Film Board understanding, as well as in the interests of national culture, to have an organization that is doing something fundamentally Canadian in this most important field. Those who have seen Hollywood films dealing with Canadian life-I can think of several I have seen-will understand what a caricature these films are in many respects of the actual life of people in Canada. I remember one film which was supposed to concern the mounted police, the name of which I do not recollect. It was a caricature of life in northern Alberta, where some of the picture was filmed, and in southern Alberta, where, as I remember, it, the Hollywood portrayal of a policeman was married. The film was of such a nature that it was almost an insult to Canadians.
Without the national film organization we would have no other way of bringing to the people, not only of Canada but also of other parts of the world, a true picture of our conditions of life and of Canada in so many of its aspects. Unfortunately we have been misrepresented in the films to which I have referred, and not only misinterpreted but caricatured.
There is another aspect of the matter which I think should concern the house, namely, the development of television. We are going to have television in Canada sooner or later, and in some parts quite soon. Undoubtedly television broadcasting will have to depend to a very large extent on films. Indeed, I thought one of the interesting points in Mr. Allard's presentation to the committee on radio broadcasting a year ago was that he wanted the private interests to control television but he wanted the national film board to provide the necessary films to a great extent. He was content to rely on this organization to do a job which everyone admits they are well qualified to do.
I have always been interested in the distribution of educational films. More and more our schools and educational institutions are relying on films as a supplementary medium to formal education. Listening to a broadcast originating in Newfoundland during Easter week, when I was at home one morning, I was amazed to learn of the number of projectors that have been placed in Newfoundland schools in the last year or two, thus bringing to the remote outposts of that province a picture of life in the rest of Canada, bringing to them films informing them of life in other parts of Canada and dealing with topics having other educational value. Such films of course are mainly 16 and 35 millimetre films.
I think the recommendation of the royal commission on national development in the

Committee on National Film Board arts, letters and sciences, contained in what we refer to as the Massey report, should also be noted by the national film board. Among its recommendations I find the following on page 308:
c. That the national film board consider appropriate measures designed to increase the distribution of 35 mm. documentary films through commercial outlets in urban areas and to create new outlets in distant and sparsely settled parts of the country which do not have them.
I think that the more the national film board can encourage the use of such films in motion picture theatres and other commercial outlets, the stronger the national film organization will become and the more useful it will be. Indeed it might bring further revenue to the country which could be used for the further development of the national film facilities.
In saying this I am not in any way minimizing the part that some of the private film organizations have played in Canada, but after all, the field is limited so far as they are concerned. The distribution of many documentary films must of necessity be on a non-profit basis, and in that field the national film board plays a most important part. If we are to supply our educational institutions with documentary films, and, as the Minister of National Revenue said a moment ago, films which may be of very limited value at the moment but may be of great historic interest, then only a film organization of this description can afford to undertake such projects.
I feel very strongly that in the field of documentaries the national film board has done a job of which not only the board but parliament, which provides the funds, should be very proud indeed. Mistakes have been made, but the mistakes are completely overshadowed by the successes that have been achieved since the organization was set up in 1939. When we think of what was done during the war to record not in still pictures of the kind we have hanging in the Senate chamber or stored away in the archives but in living pictures, what the young men and women did in the army, navy and air force, and indeed in industry, we realize that as the minister has said this record will be of paramount interest to generations yet unborn.
May I just pay this tribute? I spoke of the present commissioner but there is no question that the national film board has gathered together an exceedingly able staff of devoted young men and women who are doing this work not only to get a living but because they are interested in it because they enjoy doing it and feel they are making a contribution to the country in which they live.


I am not going to add to what I have already said but I am pleased indeed that this committee is being set up. It will give those of us who are members of it an opportunity to go into the operations of the film board; but also-and this is the principal reason I have asked for such a committee- it will give the officers of the national film board including the commissioner an opportunity to tell this house and through this house and the press to tell the country, something of the job that organization is doing. I am convinced that most people in Canada are not aware of the kind of useful work the film board is doing. The establishment of this committee will give many thousands of people, I hope, the opportunity to understand the work of the board.
I was happy to note in the Massey report that a number of people and organizations have been interested in what the national film board has been doing. At page 53 of the report I find this:
About 120 organizations in briefs and evidence discussed the work of the national film board, some at considerable length. Most of them approved of its work, and asked that this work be extended. They went further. Many Canadians expressed pride in the work of the film board considering that, like our national radio service, it is a valuable and distinctive Canadian achievement.
Many of us do not realize the extent to which Canada is advertised abroad today by the national film board. I was told the other day that on Broadway in New York city, outside one of the big theatres, was the advertising of the film "Royal Journey". I am not sure that the national film board was advertised as being the originator of the film, but I imagine that on the screen at least the people were told this was a production of the national film board of Canada. Consequently I welcome this paragraph which states that organizations expressed their approval of what was being done and urged that the work of the film board be encouraged and extended.
As a member of this house I feel that we should give the national film board all the credit it deserves for what it has done in the past, and hope it will be allowed and encouraged to continue and indeed extend that work in the future.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I am not a member of the committee that is being set up, but I should like to say a word to put before the house the position we take with respect to this motion. I have a special interest, I think, in the national film board and its productions. I represent a constituency that is very largely rural and lacking places where people may have easy access to picture houses. For that reason the people of the Peace river country have deeply

appreciated the documentary, educational and entertaining films they were able to obtain from the film board. As a matter of fact several local committees have been set up in my constituency who have sent competent people around with projectors and screens to show these films. We appreciate that service, which I think has done much to keep my constituents informed on the historical developments of our country and the documentary and educational processes as they have been developed and used by the film board.
Some years ago, when I first became acquainted with the work of the board, I did hear considerable criticism of some of the personnel; but I am glad to say that in recent years such criticism has already died away. Today I hear very little if any criticism of the personnel. I think Mr. Irwin must be doing an excellent job. I want also to compliment the ministers who were responsible for laying down the policy, because no commission can be any better than the policy it has to administer. So I think you must have done a good job in recent years in developing your policy. Otherwise there would have been continuing criticism of the kind we heard some years ago, which in those days was sometimes rather bitter.
I have heard some criticism of this sort, that in some cases the film board may be encroaching upon the legitimate fields of private business. Well, I do not know about that. It is one of the many reasons we welcome the inquiry. I believe the more information that can be adduced and made available to the public, the less criticism of that kind will be heard. Like the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), I am sure that if we get these things on the record and make them available to the Canadian people they will be able to decide for themselves whether there is any unnecessary encroachment by the board upon the field of legitimate private business. I must hasten to add that the major part of this criticism I have heard has been with respect to still-picture work, not so much with regard to motion pictures. I am looking forward to the information that will be brought out as a result of this inquiry.
I am convinced that there is a very useful purpose the film board can fill and indeed is filling. I saw the technicolour film of the royal tour, and enjoyed it very much. I thought it was a splendid production, and one thing that appealed to me strongly was the excellent commentary that went with it. I do not think I have ever seen a documentary film with a finer running commentary, and I think most people who saw it felt as I did. It was a tribute to our country that we should 55704-110i
30, 1952
Committee on National Film Board have recorded that tour so well, to be preserved here for future generations; and I want to compliment the board on that splendid production. As I say, in the remote parts of our country the people are going to be the gainers perhaps more than in areas where they have a more easy access to picture houses.
For a great many years I have felt that, in the field of education, there is a need for more visual material. It seems to me that the recommendation made in the Massey commission report that the board undertake to make and distribute more 35 mm. educational films is a very good one. I should like to see that done. The superiority of the 35 over the 16 is something that cannot be understood unless one has had some experience in using the two. The sound track on a 16 mm. film is very difficult to apply with any real success, so I should like to see that Massey commission recommendation carried out if it is at all possible. I am not going to weary the house with any further discussion at this time. Let me conclude by saying that we welcome the inquiry and our representative will be in attendance. I am going to be very much interested in the information that is brought out as a result of the inquiry.


Mr. Charles Henry (Rosedale):: I have just a few remarks to make in this debate, Mr. Speaker. I hope to have the honour of being a member of the committee, and that is one reason for the brevity of my remarks. Before I came to this chamber as a member of parliament I had the honour of being a public servant in the service of the government of Canada, with the then prime minister the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, from whom I have drawn much inspiration in my public life. I well remember his remarks in 1946 that the things which unite us are greater than those which divide us. It is my opinion that most Canadians are united in the thought that the home is the backbone of the nation. I look forward to the day when television will attract people to the home for entertainment which otherwise they might look for elsewhere.
In the first half of the twentieth century there has been a greater movement outside the home for all purposes, particularly for the purpose of entertainment. This being so, Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but think of the fine thing it would be for Canada if we had special television facilities for the showing in the home of a picture such as "Royal Journey". In the United States and elsewhere there are special facilities for the showing of motion pictures through television
1740	HOUSE OF
Committee on National Film Board sets. A coin box arrangement is attached to the television set and the owner of the set has pictures in the home whenever he desires. I regard this as the most remarkable entertainment achievement in the first half of this century.
I welcome the committee, and I thank the minister for nominating me as a member. I cannot help but think that we in Canada should go ahead with facilities for showing motion pictures in the home through television stations or otherwise as means are found by those who control television. It seems to me that the government should consider the further co-ordination of the national film board and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for purposes of this advance in the field of television in relation to motion pictures.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I shall detain the house for only a moment, and not to comment on the excellence of the film board. I take that as expressed by those who have already spoken. My only purpose in rising is to draw attention to a thing which happened in this debate which I have never seen before, and which may never happen again; that is my excuse for detaining the house for a moment.
This afternoon we had the spectacle of two ministers dividing the spoils, so to speak. In his generosity the member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) gave praise to the film board and the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters). The minister received the praise graciously and swallowed it. Then, later on, we had the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) explaining that it did not belong to the minister of resources at all.


James Joseph McCann: I did no such thing.


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Fraser@: He would not allow me to ask a question.


James Joseph McCann: You were not answering questions, you were asking them. On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) is entirely misinterpreting what I said. In a debate of this kind I believe the record' should be kept straight, and it was with a view to doing that that I spoke as I did. I will gamble one hundred to one that the present minister will substantiate every statement I made.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have been extremely unfortunate. I had no idea that what I was going to say would irritate anybody.


Mr. Knowles:: Is that gamble subject to
income tax?


James Joseph McCann: No one is irritated.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Let me put
it this way. The praise which had been taken by the minister of resources is going to be shared, and that is all right. I think we can leave it entirely to the ministers to divide it up amongst themselves. The only thing I was going to say was that I do not think we shall have many other occasions when ministers will share praise, but I would say it would be still more unusual if ministers would rise and share the blame which comes from this side of the house. It would be very useful if we could have the departments of agriculture, finance and national revenue dividing up the blame; that would be most interesting.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: I only rise to speak for a few minutes. I do so for two reasons. First, I have been asked by a number of constituents to say a good word for the national film board whenever I have the opportunity. I rise first on that count. Secondly, I rise because whenever the member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) speaks on the national film board I listen to his negative approach to this great national organization and become nettled so that I feel like talking. I will say that the member for Peterborough West did modify his criticism somewhat today compared to other occasions his negative approach was less negative.
I want to say that I know very little about the technical aspects of film production or the administration of the national film board in detail. However from my experience in my own constituency, I do know that there are a large number of people who greatly appreciate the work that has been done by the board throughout the years. This is true particularly of those people living in country districts. Like the member for Peace River (Mr. Low) I represent a riding which has within it a number of isolated communities. The people of these communities appreciate the films they have seen as a result of the national film board being in operation. In the cities of Trail, Nelson and Rossland we have very active film councils. I may say that the work of the board is so appreciated that these film councils represent a complete cross section of the community, and have the support of a large number of people.
The member for Peterborough West more or less implied that the amount of $2 million or so was far too much to spend on the work of the national film board. I cannot agree with that suggestion, when we place that small sum for this very valuable cultural work in

this country as against our total budget, it is indeed a small amount. I quite agree, Mr. Speaker, that possibly there have been some administrative weaknesses in the film board that have been corrected. I think we must expect some difficulties because it is a new type of government organization in which there has been little previous experience in any country. I believe I had a very good illustration of the value of this $2 million odd to Canada when I had an opportunity of visiting New York recently. First of all, I think the expenditure is worth while for the good publicity it creates for Canada outside of this country. I happened to be walking down Broadway in New York at 7 o'clock in the morning.


James Sinclair: Just getting home?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I got up early, Mr. Speaker. I am an early riser. I was walking down Broadway-


An hon. Member:: No excuses!


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -and it surprised me to find that at a theatre where they were showing "Royal Journey" there was at 7 o'clock in the morning, a line-up three blocks long for a show commencing at 9 o'clock. 1 made a point of asking the reason. The show contained several features. As I walked along I asked various people this question:	"What
are you interested in?" And in each instance the reply was the same, "Royal Journey". Is that not worth $2 million to Canada when we realize that millions of people in the United States will have an opportunity to see that film and other documentary films produced by the national film board?
I might also say that I completely agree with the remarks made by my leader in this debate, when he was speaking of the value of these films for educational purposes across this country. I think that all progressivethinking or forward-thinking people are realizing more and more their value for that purpose.
Before I conclude I might also say that I was greatly pleased to hear the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) make the statement he made-and with the vigour he displayed and the language that he used- in explanation to the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser). I agree with all he had to say. As a result of this committee's being established and as a result of the excellent opportunity being given to the hon. member for Peterborough West and other members to quiz, inquire and seek information, 1 am sure that at the conclusion of the hearings of that committee, when the report
30, 1952
Committee on National Film Board is made to the house, the prestige of the national film board will be further enhanced in Canada.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.


Robert Henry Winters: -in closing this debate I
simply want to express my thanks to the various members who have spoken expressing appreciation of the work which the film board is doing at the present time. I gather that the film board enjoys a high level of esteem in the minds of all members of the house for the work it is doing, and I shall be glad indeed to convey those sentiments to the members of the board and the commissioner.
I especially wish to thank my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann), for the justifiable remarks he made in this debate. They were prompted chiefly because of the fact that the criticism directed against the board by the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) largely covered a period when the board was under the direction of my esteemed colleague. That criticism, to my mind, is not justified. I know the hon. member's opinions. He has expressed them in the house on many occasions. The period in question was a difficult one for the board, following the war, when retrenchment was required. Periods of retrenchment and deflation are never popular, but sometimes these things must be done; and it is at such times that the real administrative ability and efficiency of the administrator are required to be brought to the fore. As I have done before, I wish to pay tribute to the work my colleague did during that period in defining the operations of the board and establishing those operations on a satisfactory basis in order to face the peacetime period.
During the past two years we have had a number of opportunities to consider the policies of the board, and I think all members have given expression to their views about what the policies should be. The so-called Massey report indicated the direction in which it could be expected that the people of Canada wished the board to progress. On many occasions hon. members have referred to the recommendations of the Massey report. We had opportunities to discuss the policies of the board at the time the legislation was put through this house in 1950, and on the numbers of occasions on which we have discussed the estimates of the board. I think the time has now come to consider the operations of the board in the light of the policies that have been laid down for it.
There is always the question as to how much a government should do in any field
1742	HOUSE OF
Committee on National Film Board and how much private enterprise should do. Just as my colleague who preceded me, I for one have always held the view that the government's agency in this field should do everything possible and practical to stimulate private operators to produce pictures which will reflect Canada to Canadians under the same terms of reference as are laid down as guiding principles for the board itself. I think a good indication that this is being done is contained in Hansard at page 1460, in a reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Macnaughton). The question was whether or not the national film board distributes films produced by private agencies, provincial governments, governments of other countries and agencies of international co-operation such as the United Nations and the European co-operation administration. The answer is that the board does distribute such films and that the number of subjects in distribution as of the date on which that question was answered was 279, with a total of 3,460 prints. I think it must be clear to hon. members that the government is trying, by every reasonable means at its disposal, to encourage private enterprise in the field.
The hon. member for Peterborough West made a statement-and I think he referred to operations some time ago-in which he said he understood that the national film board charged 10 per cent with respect to films made up by private operators for government departments.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That was back in 1948.


Robert Henry Winters: My answer to that statement is that the film board charges no such fee, but that they absorb all such costs of administration themselves.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I simply wish to express the hope that all members of this committee will avail themselves of the fullest opportunity to examine the operations of the board as reflected in its annual report. During the course of the committee's proceedings I hope that hon. members will visit the board's premises in Ottawa and see the conditions under which the employees of the board work. I hope too that all hon. members, including especially the hon. member for Peterborough West, will avail themselves of as many opportunities as possible to see the product which the board turns out.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
IMr. Winters.]


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. E. Lennard (Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to ask the Minister of Public Works. Owing to the extreme damage that was done yesterday to the Burlington canal bridge at the entrance to the Hamilton harbour, will the minister consider immediately the plans of his department for a new overhead structure to replace what is left of the present bridge, especially as it is a vital spot in our highway system, leading from the international boundary into northern Canada and the trans-Canada highway?


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I think this is the
appropriate time to make a statement on the incident mentioned by the hon. member.
On April 29, about noon, the steamer W. Fitzgerald, loaded, approached the Burlington channel and whistled for entrance to the harbour through the ingoing channel. At the Burlington canal the channel is divided into two parts, namely the ingoing and the outgoing; and they are separated by a 30-foot pier in the centre of the channel which forms an abutment of the two bridges, one of which spans each of the channels. The railway bridge located 500 feet further towards the lake is a swing bridge where the one bridge spans both channels and is ordinarily in an open position except when passage of trains demands its being used as a crossing. As the Fitzgerald approached, the bridgemaster prepared to raise the bridge and to make the channel clear for the passage. In doing this he closed the gates at both ends and stopped vehicular traffic. When he returned to the operating cabin he found that either the power, which is supplied by the Hydro Electric Power Commission, was not available or there was some mechanical defect that prevented the bridge from lifting. He then signalled the ship to use the outgoing channel but by this time the ship was too far advanced to alter its course. The ship, realizing the difficulty, dropped both anchors and reversed its engines. However, the bridge-master was still unable to lift the bridge and the ship, though travelling very slow, collided with the bridge in a down position, thus causing the truss to collapse and to turn the operating mechanism out of position. These are the facts as given over the telephone. However, they are being confirmed today by our engineer, Mr. Wilson, who is over getting the details.

As soon as we heard of the accident we dispatched Mr. Thompson, bridge engineer, who is very familiar with the bridge at Hamilton, to look over the situation from the standpoint of what should be done to make a quick replacement. As yet we have no report from either Mr. Wilson or Mr. Thompson. In the meantime we have instructed the department of customs to issue no clearance to the steamer until such time as we have carried on sufficient investigation to determine, even roughly, just what was the exact cause or roughly what liability there was on the steamboat.
The most likely method of replacement would be the installation of two single track Bailey bridges which are suitable for all classes of traffic on a 100-foot span of this type. If these are installed it will mean that the channel will be blocked to navigation and the ingoing and outgoing traffic will have to use the one channel. This will be a great hardship as Hamilton harbour is perhaps one of the busiest harbours in Canada.
It will likely take a period of from two to three weeks to instal the Bailey bridge but for the time being we have arranged with the Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario, who have several of them, to hold what is required for this particular position. We will in all likelihood have to make arrangements with them or with Hamilton Bridge Company, Limited, which I consider will be perfectly satisfactory as they have made them many times and are perhaps the people in Canada most familiar with the installation of them.
The question of whether or not the bridge should be rebuilt or viewed through wider eyes and abandoned to the use of other crossings of the canal and the substitution of a high level fixed bridge to carry vehicular traffic over the canal and at the same time provide a wider channel for navigation can then be gone into.
At the recent meeting of the Dominion Marine Association held about a month ago, their navigation committee came to this office and made special representations asking that the centre pier be removed and that the channel be widened. Their reasons for this were that the vessels, particularly the new larger type, were such that navigation through such a narrow channel was extremely difficult and hazardous. They recommended the construction of a high level bridge located on the line of the present railway.
We have in the department a plan prepared by Colonel Thompson, in his capacity of chief engineer of the Hamilton Bridge Commission, which has already been discussed with the department of highways in Toronto,
Inquiries of the Ministry and this might form a basis of negotiations with the Ontario department of highways whose interests are material by reason of the importance of the Queen Elizabeth highway.



USE OF CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY BRIDGE BY PEDESTRIANS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Exton Lennard: I have another question in this connection that I wish to ask the Minister of Transport. If the answer is not available today, perhaps he will take this as notice. Owing to the tie-up of traffic caused by the damage to the Burlington canal bridge yesterday, will the minister consider allowing the use of the Canadian National railway bridge for pedestrian traffic?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: I spoke to one of the officers of the Canadian National Railways, who is in the city today, and he was unable to give me a definite answer because he wanted to get in touch with the superintendent of the Toronto area. Until he does, I am unable to reply categorically to my hon. friend's question.



HIGHWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Simmons (Yukon-Mackenzie River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Resources and Development. Is the minister prepared to say what progress is being made in regard to the construction of a road this year, following the survey made last year, between Stewart River crossing and Dawson?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, under the terms of the financial agreement between the federal government and the government of the Yukon Territory, there are two main classifications of such roads. One is resource roads which are the responsibility of the federal government, and the other is trunk roads, which are the responsibility of the Yukon government. This road in question has both trunk and resource characteristics. In the circumstances, both governments are interested. At the present time discussions are going on with the commissioner of the Yukon Territory to see if an equitable basis of participation can be arrived at, if this project is to proceed.

Inquiries of the Ministry


James Aubrey Simmons: I have a supplementary question. Will a start be made on construction this year?


Robert Henry Winters: That depends in part, Mr. Speaker, on what agreement can be arrived at with the commissioner of the Yukon Territory.



STRAIT OF CANSO CAUSEWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Clarence Gillis: May I be permitted to direct a question to the Minister of Transport? If and when the master contract for the Canso causeway is let, will the Department of Transport, in co-operation with the Department of Labour, attach to that contract a wage schedule that is fair to the many areas in Nova Scotia from which labour and technical personnel will be drawn?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was kind enough to give me notice of his question several days ago, but because of circumstances over which neither of us had any control it was impossible to deal with it until now. The answer is that schedules of labour have been arranged by the Department of Labour, showing minimum rates of wages for all classes of labour, which will be attached to the contract or contracts entered into by the Department of Transport for the construction of the Canso causeway.



BRETTON WOODS AGREEMENT


James Sinclair: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the house to revert to motions. I beg leave to table the report of the operations of the Bretton Woods agreement for the fiscal year ended March 31,
1952.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Alphonse Fournier: I also wish the house to be kind enough to revert to motions. By leave of the house I move the following motion:
That, In relation to the adjourned debate on the motion of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself again into committee of ways

and means and any amendment or amendments thereto, on the budget brought down Tuesday, April 8, 1952, the provisions of standing order 28 be suspended until the said debate be concluded.
Under standing order 28 the house resolves itself into committee of ways and means, or committee of supply, without question put, on Thursdays and Fridays. Therefore, if we wish to continue the debate on the budget tomorrow and Friday I have to move this motion, with the consent of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. F. Higgins (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Minister of Transport has a couple of answers to questions I asked him yesterday.


Lionel Chevrier: I have yet to get the questions before I answer them.


Gordon Francis Higgins: The questions are on Hansard. I will read them.


Lionel Chevrier: I am sorry; I did not see them.


Gordon Francis Higgins: My first question, Mr. Speaker, is this:
Was radio station VOUS, operated by the United States air force at Pepperrell air force base, St. John's, Newfoundland, compelled or requested to cease broadcasting?
The question is found at page 1694 of Hansard.


Lionel Chevrier: I am sorry; I was not aware of the question on Hansard, because I had to be in a committee yesterday. The answer to the question in so far as the department is concerned is that radio station VOUS was neither compelled nor requested to cease operations.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Then it is fair to say, so far as your department is concerned, VOUS can continue broadcasting?


Lionel Chevrier: I gave my hon. friend the answer to his question; I can neither add to nor subtract from it.


Gordon Francis Higgins: My second question is to be found on the same page and reads as follows:
What is being done to take care of the freight congestion at Halifax of freight destined for St. John's, Newfoundland?


Lionel Chevrier: I understand there was some congestion in that area ten days ago, but that situation has bettered itself considerably. In any event, the Canadian National Railways

have chartered another vessel from Furness Withy, which should be in operation this week.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: I wish to mention, because I will not be here at six o'clock, that we will continue the debate on the budget tomorrow and Friday. If that debate is concluded we will take up legislation in the name of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier).



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, April 29, consideration of the motion of Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood), and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Gordon Francis Higgins: Mr. Speaker, when I broke oil last evening I was dealing with a subject concerning which the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) has just spoken, namely, the operation of radio station VOUS. As I said yesterday, while the matter does not have great importance to all of Canada, nevertheless it is of importance to a great section of Newfoundland. It has the further element that it is most useful to and greatly wanted by United States forces in Newfoundland.
Apart altogether from the very selfish aspect of the matter, that the station means so much to us in Newfoundland in the development of friendship between United States forces and the people of that province, and apart altogether from the good programs which have emanated from the station, particularly for those people who enjoy listening to a ball game, there is also the selfish angle that our continued good relations with United States personnel mean a great deal to us by way of coin of the realm. I am sure no member from Newfoundland would want anything to interfere with that happy relationship. I was assured yesterday by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) that his department had taken no action. It would appear therefore that the present situation in connection with the operation of the station would be the same as it has been since 1941 when the United States forces first came to Newfoundland and established American bases there.
The Budget-Mr. Higgins
I am assured today by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) that his department has taken no action. It would seem to be clear that there is no other control of broadcasting, except that maintained by this government. I would presume that the provincial government certainly could not control the operation of the station. So I get back to the premise I stated last night, which I now feel is the correct one, that the station has ceased broadcasting as a result of the manoeuvring of station CJON, the other commercial station in St. John's. In making that suggestion I am confident it is the correct one.
While this matter may not be one of great importance to all parts of the dominion, because of the importance of international relations and of friendship with our American friends, I believe the suitable minister, if necessary the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) himself, should give assurance to the United States forces in Newfoundland that there is no objection to the operation of that station. This would give great pleasure to American personnel and to the people of Newfoundland.
I have sent to the Minister of Transport a great number of newspaper clippings, even more of which have come to my desk today. They consist of editorials in local newspapers, and numerous letters. This is not a subject brought forward only as a talking point. On the contrary, it is a matter of some importance, and I take this opportunity to make my complaint. I am certain that ministers of the government will agree with me that whatever steps should be taken should be taken by them, so that radio station VOUS may continue its broadcasting, and render a service to the people of Newfoundland.
I mentioned last night that the presence of United States troops constitutes one of our great industries in Newfoundland. Perhaps my description may have been a misnomer, but the fact remains that a considerable amount of money is being left in Newfoundland through the operations there of American bases. I think it is possibly the high-liner of money-returning industries in Newfoundland today, if it can be called an industry.
And, in connection with the establishment of new industries, I am happy to note that a company known as the Newfoundland-Labrador Company-I believe that is the correct name of it-has as its chairman Sir William Stephenson, and that it has gone into that province and taken over the operation of the new industrial program established by the provincial government. Press reports would seem to indicate that Sir William has gone in with the blessing and possibly with the active co-operation of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). At all events the

The Budget-Mr. Higgins minister has allowed himself to be quoted as saying that he is pleased that Sir William Stephenson has done that, and Sir William Stephenson has said that it was at the request of the minister that he agreed to take over the job.
We are happy about it because, quite frankly, we were more than anxious about the way matters had been going under governmental control of these new industries. The surplus left by the commission of government, and which we had hoped would continue for some years, has practically vanished. The schemes for which some of that money has been used by the provincial government are, to say the least, very much on a par with some of the South Sea bubbles of the old days.
In having Sir William Stephenson come to Newfoundland the minister has done us a real service, because he has taken the government Dut of business. That is Sir William's statement; and I understand it was as a result of Sir William's insistence that the premier said the government was turning over the operation of all its industries to this corporation. We do trust that this will be a good measure. Certainly it will reassure our people that the moneys there will be spent wisely.
Because of the expenditure of moneys there will have to be a demand on the federal government for a revision of the terms. One Df the terms of union was that a royal commission would be set up within eight years to review the finances of the province. That will be looked upon with a benevolent eye. [ can assure the minister who will be taking ;hre of this matter that it is very necessary, Decause the financial picture of the government of Newfoundland today is not a happy >ne.
I shall not say more in that connection at he present time. 1 am glad to learn from he Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) today hat congestion of freight at Halifax has been aken care of through supplying a boat of he Furness Withy Company to take care of he excess freight. The situation has been a ieplorable one. I know of one instance where :ars ordered by an importer had left Windsor in April 1, but had not reached him on April 17 the day I left to come to Ottawa. They lad been left in Halifax and had not been orwarded to St. John's in that length of ime. One can very well see -the effect on rusiness of such terrific congestion. I am ;lad to know that it has been taken care of.
I wish to refer to another matter and one vhich directly concerns the budget. Before oming here I had a meeting with the -tobacco workers international union No. 307 whose aembers are employed in the Imperial 'obacco Company -branch at St. John's. It is

a factory that has been in operation for very many years, and the employees are becoming worried as to future operations because of the excessive taxes on -tobacco. The plant has been running on short time and consequently the workers do not have as much take-home pay. The president of the union, Mr. John Madden, wrote me a letter which I wish to put on the record. It reads as follows:
We wish to draw to your attention our views concerning the outrageous budget brought down by-Mr. Abbott. Sir, the budget is about as fine a piece of sabotage of any industry as I have ever heard of. He takes three cents off a pack of cigarettes, then, to add injury to the insult, he takes the same amount off the American cigarettes. This man must have a mania for taxes. He states the government lost money, not because sales dropped off but on account of a strike and a price increase by the manufacturer. This Mr. Abbott knows to be totally untrue. He also states there is very little smuggling of American cigarettes. The man must be blind as well as stubborn.
The manufacturer advanced prices last year by one cent. This did not mean anything. Cigarettes retail out of ship stores for 10 cents a pack of 20. This gives the manufacturer a good profit. Where did the rest of the 40 cents go? I can tell Mr. Abbott where part of it goes, to schemes like the Ming Sung Company which cost a few million, but what is that, or to armies so far on paper. Mr. Abbott takes nothing off the plug or cut tobaccos. The only thing about cut and plug is that they are no worse off than before he brought down his insulting reduction on cigarettes. Plug and cut tobaccos are smoked by frugal people with very few creature comforts, but this means nothing to Mr. Abbott. Mr. Abbott takes your job and the shirt off your back, and then he will look around for a way to spend the money. On behalf of the hundreds who have lost their positions, and of those who will yet have to give up theirs, we wish to thank Mr. Abbott for nothing. To end this letter, I must say I think Mr. Abbott is named wrong. So I now christen him Barabbas.
In company possibly with many other hon. members, and certainly many citizens of the dominion, this being the 30th day of April I also felt very much like using that name when making up my income tax because quite truthfully it was rather a shock to realize that you had to put your hand in your pocket for so much money. We have heard of the tremendous surplus and we have heard no explanation of how it is being used, at least, no explanation that bears water with me. Therefore it seems to me very much like a story that I heard some time ago. There was a gentleman who was always encouraging people to enter politics but he himself was never prepared to do so. He was a fine, outstanding man and in fact is a great friend and close associate of mine. He would be a very admirable person to be a member of parliament. A clergyman said to him: "Mr. Blank, I take it you are going to agree to be a candidate". "Oh no", my friend said, "I really cannot. I should like to but I am too busy". The clergyman said to him, "Well,

I know you are a good person. You read your bible a lot. You should read verse 46 of the 11th chapter of St. Luke". When my friend, who of course does follow his bible very well, got home he took his bible and read this particular verse. I think it is quite appropriate to the present budget and that is why I am going to read it, bearing in mind that the minister in private life is of the same profession as myself. It reads as follows:
And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.
That is the position. I expect that next year, when there will very likely be an election in the fall, not only will fingers be put to the budget but the whole hand, and we will have a very much different budget to face at that time. I am sorry that the minister is not here but his very able parliamentary assistant is, and I know he wiE bear in mind the request of the tobacco workers union of St. John's, and I hope he will endeavour to take away in the next budget the name that the minister has been christened.


Mr. R. J. Wood (Norquay):: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to speak in the budget debate because it gives me an opportunity to deal with a matter with which I have been more or less concerned all through my life. I was born in a rural area in the province of Manitoba where we have no manufacturers. I am going to touch briefly today on the question of tariffs. I am sorry to say that in the budget there is very little reduction in tariffs. There is a small reduction with respect to the importation of glass but apart from that there is practically no reduction in tariffs whatever. Throughout Canadian history it is the Liberal party alone from which relief has been received so far as tariff walls are concerned.
In Manitoba and the other prairie provinces we are primary producers. We produce grain, livestock and poultry, and we catch fish. Farther west there is oil and gas, and in the north there are minerals. Canadian manufacturers are located in what is known as central Canada, an area bordered by the cities of Montreal, Oshawa, Toronto, Hamilton, Windsor, Sarnia, Sudbury and Ottawa. Central Canada is the territory inside that triangle, and it is known as industrial Canada. When I talk about central or industrial Canada that is the locality to which I have reference.
Tariffs were originally set up in the form of a fairly strong wall in 1879 during the days of the Sir John A. Macdonald government. In 1896 under the Tupper government the wall was made larger and more dominant.
55704-11 li
The Budget-Mr. Wood Following the election of 1911, tariffs were made still higher under the late Sir Robert Borden government. Then after the election in 1930 we got the Bennett government, under which we had tariff walls higher than ever before or since in Canadian history. All through the history of Canada our tariff walls were increased during the times the Conservatives were in power. The only time we got any relief was when we had a Liberal government. We were given relief under Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and previous to the election of 1911 he promised that if the Liberals won that election we would have considerable relief through reciprocity. Unfortunately, particularly for western Canada, we lost that election. Under the government of William Lyon Mackenzie King tariffs were lowered on many occasions; and as I said in the beginning, I am rather disappointed that in this budget we were not given more relief from tariffs.
Today we hear from hon. members to the left the same kind of talk we had back in the days of Arthur Meighen and R. B. Bennett. We hear talk of Canada first, and we hear demands for a meeting of the British -ommonwealth of nations. This Canada first talk is not new in this country. Arthur Meighen and his followers were talking about Canada first in this house for five years, from 1921 to 1925. Only one group of people in this country would benefit from Canada first; that is the owners of industry. And as far as I can see, no good would come from a meeting of the British commonwealth of nations. We had two or three meetings of the commonwealth nations shortly after R. B. Bennett's government was elected in 1930, and each meeting resulted in more restrictions upon trade with our neighbours and best customers, the United States.
I remember the conditions that existed under the Bennett government when the highest tariffs in our history were put up. During the campaign we had men come into our halls and schools and ask if we were satisfied with 28 cents a pound for our butter and 22 cents a dozen for our eggs. Not long after that we were getting only 14 cents a pound for butter and 7 cents a dozen for eggs. They asked if we were satisfied with the prices we were getting for grain. After they got into power we could not sell our grain at all. I have in mind a farmer living a little west of Virden in western Manitoba who wanted to get some money to send his children to high school, so he loaded a carload of 1,800 bushels of barley, shipped it to Fort William and waited for the return. His only return was a bill from the railway company for $7.32 still owing for freight on the car. He did not have the $7.32; a farmer could not sell any-
1748	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Wood thing for cash under the Bennett government because we had no markets, so he wrote back to the railway company and said he was sorry he did not have any cash, but he had more barley.
I was running a transport from 1933 to 1935 and I know how the market was for cattle and hogs in those days. During 1934 I saw carloads of pretty fair grades of cattle coming to the stockyards at St. Boniface from Saskatchewan and Alberta, and being unloaded and sold for one-half cent per pound. Naturally you will wonder how the farmer could pay the freight. Arrangements were made in those days whereby the railway absorbed one-third of the cost of freight, the farmer absorbed one-third, and the government absorbed the remaining third. In that way they were able to take these surplus cattle off the prairies and sell them for a half cent per pound. That was $5 for a thousand pound animal; that is what pretty fair animals were selling for at the stockyards in those days. Our hogs were selling at $4 a head. When I hear hon. members to the left worrying and accusing our government of doing nothing about markets for our cattle, I think they should clean their own doorstep first.


Mr. Ferguson:: We have foot-and-mouth disease under the Liberal government.


Robert James Wood: The tough times on the prairies under R. B. Bennett are not going to be forgotten for quite a while. During those days the farmers could not get cash for their eggs, their butter, their grain, their cattle or their hogs. As a result they could hardly get enough cash to buy the necessities of life for their families.


Mr. Brooks:: It was the same all over the world.


Robert James Wood: I can remember that in those days, because a farmer could not get gas to run his car, he would take out the engine, put a tongue and doubletree in front of his car, and pull it around with horses. We see those old cars sitting in barnyard corners today, and they are known as Bennett wagons. In western Canada the Bennett government will go down in history for having at least introduced the Bennett wagon. That resulted partly from the policy of Canada first, and that is what might happen again if we had another meeting of commonwealth nations which would introduce measures that would interfere with trade with the United States.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: May I ask the hon. member one question?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Robert James Wood: 
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Robert James Wood: I am sorry to see the hon.
gentleman to the left of me so worried about these conditions I am mentioning. These conditions are known to many people across Canada who travel in the United States.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: These statements are so inaccurate. About three-quarters of what you said is inaccurate, and I should like to point out the inaccuracies right here.


Robert James Wood: 
Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I hope the Toronto Star prints your speech.


Robert James Wood: I hope so too. I am sure the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail as well would learn a lesson. The general tariff on these goods, Mr. Speaker, is as follows: On stoves, it is 30 per cent; washing machines, 35 per cent; and on toasters, 30 per cent; irons, 271 per cent; mixmasters, 35 per cent, and so on down the line.
Then, we come to shirts. The British preference on shirts made from woven fabrics, wholly of cotton, is 25 per cent. The mostfavoured-nation rate is 25 per cent, and the general tariff rate is 35 per cent plus 4 cents per pound. You will notice that 25 per cent just works out to the difference between the United States price and the Canadian price on those shirts. That is what industry in Canada is doing. They are just calculating the retail value of these goods from the United States, not only for refrigerators, washing machines, automobiles but also shirts that are made in Canada, and then adding on the amount of the tariff; that is what the customers are paying.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: Subsidizing industry.


Robert James Wood: That is what I am coming to. Within the last five years the western provinces have produced, in agriculture alone, over $5 billion worth of goods. We cannot come down into Ontario and sell any of those goods.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Why not?


Robert James Wood: We cannot.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: You sell millions of dollars'
worth of goods in Ontario.


Robert James Wood: We cannot sell any here, and that is what I want to come to now. We produced over a billion and a half dollars' worth of goods, and when western producers come to sell their goods they cannot sell them in Ontario. We have to sell our goods

The Budget-Mr. Wood throughout the world over the top of tariff barriers. We have been able to sell our cattle in the United States, thanks to the Mackenzie King government. In 1936, through the good offices of the late W. L. Mackenzie King, we were allowed to sell to the United States a total of 250,000 cattle a year, and from that time right up until today our cattle market has been increasing in price. The outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease has put an end to that, however. If we are to go back and depend on the British market, as we did prior to 1948, our prices are not going to be very good in this country, and I am afraid our production of cattle in this country will go down a great deal also.


An hon. Member:: Too poor to buy.


Robert James Wood: That is right; too poor to buy. I want to say that in my constituency and our province of Manitoba we caught in the last year over 30 million pounds of fish. In my constituency alone we caught over 10 million pounds. When we go down to the cities of Windsor, Hamilton or Toronto, however, and ask those cities if they will buy our fish, they say, "No, we have lots of fish of our own."


Mr. Brown (Essex West):: We will buy your goldeye any time.


Robert James Wood: Ninety-eight per cent of the fish caught in my constituency is shipped to Minneapolis and Chicago. When we get cash back-and that is what we get; and we are considered a sheltered market-we are compelled by this tariff barrier to send the money down to central Canada for the goods we require for our livelihood.
I consider that that is discrimination against the consumers in western Canada. I consider-and I am sorry to have to say this, but I must do so-that it has cost Manitoba too much to belong to confederation. Tariffs are just a handout to industry.


James Sinclair: They are subsidies.


Robert James Wood: They keep in business a man Who should be out of business. They allow him to charge a larger profit than would be charged if conditions were equal. That is the result of tariffs. As I said before, I am sorry that this budget does not show more reduction in the tariffs than it shows. I feel that if we are going to get any relief at all from tariffs, we have to get it through a Liberal administration because Canadian history shows that we will not get it from the Conservatives. Certainly the Conservatives in their talk do not show any disposition to favour any relief whatever in the future with regard to tariffs.


I have here a statement, and I want to quote it, which was made by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne) who, I believe I might say with apology to the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. Higgins), is perhaps the leader of the Conservatives in the new province of Newfoundland. This is what he says, as reported at page 790 of Hansard of November 7, 1951:
I think that is the experience of anyone who has recently visited the United States.
He is talking about prices.
They will agree that, in almost 99 per cent of the goods that they saw there, their observation of prices showed that the prices are lower in the United States than they are in Canada. This article sets out a list comparing the prices, and only in two or three cases are they higher in the United States.
That is just an observation that everybody in this country knows.
I have here a quotation that I want to give you from another leading Conservative, namely the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer). I understand that the hon. member for Three Rivers is the president of the Young Liberal Association of Canada.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Conservative.


Robert James Wood: Yes, of the Young Progressive Conservative Association. As he is one who is in such an important position, I would presume that he is here voicing Conservative policy. He says here-and you will find this at page 491 of Hansard of October 29, 1951:
Again I urge the government to prohibit immediately all meat exports to the United States, so that the price of beef, for instance,-which is a basic food-may return to a level that would be commensurate with the income of the average Canadian, while still enabling western cattle breeders to make a reasonable profit. As long as we export our meat to the United States where salaries are much higher than in Canada,-
You will notice what he says about salaries, namely that they are much higher in the United States than they are in Canada.
-our fellow citizens will have to go without meat . . .
And so on. That is a statement of which I hope our cattle producers throughout the country will take note. As he is the president of the young Conservatives of Canada, I presume that the Conservative party will agree with that statement.
I have here a statement by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne) and I was rather surprised at this statement in view of the fact that he represents a new province. Of course, if the country is full of industries I can understand the statement. But if it is not full of industries-and I doubt that it is-then I cannot understand this statement coming from a man who is considered to

hold a fairly high position in that party.
I might say that this statement may be found at page 735 of Hansard of November 5, 1951. As he is there reported, the hon. member said:
I just want to draw to the attention of the house the fact that we import about $1,500 million worth of goods a year from the United States,-
That is all right.
-upon which a large amount of customs duty is paid. I suppose the customs duties collected by the Canadian government must run into an amount of about $250 million.
I would judge that they run into more than that. I would judge that they run to at least $300 million. He continues:
I do not know how much is collected from the United States, but there must be a substantial proportion of that amount. The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance is present in the chamber listening to what is being said. Would he approve such a policy? What would the other countries of the commonwealth say? They would say:	What? You are going to make a special
friend of the United States and let their goods in free? What about the rest of the world? The United States is the greatest country in the world at the present time. You are going to help her to oecome greater; you are going to throw your doors open to the United States, and are not going to give us any chance. What about the people in Canada who are working in factories that were built up by this protection? Are we going to throw the doors open to allow foreign goods to come into this country? Such a suggestion is fantastic . . .
Mr. Speaker, I will say that such a suggestion is not fantastic. I would also say, speaking about inflation and the high cost of living, that I believe if the tariffs were lowered by 25 per cent tomorrow we would have a reduction of at least 15 points in our cost of living index inside of ten days.
The automobile industry has become extremely strong in this country. The Ford motor company and the Chrysler corporation have built up a great city in Windsor. Certainly General Motors have built a great city in Oshawa. They all complain of the corporation taxes being too high. Nevertheless, I note that General Motors in Oshawa are extending their plant at a cost of $8 million this year.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: They are losing money.


Robert James Wood: They may be losing money, but they are spending $8 million on a new truck plant this year. Studebaker down in Hamilton is not doing too badly either. As I said before, we produce over $1,500 million worth of goods in the western provinces each year. We sell these goods not in Ontario or in Quebec because we have no market there for those goods. We must sell them throughout the world wherever we can find a market.
The Budget-Mr. Wood But when we need to spend our money, Mr. Speaker, and when we need to buy goods that we require, whether it be automobiles, clothing, boots and shoes, furniture or anything else, because of our tariff system we are compelled to funnel all that wealth right down here into the centre of Canada.
I have a reply to a question of the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Goode) which appeared on the order paper, and in which he asked for the value of the agricultural products of the three prairie provinces. The reply says that in 1950 the three prairie provinces produced $1 billion worth of goods. I also have a statement from the automobile industry showing the number oi cars, trucks and buses produced in Canada, A total of 390,102 cars, trucks and buses wert produced in 1950 at a valuation of $610 million. This reply to the hon. member foi Burnaby-Richmond says that, in Manitoba Saskatchewan and in Alberta 93,763 cars trucks and buses were purchased, which amounts to 24 per cent of the entire production of 1950 at a valuation of $190 million That is 30 per cent of $610 million, the entire cost of these cars, trucks and buses producer in 1950. Therefore when you talk about the wealth that is produced in the west, and wha' becomes of it, just keep in mind that we have to find markets throughout the world but when it comes to spending our money i comes down into the central part of Canada into the cities of Windsor, Oshawa, Toronto and Hamilton, and other cities in this are: that I described when I rose to my feet, am we get nothing in return. We are paying and continually bonusing, the industries dowi here because of the tariff, and we are gettinj nothing in return. I say that it has cos Manitoba producers and my constituents toi much money to belong to confederation.
I have another little quotation that I wisl to bring to the attention of the house. It is ; remark of the leader of the opposition (Mi Drew), which he made on March 18, concern ing corporation taxes. I am going to read thi remark of his because, in my opinion, h probably expresses an opinion here that doe not conform with my interpretation of wha he said. He said, at page 571 of Hansard:
There are different methods of dealing with thos inflationary pressures. There is one way this gov ernment has not attempted, by which it can dea with inflationary pressures better than by any othe method at this moment. That is to stop this ovei taxation. Some $721 million of overtaxation in th first nine months is $721 million taken from th pockets of our people which has added by that muc to their expenditures. Let it not be said that a sut stantial part of this is represented by corporatio taxes. No one knows better than the Minister c Finance that if firms are to stay in business corpora tion taxes are going to be passed on to the consume and they always will. Every hon. member in th
1752	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Wood house knows that no other method can be employed under a system which seeks to retain some measure of profit as an alternative to bankruptcy. All this is paid by the people, and has been taken out of their pockets.
It is true that that is being paid by the people. I have no complaint to make about that statement. It is absolutely true. I also see that he is quoted in the Hamilton Spectator as making the same statement in Beamsville. The following appears in that paper:
This year's budget, he said, meant an average of $315 for every man, woman and child in Canada to pay the Canadian government alone, not including provincial or municipal taxes.
The invisible taxes were much greater than the income tax, and corporation tax was "a second hidden sales tax with every cent being paid by the people."
That is true. All these taxes are being paid by the people. I am not taking any objection to that statement. It is true that all taxes come from the pockets of the people, whether they are hidden taxes or otherwise. But if corporation taxes are reduced, it does not follow that we shall be able to buy goods any cheaper. That is the point. It means only that corporation profits will be greater, and the shareholders of the corporations will get bigger dividends. Therefore the people that the leader of the opposition is interested in are the class of people who own the corporations. I am not surprised at this, because the leader of the opposition leads a party that has always been interested in the people who own corporations. It is nothing new.
You often hear, Mr. Speaker, of afterdinner speeches being made in some of these cities along the central line of Canada and the United States, where they rise to emphasize the imaginary line. I want to say that there is nothing imaginary about this line between Canada and the United States. I would say that as far as trade is concerned, the line between Canada and the United States is an iron curtain. It is an iron curtain that was first established under the Sir John A. Macdonald government, and made stronger under the Tupper government, and then still higher under the Arthur Meighen government and by devious ways and means under the R. B. Bennett government it was made still higher. They had such things as British preferential tariff, and then the mostfavoured-nation clause, the general tariff, quotas, administrative orders and everything else. The result is that there is great trouble to get anything out of the United States and into this country. You have to get a permit; then there are quotas, administrative orders, and all the various sections of the tariff. That s what we are up against in this country.
[ now come to item 491 in the budget, which provides for the expenditure of $1,500,000 for 

the tourist trade. Personally, I think it is a good thing to encourage tourists to come to Canada and see our lovely country, and try to get them to spend their money here. But I have a statement from the Free Press which says that in 1950 Canadian tourists spent $140 per capita in the United States; whereas the United States tourists spent $10 per capita in Canada. There is nothing whatever surprising about that when you consider the different levels of prices. You know, the people of the United States are not any more foolish than we are. I think they are probably a lot smarter than we are. The people of the United States have their own money; they earn that money. They come to Canada, and they look around for something to buy. When they walk into the stores and shops and find that the level of prices is from 15 per cent to 20 per cent higher than they are in the United States they say: What is the use of buying this stuff here? They go home and they buy what they want at home. Many Americans come to Canada, and they would spend the money they have, but they find nothing to spend it on. The only things they buy in this country are gasoline, food and probably a little English chinaware, and a few trinkets that they take home with them just to show that they were in Canada. They walk into the stores, and they see an ordinary shirt. That shirt would cost them $4.95 in Ottawa, but they can get it for $3.95 in their own city, and they say: What is the use of spending money in this country? They look at a refrigerator which costs $400 in this country, but they can buy it for $265 in any city in the United States. The spread in automobile prices is around $500. Many people say that this spread is taken up in the sales and excise taxes. Do not believe that story. The tax on a Chevrolet car today is approximately $353. There is a federal tax on the same car of $129 in the United States, so that the spread in taxes in the two countries is of the order of about $230. The spread between the Canadian and the United States tax is not of the greatest importance; it is the spread the automobile industry collects in this country that makes the difference.
I should not like to close without mentioning one further matter. The farmers of Ontario and Quebec are in a preferred position. Situated here in the central provinces, they are close to the industrial centres where, if there is any little market at all, it is available to them. I say "any little market at all", because it is not very big. Those of us from the west are not able to sell our goods down here in industrial Canada-and I wish to

emphasize that fact. We have had unfortunate experiences with our fish, because we found we could not sell a box of fish in this part of the country.
i say the farmers of Ontario and Quebec are in a preferred position, because they live close to these large industries. We must keep in mind that for the past number of years the federal treasury has been bonusing the Ontario and Quebec farmers to the extent of $6 per ton on feed for their cattle and hogs. I say that, in the light of that fact, it shows a lack of grace on the part of any citizen of either Ontario or Quebec when he criticizes the payment of $65 million received by the farmers of the west for their grain. That is only pin money when compared with the hundreds of millions of dollars we pour into central Canada in the payment of prices that are too high for the goods we buy. I say that hundreds of millions of dollars have been poured in for that purpose, and that it shows ill grace on the part of any citizen of Ontario and Quebec to mention the payment of $65 million. So far as that is concerned, it is a matter of only two or three cents a bushel; so that if a farmer does sell a thousand bushels it is only a matter of $25. That same farmer will buy a Chevrolet automobile and will have to pay $300 more for it than if he could buy it across the boundary line. So I suggest the citizens of Ontario and Quebec should not make reference to that $65 million any more.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: If it is the ideal place, why do you not move down here?


Robert James Wood: Before closing, I wish to comment upon the budget. I believe the budget is a good one. I wish to commend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) for budgeting on a pay-as-you-go basis. If we are going to cut down on our taxation it would mean that we would have to sell bonds and borrow in order to carry on. I think that would be a wrong policy for Canada at this time, with the country as prosperous as it is.
Again may I say that I commend the budget, and I am well pleased with it. I am not satisfied to see that tariffs have not been
The Budget-Mr. Wood reduced but, apart from that fact, I am pleased with the budget and offer my congratulations to the Minister of Finance.
At this point I should like to voice my gratitude to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) for having secured markets in past years. I must say that it is not the price one gets for his product that means everything. Price is a secondary consideration. The fact that he has a market for his goods is the important thing.
One has only to refer to what the condition was in the days of the late R. B. Bennett. He was going to get us markets, and give us big prices. But he did not get the markets. He did not make an effort during that time to get markets for our cattle, and when the United States government passed a measure of reciprocity in 1934 he neglected to do anything on our behalf. It was not until 1936, when the Mackenzie King government took office, that we were able to make any kind of satisfactory deal. So there is no use of members in the opposition talking about markets.
I am not kicking about prices. Although they might not be as high as might be desired, let us have the markets. I offer my word of gratitude, as I have said, to those two ministers, because they have done more for the people in western Canada than have all other men put together.
I could speak much longer, but I believe I shall not do so at this time. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your indulgence.
On motion of Mr. Courtemanche the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Graydon:: What will be the business tomorrow?


Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: We will continue this debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is what the Minister of Public Works said.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 1, 1952