1953-12-02

RIDING MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK


Mr. Zaplilny:: 1.	What amount of money was spent in the Riding Mountain national park on the construction, repair or maintenance of roads and highways, in each year from January 1, 1946 to December 31, 1952?
2.	What was the total revenue from the Riding Mountain national park, in each year from January 1, 1946 to December 31, 1952?


Mr. Lesage:: 1.
Period
Fiscal year		Amount
1945-46 			
1946-47 			.. 14,786-72
1947-48 			.. 14,342-53
1948-49 			.. 273,380-96
1949-50 			.. 502,859-48
1950-51 			.. 26,244-13
1951-52 			.. 300,854-20
1952-53 			.. 581,133-27
Total 			.. $1,718,672-97
2.		
Fiscal Year		Amount
1945-46 			... $ 53,927-98
1946-47 			,... 64,726-86
1947-48 			... 67,708-93
1948-49 			... 73,362-41
1949-50 			... 79,730-92
1950-51 			... 104,653-31
1951-52 			... 116,385-44
1952-53 			... 128,049-68
		$688,545-53
WHEAT	STORAGE


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1. What is the total amount		paid for storage of
wheat by the wheat board from (a) 1st January		
to 31st December, 1952;	(b)	1st January to 1st
November, 1953?
2. What elevator companies or storage companies were paid for storage, since the 1st day of January, 1952, and how much was paid to each company since the said date?


Mr. Howe (Pori Arthur):: 1.	(a) $17,043,833.33.	(b) It is not the
practice of the board to report in respect to operations in the current crop year and therefore 1 (b) above is answered for the period from January 1, 1953, to July 31, 1953. During this period storage paid by the board amounted to $12,733,154.03.
2.	It is not the policy of the board to disclose records which would reveal the competitive position of handling companies.



OLD AGE SECURITY FUND

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Do the announced figures as to the amount of money credited to the old age security fund include the extra amounts of personal income tax collected from recipients of old age security where such persons are in taxable income brackets?
2.	If not, what is the actual or estimated amount collected in this way for the calendar year 1952, and what is the estimated amount that will be collected in this way for the calendar year 1953?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	No.
2.	No information available.



TOURIST REVENUE AND ADVERTISING

Mr. Murphy (Lambion West):: 1.	What was the tourist revenue for Canada for the years 1952 and 1953 to date?
2.	What advertising agency was engaged and how much did it receive?
3.	How much of this amount was in (a) newspapers, and where located:	(b) films; (c)
magazines?
4.	What advertising agency has been employed for 1954 to promote tourist industry?


Mr. Lesage:: 1.	(a) 1952-$275 million. (Figures compiled by the dominion bureau of statistics indicate that this amount was spent in Canada by tourists coming to Canada from other countries).
(b) 1953-No figures yet available.
2.	1952 and 1953-Cockfield, Brown and Company Limited. No amount was received by the company from the Department of Resources and Development as a commission in connection with its services. The total cost of the advertising campaign of the Canadian government travel bureau in the United States magazines and newspapers during the calendar year 1952 was $852,911.85, and during the calendar year 1953 up to November 18 was $880,889.59. These amounts were paid to Cockfield, Brown and Company

Questions
Limited and covered space and mechanical charges at standard rates. The advertising firm plans and places the advertising on behalf of the department. It receives a commission from the magazines and newspapers based on the standard rates charged for the advertising placed with them.
3.	(a) Newspapers-1952, $330,843.65; 1953, $275,797.21. Located in the United States.
(b)	Films-Nil.
(c)	Magazines-1952,	$521,129.62;	1953,

4.	Cockfield, Brown and Company Limited1, Montreal, Quebec, has been engaged to take care of the advertising campaign of the Canadian government travel bureau in the United States.



CIVIL SERVICE PENSIONS

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	How many retired civil servants are receiving
pensions of amounts within each of the following brackets: (a) less than $20 per month; (b) $20.00 to $29.99 per month; (c) $30.00 to $39.99 per month; (d) $40.00 to $49.99 per month; (e) $50.00 to $59.99 per month; (f) $60.00 to $69.99 per month:	(g)
$70.00 to $79.99 per month; (h) $80.00 to $89.99 per month; (i) $90.00 to $99.99 per month; (j) $100 per month and over?
2.	How many widows of retired civil servants are receiving pensions of amounts within each of the brackets indicated in the above question?
3.	What is the number of retired federal civil servants and also the number of widows of retired federal civil servants presently residing in each province?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1 and 2.
-	Retired Civil Servants	Widows
	325	1,025 1,032 905
(V) $20 00 to $29 99 ' " 		514	
'(c) $30 00 to $39.99 " 		710	
(d) $40 00 to $49 99 " 	846	774(e) $50 00 to $59 99 " 	763	623'(f) $60 00 to $69.99 " 	875	357'(g) $70 00 to $79 99 " 	858	266(h) $80 00 to $89 99 " 	916	169(ij $90 00 to $99 99 " 	850	1164,783	255
11,440	5,522
3.
-	Retired Civil Servants	Widows
	62	21
	439	205
	64	27
	278	168
	2,019	1,146
	5,075	2,562
	497	246
	260	106
	525	196
	1,915	645
	306	200
	11,440	5,522
[Mr. Lesage.l



MINESWEEPERS

Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo):: 1.	What were the prices originally set for the construction of minesweepers which were under construction in shipyards in eastern Canada and British Columbia in the years 1951, 1952 and 1953?
2.	Were these prices increased?
3.	If so, when, and by how much?
4.	What were the reasons for the increases?
5.	What is the contract price for the most recent contracts let for the construction of minesweepers?


Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):: 1.	Because of the urgency of the military requirement, contracts for 14 minesweepers were placed with 9 different shipyards before detailed drawings and specifications were completed. Under the circumstances, the department could not enter into firm price contracts, and it was necessary to place the business on a cost plus basis. No prices have been set for these vessels as it is not possible to establish a price until each ship is completed and costs are audited. Obviously, the costs will differ from yard to yard due to varying rates of labour, overhead and other differentials. The Department of National Defence provided funds in the amount of $3,900,000 to start construction on the first 4 vessels, and later provided the sum of $9,750,000 to enable construction on 10 additional vessels to be undertaken. Contracts were awarded providing for payment to the
Questions
contractors up to $925,000 per vessel. Additional sums have been authorized from time to time against which payments have been made to the contractors.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	Not applicable.
5.	Contracts have recently been approved for the construction of 6 additional minesweepers. This authorization provides for contracts on a "price to be negotiated" basis, with provision for progress payments of cost only. Negotiations are presently under way with a view to placing these contracts on the basis of cost plus a fixed fee and incentive bonus.



RIDING MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK


Mr. Zaplitny:: 1.	How many persons were employed by the government in the Riding Mountain national park on August 1, 1953, (a) full time; (b) part time?
2.	What was the salary, wages or other remuneration in the case of each person?


Mr. Lesage:: 1.	(a) 108, of which 72 were seasonal employees.
(b) Nil.
2.
Number	Positions	Rate
i		$5260 per annum
i		5220 "
1		3410 "
i		2990 "
3		2780 "
1		2640 "
2		2570 "
1		3390 "
1		2770 "
1		2590 "
1		2020 "
1		3160 "
1		2990 "
3		1.75 per hour 1.00 "
2		
68		1.00 "
3		1.10 "
1		1.15 "
1		1.25 "
1		1.07 "
1		1.15 "
6		1.10 "
1		1.20 "
1		1.20 "
1		1.30 "
1		1.00 "
1		1.30 "
i		180.00 per month
		
108		
This list does not include members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Questions



NO. 17 REGIONAL ORDNANCE DEPOT

Mr. Winch:: 1.	Is No. 17 regional ordnance depot at Lynn Creek, North Vancouver, British Columbia, being moved to a new location?
2.	If so, have a number of classified civil servants at present employed as watchmen been notified that they will be released from their positions on or about December 22 of this year and their positions in the new location filled by members of the corps of commissionaires?
3.	Were the afore-mentioned watchmen upon the beginning of their employment assured that their positions would be secure as long as their services were satisfactory?
4.	If so, is any provision being made for the continuing employment of the personnel affected?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	The ordnance depot at Lynn Creek is being converted from a regional ordnance depot to an area ordnance depot.
2.	No.
3.	No.
4.	Not applicable.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Has the federal government at any time since
January 1,	1952, received complaints from the
civil service commission in connection with any difficulties in recruiting help for the public service? If so, how many such complaints have been received and on what dates?
2.	What was the date of the last general salary increase for federal civil servants?
3.	How many employees left the federal civil service in 1952, and how many have left thus far in 1953?
4.	Has the government any facilities for handling employees' problems in connection with salaries? If so, what are such facilities?
5.	Are there any arbitration facilities available to federal civil servants similar to those available to employees in private industry? If so, what are such facilities?
6.	Are employees in the public service now on the five-day week working the same number of hours they did before the institution of the five-day week? If not, what changes as to total number of hours have been made?
7.	How many federal civil servants are now working at other jobs to supplement their monthly salaries?
8.	Is the government taking any steps to improve staff relations and the morale of federal civil servants? If so, what steps are being taken?


Mr. Pickersgiil:: 1.	There have been no complaints. The procedure is that when established salary rates seem insufficient to attract suitable appointees for any class in the public service, the civil service commission recommends to the government such increased rates as may be necessary to meet recruiting needs. Since January 1, 1952 such upward revisions have been made in 326 classes. These are in addition to the general salary increases recently announced.

2.	December 1, 1953.
3.	Voluntary separations from the classified service in 1952 were approximately 9,000, and in the first ten months of 1953 the same number.
4.	In the national joint council of the public service there are facilities for discussing the principles governing salary rates, and employees' associations, as well as individual employees, have also constant access to their departments and to the civil service commission to present their views in such matters.
5.	No.
6.	Yes, except in certain operating classes where the weekly hours have been reduced.
7.	No information.
8.	Steps are constantly being taken to improve staff relations and the morale of federal civil servants. These include the provision of departmental personnel officers, staff training officers, and counselling officers both at headquarters and in the field; a fuller use of the national joint council of the public service; a closer liaison between staff associations, departments of government, and the civil service commission; and the legislation already approved which provides superannuation benefits for temporary as well as permanent employees.



CIVIL DEFENCE ALLOTMENTS

Mr. Zapliiny:: 1.	Have the allotments been made to the provinces for civil defence purposes by the Department of National Health and Welfare for the year 1953?
2.	If so, what amount has been allotted to each province?


Mr. Robertson:: 1.	Yes, the provinces have been advised of the amounts available to them this year.
2.	Newfoundland, $32,978; Prince Edward Island, $7,874; Nova Scotia, $65,696; New Brunswick, $45,956; Quebec, $433,081; Ontario, $492,008; Manitoba, $83,367; Saskatchewan, $66,538; Alberta, $85,545; British Columbia, $132,616.



GAGETOWN TRAINING AREA-PROPERTIES PURCHASED

Mr. Brooks:: 1.	How many properties have been purchased by the Department of National Defence in the Gage-town military training area?
2.	What is the total amount paid to date for these properties?
3.	How many properties are still to be purchased and the estimated cost?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	As of November 21, 1953, the Department of National Defence had purchased 782 properties in the Gagetown military training area.

2.	Settlements for the 782 properties totalled $4,938,845.
3.	There are approximately 218 properties still to be purchased; because of the diversity of type, size and value, it is not possible to estimate their cost with any accuracy.



JET ENGINE PLANT, MALTON

Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo):: 1.	Was a government-owned jet engine plant at Malton, Ontario recently sold to private interests?
2.	If so, to whom was it sold, at what price and on what terms?
3.	What was the investment of public funds in this plant?


Mr. Howe (Pori Arihur):: 1.	Yes, including as well certain other crown-owned lands and buildings.
2.	(a) A. V. Roe Canada Limited, Malton, Ontario.
(b)	$17,154,597, subject to minor adjustments.
(c)	$6,000,000 in cash on the execution of the agreement, $1,000,000 on the first day of July in the years 1954 to 1962 both inclusive; the balance on July 1, 1983 with interest on the unpaid balance at the rate of 4 per cent per annum up to and including July 1, 1958, and at the rate of 5 per cent per annum thereafter. There is a further provision to the effect that annual payments shall be not less than the amount by which the income taxes that would have been payable by the company if no additional capital cost allowances were deducted exceed the income taxes actually payable.
3.	$17,391,465, subject to minor adjustments.



ROSS POST OFFICE, WINNIPEG  SPECIAL STAMP

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Have representations been received by the Post Office Department urging that a special stamp be issued to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the establishment of the first post office in western Canada, namely, the Ross post office, which was opened in what is now Winnipeg, on February 28,
1855?	.
2.	If so, what reply has been made to any such representations?
3.	Has this matter been reviewed by the Post Office Department since it was last discussed in the House of Commons, on May 13, 1953?
4.	If so, what is the result of such review, and will the proposed commemorative stamp be issued?


Mr. Kirk (Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare):: 1.	Yes.
2.	The issue of "commemorative" stamps has been confined to events of nation-wide historical interest. A departure from this long established policy is not considered advisable.
3.	Yes.
4.	See answer to No. 2.
Questions



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	What is the total amount of money now in the unemployment insurance fund?
2.	What was the total amount in the fund one year ago; two years ago; five years ago; ten years ago?
3.	Has consideration been given by the government, or by the unemployment insurance commission, to increasing the rate of weekly benefits available to those insured under the fund? If so, what is the result of such consideration?


Mr. Gregg:: 1.	October 31, 1953, $903,095,488.39.
2.	March	31, 1953,	$857,315,440.81;
March 31,	1952, $782,828,328.15; March
31,	1951,	$674,535,033.87; March 31,1948,	$455,825,840.46; March 31,	1943,

Figures reported are those at the close of each fiscal year when interest on securities is accrued and added.
3.	When the Unemployment Insurance Act was passed in 1940, the maximum weekly benefit payable to a person with a dependent was $14.40. This was increased in 1948 to $18.30; in 1950 to $21 and in 1952 to $24. At the last session the act was amended to permit the payment of benefit to those who become ill while entitled to benefit, but it is not yet possible to estimate the extent to which this will affect the fund. When this has been determined it will be possible to bring to a conclusion the study which is presently being made of this whole question.



EARLE ROBERTSON

Mr. Argue:: 1.	What are the names of the principal officers of the leading farm organizations who recommended the appointment of Mr. Earle Robertson to the Canadian wheat board?
2.	With what farm organization is each of the above-mentioned officers associated?


Mr. Howe (Port Arihur):: Discussions
were held with a number of people and several names were proposed. It would not be in the public interest to name those who recommended Mr. Robertson. I regard this information as confidential and therefore privileged.



POLIOMYELITIS-ASSISTANCE TO PROVINCES

Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: 1.	What assistance has been provided by the government for victims of polio?
2.	What grants have been made to the provinces for this purpose from January 1, 1952, to date?


Mr. Robertson:: 1. With the virtual elimination of diphtheria, whooping cough and smallpox as threats to the nation's health and with the very encouraging progress made in recent

Questions
years in bringing tuberculosis under control, the federal government fully realizes that poliomyelitis has now assumed new prominence as a major public health problem in Canada.
Preliminary figures, with 8,243 cases and a tragic toll of 354 deaths to date, indicate that this year's outbreak of poliomyelitis will prove to be one of the most serious on record.
Assistance under National Health Program
As one means of helping to combat poliomyelitis the federal government has made over $1,500,000 available to the provinces under the national health program.
Of this more than $730,000 has been granted by the federal government to extend research into the value of gamma globulin, to make possible the collection by the Canadian Red Cross Society of large quantities of human blood, and to assist the Connaught laboratories in the increased production of gamma globulin.
The balance has been or is being devoted to such projects as:
Over $177,000 for the purchase of 73 respirators and other technical equipment for the care of poliomyelitis patients in Manitoba.
$159,000 toward the cost of constructing 79 chronic beds and floor area for a health centre in order to establish a polio clinic and health centre at the Victoria public hospital in Fredericton, New Brunswick.
Over $109,000 for the province of Ontario toward the cost of carrying on various investigations and studies relating to poliomyelitis such as:
A study of poliomyelitis during the recovery stages being carried out at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto.
An investigation of the antigenic types of poliomyelitis virus prevalent in Canada being carried out in the virus department of the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto.
An investigation of the role of sewage and water in the spread of poliomyelitis and of improved methods of recovery of poliomyelitis virus from human pathological specimens, carried out at the Connaught medical research laboratories, University of Toronto.
A study of Coxsackie infections in Canada with particular reference to epidemiological features and an investigation of tissue culture techniques as an economical and rapid means of isolating and typing poliomyelitis, being carried out at the Connaught medical research laboratories.
Over $107,000 for the purchase of 56 respirators and other equipment for various

hospitals in Ontario including the Ottawa Civic hospital, Hamilton general hospital, Sault Ste. Marie general hospital, Kingston general hospital, Victoria hospital in London, Port Arthur isolation hospital, Riverdale isolation hospital in Toronto, and for poliomyelitis centres in Kitchener and Sudbury.
Over $71,000 for the province of Quebec toward the cost of carrying on, at the University of Montreal, various research projects relating to poliomyelitis.
Over $46,000 to the province of Alberta to support a free isolation hospital service for poliomyelitis cases paralysed in some degree, and to assist in the care and rehabilitation of adult poliomyelitis cases who developed paralysis prior to the coming into effect of the Alberta polio act of 1938.
Almost $46,000 to the province of Nova Scotia for the payment of a grant to the city of Halifax to compensate it for extending to the province the facilities of the Halifax infectious diseases hospital during a poliomyelitis epidemic, for the purchase of technical equipment and for the employment of professional personnel at the Victoria general hospital, Halifax.
Over $40,000 to the province of British Columbia for the purchase of technical assistance and the employment of special staff including a bracemaker and physiotherapist for the rehabilitation and training of poliomyelitis patients after discharge from hospital.
Over $22,000 to the province of Saskatchewan for the purchase of respirators and other equipment and for the employment of special staff for the Regina cerebral palsy centre for the purpose of the orthopaedic review and supervision of post-polio cases.
Almost $2,500 for the provinces of Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island for the purchase of a hubbard bath and other equipment.
Gamma Globulin
Many questions concerning the use and effectiveness of gamma globulin still remain to be answered. While a great deal of publicity has been given to its value in modifying the paralysis which may follow an attack of poliomyelitis, the use of this blood fraction is still in the experimental stage.
Interest in Canada in the use of gamma globulin for preventing or lessening the severity of paralysis from poliomyelitis was increased by reports of trials made in the United States. In Cleveland last year at the meeting of the American public health association Dr. W. McD. Hammon of Pittsburgh reported the results of tests involving some 55,000 children. Dr. Hammon found among

that half of the experimental group which received gamma globulin injections an encouraging decrease in paralytic poliomyelitis cases as well as a significant modification in the severity of the paralysis in those who contracted the disease.
In view of this evidence, inconclusive as it may have been, a conference was called in Ottawa last January under the chairmanship of my deputy minister of health, Dr. G. D. W. Cameron, to consider all aspects of the problem. The public health and research experts attending this conference agreed that, while final judgment should be reserved until more facts were known, every effort should be made to increase the supply of gamma globulin.
Fortunately, the Connaught medical research laboratories in Toronto not only had scientific personnel familiar with the complex processes involved in the production of gamma globulin but had a supply of blood serum on hand which had been stored from the second world war. With funds provided out of the national health program, special production facilities were set up and the Connaught laboratories worked night and day to produce the needed supplies of gamma globulin.
The truly remarkable results achieved in producing approximately 25,000 average doses of gamma globulin is a tribute to Dr. R. D. Defries and his staff at the Connaught medical research laboratories.
To ensure that the limited quantities of the serum would be used to the very best advantage, an advisory committee representing federal and provincial health departments and university medical research centres was set up to assist in the distribution of gamma globulin. It was agreed that supplies would be made available only through provincial health departments and that allocations would be made by the committee to those areas where poliomyelitis reached epidemic proportions. The serum was reserved for administration to those in the younger age group who had been directly exposed to paralytic poliomyelitis.
In view of the severity of the epidemic in Manitoba, additional supplies of gamma globulin were earmarked for that province permitting public health officials to provide injections to persons under 30 coming in contact with paralytic cases as well as to voluntary nurses working in poliomyelitis wards.
That it has been possible to meet all requests for gamma globulin this summer and fall is a tribute to the work of Dr. Milton Brown and the members of the advisory
Questions
committee and to Dr. B. D. B. Layton of the Department of National Health and Welfare who had responsibility for the day to day administration of the committee's distribution policy. It is also a high tribute to the understanding and restraint exhibited by the provincial health departments in assessing local situations and presenting their requests to the committee.
An important feature of the program was the recommendation made by the committee that follow-up studies should be conducted where gamma globulin had been administered. It was suggested that information should be gathered, wherever possible, by a team consisting of a health officer and public health nurses. From a research standpoint, the value of this procedure is inestimable and it is expected that the reports of these teams will provide valuable information on which further studies of the effectiveness of the serum can be made.
Plans have just been completed with the provincial health authorities to undertake an expanded program next year under which the facilities of the Connaught laboratories will be increased so that production can be more than doubled. $270,000 is being provided under the national health program for this purpose this year. In addition, almost $315,000 is being made available this year under the national health program to make it possible for the Canadian Red Cross Society to collect the large quantities of human blood needed for this greatly increased production of gamma globulin. It is hoped that the importance of the gamma globulin program will give new incentive to the public to donate their blood and to lend their financial support to the vital work of the Canadian Red Cross.
While gamma globulin, in the light of present knowledge, is the most effective weapon in the fight against poliomyelitis, it should be remembered that it only provides a degree of protection for a limited time-perhaps five weeks at best. This "passive immunization" has not in the past proved entirely satisfactory for the control of other infectious diseases and will almost certainly be replaced when a more lasting immunizing agent for poliomyelitis is developed. The final answer to the control of poliomyelitis will be found in the production of a vaccine that will confer a lasting immunity.
Important progress has already been made in this direction and federal aid is now being given to research studies at the Toronto hospital for sick children and the school of hygiene at the University of Montreal. The Toronto research, which is being directed by Dr. A. J. Rhodes, has been undertaken to

Questions
investigate more thoroughly than has previously been possible the various strains of the poliomyelitis virus in Canada and to And out which of the three common types cause poliomyelitis epidemics in this country.
This project is being correlated with work on the development of a poliomyelitis vaccine which Dr. Rhodes is carrying forward at the Connaught laboratories. In this connection, it was recently announced that progress had been made in producing poliomyelitis virus in quantity-a necessary and important step in the production of any poliomyelitis vaccine.
Special Assistance
Finally, special assistance has been provided to the provinces by medical officers of the epidemiology division of the Department of National Health and Welfare.
Throughout last spring that division secured from the United States public health service the latest information on the use of gamma globulin and distributed it to the provincial health departments. In this way the provinces were kept fully informed of current knowledge regarding the prevention of poliomyelitis and the use of gamma globulin.
This year, starting on May 1 instead of on July 1 as is usual, weekly telegraphic reports were procured from the provincial health departments of the weekly incidence of poliomyelitis. This data was used not only to keep the federal department fully informed of the situation throughout Canada but to assist the advisory committee in the distribution of gamma globulin to particularly acute areas.
With regard to Manitoba: as the incidence of poliomyelitis had gained unusual momentum by the middle of July, the Manitoba health department asked that Dr. A. F. W. Peart, chief of the epidemiology division of the Department of National Health and Welfare, go to Winnipeg for consultation. Dr. Peart arrived in Winnipeg on July 21. He reviewed the various control procedures that were being carried out in the isolation of cases, the quarantine of contact procedures regarding camps and schools, milk and water supplies and discussed the use of gamma globulin. Special provisions were made, including arrangements to enable nurses and other hospital attendants in the poliomyelitis hospital and their children to receive protective injections of gamma globulin. All paralytic poliomyelitis patients, whether they received gamma globulin or not, were followed up as a research project of the advisory committee.
On August 14 the Manitoba health department asked Dr. Peart to return to Winnipeg to consult with the local poliomyelitis committee. By this time the weekly incidence had reached more than 200 cases. Again Dr. Peart reviewed what was already being done and supported the provincial health department in connection with the various procedures that were being carried out.
To summarize, the federal government is keeping very closely in touch with this serious situation and is co-operating wholeheartedly with the provinces in providing substantial assistance and support.
2. Projects totalling $333,415 have been approved since January 1, 1952. An additional amount of $47,435 has been expended since that date in respect of projects approved prior to January 1, 1952.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo):: 1.	Were the wharves now under construction and the wharves which were completed in 1952 and 1953, on Galiano island, Mayne island, North Pender island and Saltspring island, designed to accommodate the vessels of the Canadian Pacific coast steamships service?
2.	If so, has the government taken any action in regard to the cancellation of services to these points, announced by the Canadian Pacific steamships service?


Mr. Pickersgill:: Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


John George Diefenbaker: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents that passed between the Canadian government or any departments thereof and the government of the United States of America, since the 1st day of January, 1952, with regard to the extension of Trans-Canada Air Lines facilities to Mexico City.


Mr. Chevrier:: The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) has asked me to speak to this motion and to state that there is no objection to production of these papers, subject of course to the usual reservation of the concurrence in the production of papers in so far as the United States government is concerned.



GAGETOWN TRAINING AREA-HOUSING SCHEME

Mr. Brooks:: For a copy of all correspondence, communications and agreements between any department of the federal government and the city of Fredericton concerning any housing scheme in connection with the Gagetown military training area.


Mr. Campney:: This motion deals with negotiations which are in progress at the present time and which will be continuing, I expect, for some little time yet. I would prefer that the hon. gentleman drop his motion and reinstate it later; otherwise I shall ask that it stand.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I would ask that it stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



DAMMING OF COLUMBIA RIVER

Mr. Winch:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents that passed between the Canadian government or any departments thereof and the government of British Columbia, since the 1st day of January, 1951, with regard to any proposed damming of the Columbia river in British Columbia territories and any proposal to the British Columbia government to establish an advisory committee to work with the Canadian government or any international board dealing with said matter.


Mr. Lesage:: Mr. Speaker, I have made a thorough search and there are no such correspondence, letters and telegrams or other documents.


Mr. Speaker:: In the circumstances does the hon. member agree to have his motion dropped? Dropped.



WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCE


Mr. Pearkes:: For a copy of all papers pertaining to directives or regulations issued since July 1, 1952, defining, limiting or restricting casual earnings exempt from inclusion in permissible income, as related to the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1952.



INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION


Harold Edward Winch: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents, in the possession of the international joint commission or of the Canadian section thereof, exchanged with the British Columbia government, since the first day of January, 1951, with regard to any proposed damming of the Columbia river jn British Columbia, and any proposal to the British Columbia government to establish an advisory committee to work with the international joint commission or the Canadian section thereof in relation to the Columbia river.


Mr. Claxlon:: May I, for the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), point out that the international joint commission is an international agency established under authority of the boundary waters treaty of 1909. It is not an agency of the dominion government, and in view of that fact it is not desirable, and it has never been the practice, for the house to pass an address 83276-35
Inquiries of the Ministry ordering the commission to produce papers as mentioned in the notice. I would ask that the motion be dropped.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask a question? I ask this question because a request was sent to the British Columbia government on a certain phase of the matter. If a request is sent to the British Columbia government by the Canadian section how do we in the House of Commons get any information as to what is taking place?


Brooke Claxton: When the commission makes a report it is available to the public. Until it makes a report the information remains the property of the commission.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion dropped.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Transport. Members from British Columbia have today received a telegram signed by Pacific Western Airlines Limited, of Vancouver. The telegram uses very strong language concerning the air transport board. I have sent a copy to the minister and I should like to ask if he has a statement to make at this time.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member for Burnaby-
Richmond was quick to get to his feet first, although two other hon. members have sent me similar notices, the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) and the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Leboej. This telegram has to do with certain activities of an employee of the air transport board.
The information I have is that this employee proceeded to make an investigation under section 8 of the Aeronautics Act and, authorized as he was, he investigated certain operations of this air service company in British Columbia. The officer in question is efficient and competent and has been in the habit of making these investigations for many years. I am unable to state what he did do in this instance, but I have asked for an investigation. In view of the legal proceedings that have since been taken I do not know just what the position will be in so far as the making of a statement is concerned, but to the extent that I can make a statement at a later date I shall do so.

Inquiries of the Ministry POST OFFICE



INQUIRY AS TO EMPLOYMENT OF VETERANS OVER 60 YEARS OF AGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour what is the policy of his department with regard to the employment of veterans 60 years of age and over for special Christmas work in post offices. I ask this question because of word received from a veteran in North Vancouver that he has been told that no man 60 years of age or over will be considered this year.


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: When my hon. friend told me a short time ago that he was going to ask this question I told him that I was confident that no instructions had gone out from the unemployment insurance commission or from any office here which would forbid an applicant over 60 being considered for post office work. I have since had that confirmed by the unemployment insurance commission, who tell me that no such instructions have gone out, either from the commission or from the Post Office Department. I assure the hon. member that it continues to be the policy of the government, carried out by my department and the commission, that every encouragement be given to older workers, whether veterans or not, in finding employment. If my hon. friend has any special case he would like to bring to my attention I will be glad to look into it in conjunction with the Acting Postmaster General.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance based upon the following statement which appears in the speech from the throne:
You will be asked to consider measures to increase and broaden the supply ol mortgage money.
May I ask the minister whether that will involve legislation other than the Bank Act and, if so, when the other measures are likely to be brought down?


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: My present understanding is that the matter will be dealt with by amendments to the housing act which will be introduced by my colleague the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters), and also by the Bank Act which will be introduced by myself.
IMr. Chevrier.l


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I ask the Minister of Public Works when his part of the legislation is likely to be brought down?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: My part of the work is developing nicely. I anticipate that I will be able to place the resolution on the order paper within a week or ten days.



ALLEGED ABUSE OF MEMBERS' FRANKING PRIVILEGES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Postmaster General. Some days ago the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite) asked a question with regard to franking privileges. As this is a matter of concern to all hon. members I think we should know where we stand as to whether any report has been made or will be made in answer to the point raised by the hon. member for Skeena.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Some days ago I addressed a letter on this subject to the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), and I think the simplest way to answer the hon. gentleman's question is to read that letter to the house. It is dated November 23, 1953, and reads:
Dear Mr. Blackmore,
On Thursday last, November 19th, Mr. Applewhaite asked me, in the House of Commons, about the apparent abuse of members' franking privileges as reported in the Ottawa Journal of November 18th.
In reply, I stated that the item in the Journal was a reprint from the Calgary Herald, and that I had asked the Post Office Department to communicate with the editor of the Calgary Herald to see whether we could get both the cover and the contents, so we could find out which member's frank had been used. I added that I assumed, from the article, that the frank had been used improperly. By improperly I meant without the knowledge of the member concerned.
The Post Office Department has now received from the editor of the Calgary Herald an envelope which bears your frank, and which contained a copy of the American Mercury for September, 1953, containing an article, to which attention was drawn, entitled "The Truth about Joe McCarthy". The envelope also contained advertisements for a book entitled "The Iron Curtain Over America" by John Beaty, and another book "While You Slept: Our Tragedy in Asia and Who Made It" by John T. Flynn. A note was enclosed, dated from Wood-roffe post office, November 4th, and bearing the signature of Doris A. Moore.
There seems to be no question that this is mailable matter under section 17 of the Post Office Act, which the post office has an obligation to transmit free of postage when sent by a member of the Senate or the House of Commons at Ottawa during a session of parliament or during the ten days immediately preceding or following a session of

parliament, and it is postmarked November 5th, which was only seven days before parliament met. Consequently, the only question which arises so far as the Post Office Department is concerned, is whether this material was posted on your behalf or with your authority. I am accordingly enclosing the envelope and contents received from the Calgary Herald, so that you may take whatever action, if any, you consider to be required in the circumstances.
That I signed as Acting Postmaster General.


Major James William Coldwell: The point is, it was mailable matter.



COMMUNICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Has the
Minister of Transport any further details with regard to the sale of the government telephone and telegraph services in British Columbia to the British Columbia Telephone Company and the Canadian National Telegraphs respectively?


Lionel Chevrier: I cannot add very much to what has been stated already in a press release, namely, that the government has accepted the offer of British Columbia Telephone and Canadian National Telegraphs to purchase the government-owned facilities west of the Rocky mountains for the sum of $750,000 for each facility, or a total of $1,500,000. There are details to be worked out which have not been completed. For instance, there is the question of the number of government employees whom the telegraph and telephone companies can keep on, the date of the taking over of the facilities, what will be taken over, and the like. It will be some weeks before that can be completed.


George Randolph Pearkes: May I ask a supplementary question. Does that include the federal government lines on Vancouver island as well as those on the mainland?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.



OLD AGE PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. S. Follwell (Hastings South):: Can
the Minister of National Health and Welfare state whether or not it is the intention of the federal government to take action to recover overpayments under the Old Age Pensions Act?
83276-35i
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The hon. gentleman was kind enough to give me notice of his question and I might say also that the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras) has also discussed this matter with me and indicated that he proposed asking the same question. The government has decided not to seek the recovery of overpayments under the Old Age Pensions Act. The only way by which those payments could be recovered would be by using the Financial Administration Act, and it is not intended to use the provisions of that measure for ithe purpose. The government has advised the provinces of its policy in this particular.



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the representations made to the government at noon today by the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, what action does the government propose to take on their first request calling for legislation or at least the setting up of a parliamentary committee on the question of national health insurance?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think I have already dealt this session with that particular question, inferentially at any rate, and certainly on other occasions I have answered the hon. gentleman on that particular question very fully. But to be particular and precise at the moment, if my hon. friend would really examine the record of the government of Canada in the field of health and welfare he would not ask that question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question? What action does the government propose to take at this session on health insurance?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I note that my hon. friend is now taking my advice and is attempting to become a little more precise, and in reply to this precise supplementary question I would say the government is continuing a responsible course of improving the health standards of this country in accordance with current obligations and our constitutional relationship with the provinces of Canada.


Major James William Coldwell: May I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare if he will kindly

Inquiries of the Ministry interpret his answer to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre because really we cannot quite understand what he means. I may be very dull but I imagine the short answer is no action this session.


Some hon. Members:: Order.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alfred Johnson Brooks: I would like to direct a question to the Acting Postmaster General on a matter I discussed with him the other day. It had to do with the continuance of mail service at Gagetown military camp. There are a number of residents still there and I understand there are prospects of the mail service being discontinued. I would like to know what the situation is.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the parliamentary assistant (Mr. Kirk) could say something about that.


Mr. T. A. M. Kirk (Parliamentary Assistant to the Postmaster General):: I might inform the hon. gentleman that the matter is being investigated in the area by the inspector concerned and a report should be available tomorrow.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES EXTENSION OF ROUTE TO MEXICO CITY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Is
the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) in a position to advise us what the present postion is in regard to negotiations between T.C.A. and the United States government relative to the extension of T.C.A. flights to Mexico city?
Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade
and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, these negotiations are being conducted by the air transport board. So far as I know, there has been no change since the last report was made.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg). Will the government give favourable consideration to an early amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act, section 94, to provide for

greater latitude in the period of the year for which supplementary benefits under the act may be paid?


Mr. Speaker:: Should not this question be put on the order paper? I think it should be on the order paper.



MACHINERY AND APPARATUS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: May I direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue, arising out of some uncertainty that some people feel concerning the matter that was under discussion yesterday? Will the minister consider giving an affirmative ruling as to what definition machinery and apparatus must meet in order to qualify for exemption from the sales tax.


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minisier of National Revenue):: I think I indicated yesterday that it is a practical impossibility to give a definition of what shall constitute machinery and apparatus used in the production of goods. We must first know the purpose for which it is being used. An illustration of that is the particular case here where an appeal was taken from the decision of the department that electrical apparatus used particularly in connection with summer resorts and motels was taxable. That appeal was taken by the General Supply Company and the tariff board upheld the decision of the department, so I will have to indicate that these things will have to be dealt with on their merits when we know the particulars of the case.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does not the Excise Tax Act require the minister to make such a definition?



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, December 1, consideration of the motion of Mr. A. H. Hollingworth for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Low.
(Translation):
Mr. Arthur Masse (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, I am greatly honoured to be able to take part in the debate on the address in

reply to the speech from the throne after receiving a second mandate from the electors of my constituency.
I owe the honour and satisfaction of coming back to the house to the good administration of the Liberal party, which I have supported loyally during the four years I have been a member of the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, it affords me great pleasure to congratulate you on your election to the office you now hold and which, I am sure, will give you the opportunity of making friends on both sides of the house. Knowing your loyalty and fairness, everyone will be happy at the wise and sound decisions you will be called upon to make.
I avail myself of this opportunity to offer my congratulations and best wishes to the new ministers, the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) and the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Lesage). The latter will have to take a paternal attitude towards his eastern neighbour, because my constituents see in him a guiding beacon for our youth.
I must also congratulate the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne (Mr. Hollingworth and Mr. Villeneuve). On that occasion, they loyally served the interests of their constituents. The honour which was theirs on that occasion is shared by the citizens who showed confidence in them.
Now I wish to thank those who placed their confidence in me during the last electoral campaign. I cannot shirk from fulfilling the task my constituents have given me, that of presenting to the house their claims, their wishes, and their aspirations. If I cannot match their lofty sentiments, I shall try at least to show myself worthy of the consideration I have received from them.
During my last electoral campaign, I deemed it my duty to respect the opinions, good or bad, of my opponents, reserving myself the right of expressing my own, and I am sure that the success I have had in that campaign is due to my esteem and consideration for the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. St. Laurent), which are widely shared by my constituents.
I am not one of those who believe that the government of a country cannot withstand criticism, because there will always be improvements to be made in order to keep up with the speedy evolution of our times. However, I am convinced that our government
The Address-Mr. Masse does its best to bring every citizen of Canada the maximum of happiness and prosperity.
There is always some ideal which we never attain. As soon as we realize part of our program, we discover new horizons. Our workers always fear the possibility of sickness, unemployment, or accidents, but the government cannot solve all those problems overnight. However, it is the duty of the government to present measures of such a nature as to stimulate production, encourage initiative, and raise the standards 'of living of our people, in such a way as to bring some measure of welfare and happiness to our society. In that respect, the Liberal government has for many years fulfilled that duty.
There is no need today to give a topographical and geographical description of my riding; I have already had the occasion of doing so here in this house.
The county of Kamouraska comprises 679,040 acres, 76 per cent of which is covered with forest; the cultivated area represents 22 per cent of the total area, thus 98 per cent of the whole area is considered as productive. Only 2 per cent of the area is unproductive, and this includes roads, lakes and rivers.
Agriculture is consequently our chief industry and our farmers are not satisfied with the prices which they have been getting for their products, compared with the prices paid by the consumer. Agriculture, in that part of the country, is a family undertaking and according to tradition, a son succeeds his father on the family homestead and then hands it over to his own son after having tilled it successfully.
I have received a request from the president of the farmers' union of the parish of Ste. Perpetue, in the county of L'lslet, telling me that the farmers of that village want assistance for the drainage of land and the removal of rocks. Such a matter falls within the jurisdiction of the provincial government; however, I am of the opinion that there should be some co-operation between the central government and the provinces. There are problems the solution of which involves an expenditure of money beyond the means of our farmers, on account of the high cost of those services.
I must thank the right hon. the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) for the establishment and rapid improvement of the experimental farm at Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere. Experimentation and research are, first and foremost, a government responsibility and must be carried out in every
550	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Masse possible field. We must not forget that farmers work hard from dawn to dusk and are in no position to carry out research because of the size of their farms and their present low level of income. They are convinced that the cost of living will not be lowered by reduced hours of work or increased wages, but rather by the generous co-operation of all classes that make up the Canadian nation.
As far as the experimental farm at Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere is concerned, I think it would be wise to carry out reforestation and make tree plots out of the uncultivated portions. In the county of Kamouraska the forest is the necessary complement to agriculture. Without parallel development of land and forest there is a danger of upsetting the economy of my constituency.
Ever since I have been sitting in this house, I have asked year after year that protecting walls be erected, among other places, in the parish of Riviere Ouelle, in order to protect certain properties which will be destroyed in the very near future, at the present rate of erosion. If this situation is not remedied now, much of the land in this cove will vanish.
Mr. Speaker, allow me to inform you of the contents of a resolution which was prepared in 1952, and again in 1953, by the local section, in my county, of the "Union Catholique des Cultivateurs". This resolution called, first, for the appointment of a representative to the Vatican and, second, for the adoption of a Canadian flag. I have already given my approval here to these two resolutions.
Moreover, 1 should be very pleased were the central government to co-operate with provincial authorities, in order to solve problems of interest to the community at large. I am not one of those who believe that the government of a country is perfect, but I am convinced that the government headed by the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent has given the nation a development and impetus which cannot be stopped. All classes of society, and especially the social outcasts and the disabled, must have seen a ray of sunshine when they read in the speech from the throne that the state would come to their assistance.
In the field of international relations, it seems to me that the different nations should act toward each other in a more charitable manner; in this respect Canada has largely done its share. The free world is forced to set up an international police force, so that each nation will be able to count on a larger measure of security. When I hear state-


ments to the effect that we are too generous towards other peoples, I can do no better than quote an editorial written by Gerard Filion and published in Le Devoir on November 14, 1953:
Communism has no need to hurry, tor it knows that time is on its side. It aspires to conquer the world less through force than through ideas. Communism is the new messianism. It promises its followers the advent of an earthly paradise, founded on human equality and fraternity. What does it matter if facts are inconsistent with principles in the nations where communism reigns supreme? Men are more attached to ideas which flatter them, than to facts which rebuke them. Communism is an opiate for all those who live it through the prism of their imagination. And communism is reckoning with this very attraction in its quest for world mastery. Poverty is its main ally. And poverty is rampant in our present world.
I think it is only wise to use our surplus agricultural products to feed the hungry, so as to make friends of starving populations.
Our farmers are somewhat worried by the falling prices of beef and potatoes. However, they trust that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), who has so ably administered his department under circumstances which were sometimes difficult, will be able to find a constructive way to solve these recurring problems.
Allow me to avail myself of this opportunity to point out to the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) that some wharves in my county are urgently in need of repairs, if they are to serve the purpose for which they were built. In Kamouraska, it is essential that wharves be in good condition because the river-used to transport pulpwood by ship-and our roads are the only two channels of communication through which we can ship and receive industrial goods.
In these troubled times, I believe we should lay special stress on charity and understanding among all classes of society. Was it not the Pope, the head of Christianity, who asked the peoples of the world to work more closely together so that modern achievements may serve constructive and not destructive purposes.
Mr. Speaker, I have made these few remarks in the hope of serving the nation at large and my electors in particular.
(Text):
May I have the honour, Mr. Speaker, of offering my most sincere congratulations to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) on the dignity with which he conducted his last electoral campaign. All the population of Kamouraska is grateful to him, and as long as the Liberal party goes forward on the

route which it has taken, and in which he has directed it, the future of our country, Canada, will be safe.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Speaker, I wish to concur wholeheartedly in the many sincere congratulations which have been extended to you and all others who have received promotions since the last parliament. I also congratulate the members who were elected in August last. I am sorry of course that there are not more on this side of the house. However, we still have great hopes that time and the interests of Canada will correct this serious fault. It is good to note, as has been expressed here a number of times, the many young members who were elected at the last election. This of course is as it should be. It keeps parliament forever young and forever hopeful, as was so well expressed in an editorial in the Ottawa Journal a short time ago.
Most of the problems that face the people of Canada and this parliament today are the same problems we have had for the last ten years or more. First in importance of course is the matter of defence. This has already been mentioned by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton). The information he gave the house was very limited and leaves a wide opportunity for him to discuss this matter further during the session. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Pearkes) referred to the dearth of information when he spoke a few days ago. We all agree that it is still necessary, and we fear will be necessary for some time, to spend enormous amounts of money in the defence of our country. Our object of course is to see that it is spent wisely and not wasted.
Another serious problem is the question of housing which was dealt with a few days ago in a speech by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). We were very pleased to hear that 100,000 units will probably be built during the coming year. This of course still leaves much to be desired. I understand that the need of housing in Canada today runs well over half a million, and I also understand that so far as veterans housing is concerned about 250,000 houses are still needed for our veterans.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce also mentioned the matter of markets when he spoke a few days ago. He claimed that we in the opposition were very pessimistic regarding the market situation. This may be true. However, if we are pessimistic there is good reason and there are many others who agree with us, because I am sure if the minister questioned the farmers of the country he would find that they also feel that there is room for pessimism. The manufacturers of textiles are also very pessimistic
The Address-Mr. Brooks with respect to their situation. So also are the machinery manufacturers. I know that lumber operators in my part of Canada, and I am sure in other parts of Canada too, are wondering where their future markets will be.
As the minister said, we may be pessimistic but it does occur to me that sometimes people can be too optimistic in the same way that they can be too pessimistic, and I think at this time possibly the minister is too optimistic. The debate on the throne speech has now been under way for a long time. Many hon. members have taken the opportunity of speaking and it has been a great pleasure to me, as one of the older members of the house, to listen to the many excellent speeches that have been delivered by younger members, especially those who have come to the house for the first time.
The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) said in his speech yesterday that I was to be congratulated in that I was not surrounded as he is by a minister and two parliamentary assistants. We in New Brunswick do not quite feel that way. We would like to have our full share of ministers and parliamentary assistants. While there are two parliamentary assistants from Nova Scotia there are none from New Brunswick. With the support that the province of New Brunswick has given the government we believe that there might well be a parliamentary assistant from that province. I know there are a number of members on the government side who feel they are well qualified indeed for that position.
If we have a complaint in New Brunswick, it would seem that the people of Newfoundland have a greater complaint. While there is a minister elected from the province of Newfoundland, still he is not a native of that province, and it did seem to me and I am sure it must have occurred to many in the house, particularly to members from Newfoundland, that one of their number might very well have been chosen to present the problems of their province because no one understands the problems of a province as well as a man who is born and brought up there.
My chief object in speaking this afternoon is to deal with a matter which concerns my own constituency in particular, although it is of some concern to the whole of Canada as well. Hon. members will recall that during last year the Minister of National Defence announced that a large military camp would be established in New Brunswick. This camp, as all will remember, was established partly in my constituency and partly in the constituency of York-Sunbury. I have discussed this matter quite extensively already in this
552	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Brooks house and have expressed my views. I said that while we were pleased that the camp was being located in New Brunswick, we felt that some other sections of the province could have been chosen. I am not going to tire the house with the arguments I used at that time. It is an accomplished fact now that this camp is established in the Gagetown area, and nothing I could say would change it.
But I will say this, Mr. Speaker, that the people in this area, who were given very little warning that their properties would be taken over for a military camp, were stunned when they found they would have to leave the section of the country in which their ancestors had lived for a great many years. Just a few weeks before coming to Ottawa I visited this section, and it is a sad sight to see the vacant farms. It is a sad sight to see one vacant farm, to see the house with weeds growing up around it, to see the vacant windows and perhaps the barn doors off their hinges. However, when you go through a whole countryside and see house after house closed up, the barns closed, the grass growing around the houses; when you see the vacant churches, the vacant halls and the vacant schools, to me at least it is a sad sight indeed. As I say, the matter has been dealt with and settled by the government, so there is not much purpose in my mentioning it to any extent today.
These people who have moved out of this area have, for the most part, gone to other parts of New Brunswick. Many of them have settled in my own locality in and around the town of Sussex and the Kennebecasis valley. They are admirable people and have been welcomed in every community in which they have settled. Already they are taking an active part in the activities of their new communities. There is another class of people that was greatly affected by the selection of this campsite, and that is the people on the fringe of the campsite between the Gagetown camp area and the Saint John river. In this area there is a fringe about a mile wide in some places and two or three miles in others. This section is still quite thickly settled. There are fine farms and lovely villages in this section. Today these people are wondering just what their situation is.
The back country, as they call the area from which these farmers have been moved, supplied the merchants with trade and the mills with lumber as well as the dairies with milk for the manufacture of cheese and butter. In the village of Hampstead, for instance, there was a dairy which has been closed because 75 per cent of the milk supplied to it came from this back area. At Gagetown there is a lumber mill belonging to the firm of Reid Brothers, in addition to other
fMr. Brooks.]

lumber mills, and this back area supplied those mills with the round lumber with which to carry on their operations. No doubt the mill will close, with the result that many people will be out of work. The storekeepers in the area tell me that over 50 per cent of their trade is gone. Men who were selling farm machinery say that they have lost over 75 per cent of their trade. The whole of this 20-mile strip along the Saint John river between the boundary of the military campsite and the river is in a bad way today.
There are some very fine villages in that section, as I am sure my good friend the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) could tell you. There are no more beautiful villages in the whole of New Brunswick, perhaps even in Canada, than Gagetown, Hampstead, and Welsford. A request was made of the government that these small places be given more consideration, but the larger places like Fredericton and Saint John, which evidently have more pull, are getting the benefits. So far as I can gather, these places which have really suffered from the establishment of the camp are not receiving the consideration they should receive. This area should receive first consideration, and it should receive consideration before Saint John or Fredericton. Neither of these cities has lost anything as a result of the camp being moved into this area, but the other section has lost a great deal.
There is also the matter of labour. The labouring men in this area have lost their employment in the mills and other places; and though the department has promised to give them first consideration-and I believe the Minister of Labour and those higher up in the province of New Brunswick are willing that this should be done-I know of cases in which the men are not receiving the consideration promised. They claim that the reason for this, and 1 think there is considerable truth in it, is that they do not belong to the right provincial party. I hope that this matter will receive careful consideration. I know that it is sometimes difficult to control some of the local politicians, but that is exactly what should and must be done so far as this area is concerned.
The county of Queens itself, Mr. Speaker, has also sustained great loss. The three parishes of Hampstead, Gagetown and Peters-ville, which have been affected, were three of the outstanding parishes in the county. The parish of Petersville is practically all gone, while the parishes of Hampstead and Gagetown have been cut in two. These parishes still have their burdens to bear as parishes. In making up assessments to carry on public services, the county of Queens will sustain a loss of revenue. I hope that if the

government has not made arrangements to suitably compensate this county they will do so in generous terms.
Speaking of what might be done for these places like Gagetown and Hampstead and other places along the river, I suggest that the government no doubt will build a number of residences for married quarters. I do not know of any finer place where quarters for married people or other quarters could be constructed than right at the village of Gagetown, one of the oldest villages in New Brunswick, first settled by the French many years ago, later by the British, followed by the United Empire Loyalists. It is one of the most historic villages in New Brunswick.
There is the question of the location of hospitals. In a large military establishment of this kind there are bound to be a number of hospitals required, and it seems to me this would be the ideal spot for the location of a hospital or hospitals. Workshops could be established there, and recreation centres. I hope that the Department of National Defence will carefully consider the sacrifices which have been made by the people in this area and the possibility that the future economy of this section will be greatly affected, and that they will give every consideration to the people and the industries alike along what I call this fringe area.
Another matter is giving the people of this area some concern. Very often outside the camp area engineers and others from the Department of National Defence are seen making surveys here and there. These people are afraid that some day they will be told, as were the people in the area itself, that they will have to give up their properties and move out. Their minds should be set at rest in that regard as soon as possible. Even across the Saint John river in the vicinity of Cambridge, surveys have been made not only by military officers from our own department but also by United States officers, and people over there are alarmed. They fear that some of their properties are to be taken away. As I say, this fear should be allayed as quickly as possible. I have nothing more to say in that connection. I do think a great debt is owing to the people in this area, one that I hope the department will make every effort to pay.
I come to another matter that is very important to us and that has already been discussed by some of the previous speakers from New Brunswick. I may say it has been dealt with many many times by members who have been here in the past. I refer to the hydro development in our province. In the 18 years I have been in the house this matter has been brought up 83276-36
The Address-Mr. Brooks time and time again, and all the hydroelectric prospects which have been mentioned here recently have been mentioned before; it is an old story, and I am not surprised that it is being mentioned again, because like many old stories nothing has been done about it and we are in much the same position as we have been in the past.
I am told that the per capita horsepower in the Dominion of Canada is one; that is, about 14 million horsepower for the whole dominion. We have nearly 500,000 people in New Brunswick and our horsepower amounts to 141,000 for the whole province. With the large military camp coming to our province there will be a much greater need for electric power. We need more so far as our domestic consumption is concerned, but most of all today we need power for the development of our natural resources.
We have been known in the past as a province which had very little mineral resources. Very extensive mineral deposits have recently been found in New Brunswick, and we believe that with the proper development of those mineral deposits the economy and the future of our province can be greatly enhanced.
I should like to read part of an article which appeared in the Toronto Telegram. This is the opinion of Mr. M. J. Boylen, head of several mining companies in Ontario. He had this to say:
Recent mineral discoveries in the province-
He was speaking of New Brunswick.
-have attracted widespread attention, and Mr. Boylen estimates that its deposits of lead, zinc, silver and iron ore may be the largest in North America. That is taking in a lot of territory, but at any rate these minerals are likely to become the basis of a big chemical industry.
I mention these things simply to show the great need of electric power in the province of New Brunswick.
A few days ago an hon. member mentioned 'Quoddy. Older members in the house have heard 'Quoddy mentioned many times. It is an old story. Over 25 years ago, when I was a member of the local legislature at Fredericton, a Mr. Cooper from the United States came to Fredericton and tried to interest the province of New Brunswick in a joint development of the Passamaquoddy, and he certainly told us a very interesting story. He presented a model of the dams and so on that might be used in 'Quoddy, and told us about the great surge of the tides that we all knew. He spoke of their rise of 40 feet, and illustrated to us the enormous power potentiality in the tides in the Passamaquoddy.
The international joint commission investigated this hydro prospect a few years ago, and while they did not altogether claim
554	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Brooks that it was feasible they said that further investigation should be made, and they estimated that the cost would be $3,900,000. This cost would be borne jointly by the United States and Canada. They recommended that investigations be made. I believe the United States is prepared to go ahead with the investigation and pay its share, but the attitude of the Canadian government is one of indifference. I again urge the government, as I did last year, to join with the United States and make this necessary investigation.
I could go on and mention some of the other prospects that have been mentioned, such as the Chignecto. Everyone is acquainted with the Chignecto. My old seatmate, Percy Black, who sat with me for years-and, may I interject, I do not think any finer gentleman has ever sat in the House of Commons since I came here-was a strong advocate and champion of the Chignecto. I myself believe that if a canal was constructed on the Chignecto it would be a great boon to shipping in the maritime provinces, and also extensive hydroelectric power could be developed. I remember that a few years ago a delegation from the city of Saint John and from other parts of the maritime provinces came to Ottawa to interview the government in this connection. While they were treated very courteously-I attended the meeting-if ever a delegation got a brush-off I am satisfied that this delegation got a decided one. It was very discouraging from the point of view of both these projects, shipping and electric power.
Then we had the Petitcodiac. The former member for Westmorland brought this up in the house and urged an investigation into the Petitcodiac possibility. The engineers did not report favourably on the Petitcodiac because of the soft bottom of the river, and so on, which made it practically impossible to construct storage dams.
However, there is another project receiving more attention now, one which I hope will not have the same fate as the Quoddy, the Chignecto and the Petitcodiac-I refer to the Saint John river development. As hon. members know, the Saint John river is the second largest river on the eastern coast of the North American continent. It is 450 miles long from its source to the sea, its tributaries rising in Quebec and the state of Maine.
Some years ago a development on the Saint John was completed at Grand Falls and there is now a smaller development on the Tobique. I am informed that if storage dams were constructed on the Saint John river, its tributaries and lakes, 250,000 horsepower could be developed. The provincial government


has been negotiating with the state of Maine and the province of Quebec. I understand the state of Maine has taken a kindly view of the matter as more power is required in the upper part of ithat state.
Unfortunately certain sections of the province of Quebec feel that injury will be done to farmlands in the vicinity of Lake Temis-couata and other sections. The hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Legare) said in the house the other day that he hoped something would be done to prevent New Brunswick going ahead with the proposed development of the Saint John river. I remember that last year the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) expressed the hope that nothing would be done.
I have discussed this matter with some of the government officials in New Brunswick and with the engineers and they tell me that in their opinion the fears of the people in those sections of Quebec are not justified. I do hope that nothing will be done to prevent the future development of this great waterway. The full development would mean that power would be generated at Beechwood and Macnaquac and more at Grand Falls.
I think it was the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) who referred a few days ago to Grand Falls and said that that development had been given away by the Conservative party in 1926 or 1927. That is an old story down in that province. It is an old election battlecry. It is even older than the prediction that if the Tories come into power they will do away with old age pensions and children's allowances, and there is just about as much truth in it.
The development at Grand Falls has been the main source of power in New Brunswick. The industrial development at Dalhousie, Edmundston and other parts of New Brunswick and the development of our pulp and paper industry is due to the power development at Grand Falls. I do not think the people in those towns and the thousands of men who work in the woods will say the development at Grand Falls, even though it was by private capital, was a mistake. It has been of great help to our province and I hope more private capital will come into the province to develop other water power sites.
I was pleased to note by the speech from the throne that consideration is to be given this year to disabled persons. I think most hon. members at some time or other have indicated that this class of our citizens should receive consideration. As I say, I am pleased that it is mentioned in the speech from the

throne. I can assure you that when the legislation comes before the house it will have my full support.
There is just one comment I should like to make in this connection. I remember that when the Old Age Pensions Act was passed by the federal government the provincial governments were asked to contribute 50 per cent of the cost. At that time many of the poorer provinces were not able to make their contribution, with the result that the people in some of the richer provinces of Canada received their old age pensions some years before those in the poorer provinces. I should like to see the federal government assume full responsibility for the payment of pensions to totally disabled persons. I feel that, like pensions for the blind, this is a federal government responsibility.
Our province was one of the last to give pensions to our older people. It was not because we did not want to; we just could not afford to do it, or at least it was felt that we could not afford it. I am quite certain that the provincial government of New Brunswick will do its part as far as providing pensions for disabled persons is concerned, but in order to make sure that all people of this class in Canada receive what I feel they are entitled to, it should be made a federal responsibility.
We are considered to be a have-not province, and in this connection I should like to quote from an editorial which appeared recently in one of the newspapers. It reads:
The Toronto Globe and Mail develops a thesis that the less prosperous provinces are partly to blame for their own troubles in that they have come to Ottawa asking for "doles, not development."
The editorial then goes on to quote part of the editorial which had appeared in the Globe and Mail:
If, says the Globe and Mail, half the money spent during recent years to prop up the economies of these provinces had been used to build up their economies instead, there would be no talk of 'haves' and 'have-nots'. All would be 'haves'.
It is all very well for the Toronto Globe and Mail to lecture us in that regard, but the fact is that we have received no more or perhaps even less than some of those provinces which are called the "have" provinces. While this is an old story and some may smile, I should like to point out to the house that the maritime provinces have contributed, both in materials and in people, perhaps more than any other section of Canada to the building up of the larger and western provinces.
Then again, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick were two of the four provinces which 83276-36i
The Address-Mr. Brooks first formed this dominion. We were a province long before the days of confederation. The great public domain in this country was purchased by money from the other provinces of Canada. We in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island helped to pay for all this great domain which was afterwards given to Alberta and Saskatchewan, to Ontario and to Quebec, and even Newfoundland today has a section. Our provinces, circumscribed as they are by the sea, could not in any way benefit by this great extension in the northern part of our dominion. While we helped to pay for it, while we helped to develop it, and while we helped to defend it, we obtained no benefit from this great development in the other parts of Canada.
We all know what the northern lands mean to these provinces with their oil and their minerals and other great resources, but we have received no benefit as far as these things are concerned.


Mr. Blackmore:: May I be permitted to put a question to the hon. member? Has he given any thought to what should be done to make up to the maritimes what they are deficient in by reason of their assistance to the other provinces?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That is a long, long story and I do not think I would be justified in taking up the time of the house in dealing with it at present. I am just mentioning these things. I am not telling the government what they should do, but in justice to the maritimes I think I should tell them what the situation is; then they themselves would be in a position to do what is necessary.
In closing, I want to touch briefly on veterans affairs. In the 18 years I have been in the House of Commons I have been a member of every veterans affairs committee. I have admired the different veterans organizations in Canada for their fairness and their strong advocacy of what they consider the rights of the veterans. I have seen the Legion's brief which was presented to the government a short time ago, and in general I agree with practically everything in that brief. I would like to see also, as I and many other hon. members have advocated, a veterans affairs committee set up at this session of parliament where this brief submitted by the veterans might be very carefully considered, because after all I think it is in a veterans affairs committee that justice can best be done to veterans. You hear their problems and you also hear from officers of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and between the two the committee can decide what is best and what can be done in the matter of veterans legislation.

The Address-Mr. A. Stewart


Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak about the national film board. I realize I am in a somewhat vulnerable position, because I should have said what I am going to say last session when the estimates were before the house. That I did not do so was entirely my own fault and I accept responsibility for it, although I cannot help wishing that the government would refrain from bringing down controversial legislation or even estimates in the dying hours of the session.
Before I deal with the present situation I should like to refresh the minds of hon. members on the recent history of the national film board. I want to go back to 1939 when the National Film Act was passed and the purpose of the film board as read into that act was:
To help Canadians in all parts of Canada to understand the ways of living and the problems of Canadians in other parts-
And furthermore, of course-
-to take care of the distribution of films in other countries.
To take charge of the film board the government had the wisdom to appoint a very able young man, John Grierson, who had already made a reputation for himself in the United Kingdom with documentary films. Mr. Grierson rapidly built around himself a capable and brilliant group of aides. Grierson had been accustomed in the United Kingdom to working in the same way that he ultimately worked here, that is with a government agency and with the help of small private companies. Certainly there was never at any time any attempt to make the film board a monopoly. That was one of the charges in the attacks made against the film board by, of course, the Conservative party. The film board was never a monopoly and it is not so today. It was the film board which helped build that very well known Ottawa firm which owes a great deal to the film board for the position which it has now reached today. I refer, of course, to Crawley Films.
The board got to work, yet even before it started the attacks were obvious. They started before birth, continued after birth and during adolescence, an adolescence which was amazingly mature, and these attacks are still apparent today coming principally from groups such as chambers of commerce. Mr. Grierson gathered round him a group of very able younger people to start the film board. Some were British and some American, but quickly young Canadians began to join the film board, Canadians with artistic sensibility and with creative capacity. They were primarily, I suppose, individualists and nonconformists. It was much more popular in
(Mr. Brooks.]
those days to be non-conformist than in some places it is today, but then I have never been able to see how the film board could get very far without being non-conformist.
The board gave these young men and women an opportunity to display their talents, an opportunity which was denied them by private industry in this country. They were young men and women who believed in Canada and they had a vision. They wanted to show the rest of the people of this country what that vision was and their medium was on film. They did a wonderfully successful job, not only in the eyes of Canadians but in the view of people all over the world.
Of course, with the outbreak of war there was a tremendous impetus given to the film board and the government had the good sense to realize that the board could be more than useful. Let me read an interesting quotation from the Financial Post dated September 6, 1941, which said, dealing with the national film board:
Behind all this activity is a theory that the film is a social instrument to help the citizen understand, by visual means, the complex workings of modern administration and industry. The drama of machines is stressed. There flashes across the screen an impressive panorama of the manifold jobs that go to make up our armament and military effort. There are no studio actors. They are not needed. The men and women themselves, filmed at work, provide the talent; they give true realism to the action.
And of course the same is true of the board today. As the Financial Post said, and some persons regret now, the film was "a social instrument", and was used accordingly.
The film board expanded rapidly during these years of war and even more rapidly in the days of peace following because the people of Canada realized what the national film board had come to mean to them. They wanted this expansion because they appreciated its work. In 1949 there were about 250 film councils and about the same number of film libraries and there were at least 3,000 outlets for 16 mm. film and the surprising number of one million people per month saw these films. One can see easily the important part this agency played in the life of Canadians. It was regarded by other countries as being an important medium too, for many construed it as a model which should be followed in their own countries and they studied and copied it with some care.
I think the secret of the film board's success then was that the board was regarded as a creative agency, and not just an administrative agency.

But during all these years the attacks against it were mounting, and of course they rose to a crescendo in 1949. The pity of it is that the film board got no support from those from whom they should expect it, namely from the government itself. Indeed, there were members of the cabinet who went out of their way in this house to say things about the film board that were demonstrably not in accordance with the facts. One of these gentlemen was the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) and the other, unfortunately, was the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. St. Laurent).
Naturally when these two gentlemen made the statements they did in the house it was grist to the mill of the private enterprisers, and they climbed on the loyalty bandwagon. The personnel of the film board were screened. Screening was very popular back in 1949. It got to the stage where fiddle players at the C.B.C. were being screened for loyalty tests. I hope we have gotten over that sort of hysteria. But we had the unfortunate spectacle here in parliament of the film board, which made a presentation to the Massey commission, being partly disavowed by the minister who was then in charge of the board. Had I been a member of the organization in those days I think my motto would have been "Heaven preserve me from my friends".
The attack on the loyalty of the individuals was continued. It was a marvellous stick with which to beat this agency which the private film interests did not like at all. Those private film interests were very powerful. There is no question in my mind that they were inspired from Hollywood. The chambers of commerce in Canada of course took up the cry. In 1949 there was a convention of Canadian chambers of commerce in Montreal. There a resolution was passed charging the board with having created a monopoly in films in this country and asking the government to eliminate unfair competition between the agency and private producers.
When one examines the parentage of the resolution it is rather interesting to note that there were two separate motions before the chambers of commerce. One came from General Films of Regina and the other came from a professional firm in the city, Arthur A. Crawley and Company. Perhaps it is just coincidence-I do not know; I doubt it- that the son of Mr. Arthur A. Crawley happens to be the F. R. Crawley who is the head of Crawley Films in this city, a company which was built up in no small measure owing to what the film board did. The net result of all this was that the government
The Address-Mr. A. Stewart bowed to the phony and synthetic attacks; they bowed by getting rid of the then commissioner in a rather extraordinary way, and of course appointing another in his stead.
We were told that the change in commissioners was in order to restore public confidence in the film board. I never knew for a moment that there was any lack of public confidence in the film board. What there was, of course, was lack on the part of the government of any policy concerning the film board, or of any desire indeed to protect it. This is what the public of that day had to say about the film board. The Canadian federation of home and school said:
Canadians need films that can be supplied by the N.F.B. better than any other producer.
The Canadian association for adult education said:
C.A.A.E. expresses its appreciation and approval, in principle, of the important contribution to public information and understanding made by the government of Canada through the agency of the N.F.B.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture said:
The program of the N.F.B. has been of very great value to rural people. It has met the need in thousands of rural district which has undoubtedly enriched the life of these communities not possible otherwise . . . Year after year our federation has urged tne fullest measure of support.
The Canadian citizenship council said:
Perhaps no single agency during the past ten years, with the possible exception of the C.B.C. has done more to acquaint Canadians with our great national heritage . . . The N.F.B. unhampered as commercial producers often are with the need of selling something else, has been able to sell Canada to the Canadian people.
The Ontario association of film councils said:
We owe a great debt of gratitude to the officers and field representatives of the N.F.B.
Here are the people of Canada speaking. Those are the people who apparently needed reassuring. And so it goes on. I have a quotation here from the Canadian Congress of Labour. It states:
By any standard, tne film board's achievements have been outstanding. In the circumstances they are something of a miracle.
Hence it is obvious that it was not public confidence that needed to be restored. What was needed was a little bit more backbone in government policies of the day. However, a new commissioner was appointed and he inherited a rather serry mess. I suppose there were several policies he could have followed if he had wanted to do so; but apparently, if one can judge from the films

which have been quite good-which have come out of the film board in the last few years, he
558	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. A. Stewart decided the best thing to do was to make the films as non-controversial as was humanly possible. It may have been a very good policy for these last few years, but it is not a policy which will always give the fullest vent to creative artists. One can only hope that such policy will be broadened in future.
It is fortunate that during those years the then commissioner had the wisdom to realize that they had on the staff of the film board a man who was at once an asset and an adornment to film making, no matter where it may take place. I refer to Norman McLaren, who has done some really extraordinary work in the medium of films and sound. One film which he made was called "Neighbours" which I suppose many hon. members of the house have seen, inasmuch as it has been shown on more than one occasion on Tuesday night in the railway committee room. This little film was a pleasure to see, yet apparently it was the consensus that it was not a commercial proposition, and it did not get any great showing in Canada. But it was taken off the shelves and sent down to the United States where it was entered in a competition where, mirabile dictu, it received an Oscar. I am not sure whether it received the Oscar because the name Norman McLaren was there or for the content; possibly it was for the first reason.
Now once again we have a new commissioner who inherits new problems. He is a man who is talented, cultured, and who knows Canada; and he is going to have a great chance to do what the film board was designed to do, namely to interpret Canada to Canadians. Yet the board is still subject to the assaults of a certain group in this country. Just before leaving Winnipeg I read the columns of the Winnipeg Free Press. This paper has got to the position where anything left of reactionary has to be opposed automatically. In Winnipeg we call the disease Siftonitis. But I can assure the commissioner that he will be perfectly safe if he ignores the Free Press, because I do not think it carries any great weight in debates such as this one; nor indeed can it make any very serious contribution.
Amongst other things the commissioner inherited was the vexing problem of the move to Montreal. It has been decided, and that is all there is to it. I do not for a moment question the good faith of the government in deciding to move it to Montreal. I may perhaps think it is wrong; but even on that point I am uncertain in my own mind. The other day the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) suggested that the government might like to do a double-take on the matter and reconsider the advisability of the move. But if the government has made up its mind
[Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North) .1

I am prepared to go along with it, especially since the board itself recommended this move. But certain arguments were raised-and they were spurious arguments-supporting the move to Montreal.
We ought to be clear in our minds why this is being done. We are being told that the national film board is being removed from the deadly atmosphere of civil service bureaucracy. I have been in Ottawa off and on for some eight years, and I have not noticed that the atmosphere here is any more deadly than it is in any other area. As a matter of fact it is obviously not an argument which the government can use because, over the last seventeen years, the civil service has become largely the creation of the government; and they could scarcely accuse the civil service of causing such atmosphere. As I say, the government would be the last to use such an argument, but others have been taking it up. It is one which I do not think has any validity whatsoever, because there can be as much competent, constructive thinking going on in Ottawa as in any other part of the country.
Another argument is that we should take the national film board into the main stream of film production. Those who advance this point forget that although Ottawa is the headquarters of the national film board today it has not been the headquarters for film production, in the sense that all that was done here was the necessary research work to start off with and the editing at the end. The films have always been taken on location. Groups have been sent out, cameramen, technicians and so on, to all parts of Canada to take films and they have been, as I said, shot in large measure outside this city.
That also disposes of the argument that one has to go to Montreal or Toronto to get accomplished actors. What the film board has done in its wisdom is to use ordinary Canadians all over the country as its actors, and they have done a very good job.
Another argument that has been advanced is that the headquarters ought to be moved because of the exigencies and the needs of television. There again I would be tempted to disagree. In the first place I hope it is not the intention of the government to make the national film board just another subsidiary of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. That of course would be fatal to everything for which the film board stands. It should not tolerate it, and I do not think the C.B.C. would want to do it. We have two invaluable agencies here which if they co-operate can do immense good for Canada.
One aspect of television is that if the film board is compelled to do too much work for

the television end of the C.B.C. the chances are that those who are engaged in such work will lose their creative impulse, for this reason. They will be working toward a deadline; they will be working more in the sense of reporters rather than creative and artistic camera people, directors, producers and so on. The demands of the moment should not be allowed to obscure the real job the film board has to do, to interpret Canada to Canadians.
I do not for a moment deny the important part the film board can play in conjunction with the C.B.C. I do not deny that the film board can do an extraordinarily good job of explaining Canada to Canadians via the C.B.C.; but the film board must never forget, nor must the government, that there are rural circuits in Canada which are tremendously important. There are thousands of people living in rural areas who have no chance to see films other than through the efforts of the film board. These circuits must be maintained and films must be continued for such people.
Another argument I have heard raised is that Ottawa is off the main television stream, and therefore it would be advisable to shift the film board to the centre of that stream. That again is merely arguing that the film board should become a subsidiary of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, with which we in this group would disagree. But aside from that, if the film board were kept here surely it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the local station, CBOT, could become a point of emanation; and if that is not possible it takes no great skill these days to send films either to Montreal or Toronto, wherever they are wanted.
Another argument, of course, is that by moving to Montreal there will be all the benefits of a central location. There is much to be said for that. The film board has been greatly handicapped in this city because it has been working in six, seven, even ten different locations at one time, and how they were ever able to do efficient work is completely beyond my comprehension. Apparently the board is now going to be reduced to two locations, one a technical producing plant in Montreal, and the other half kept here. That at least will be a great improvement, although I still wonder why the whole operation could not be kept more or less under one roof.
There have been other objections. There was one from the city of Ottawa not very long ago which struck me as being slightly hysterical, at least in typography if not in tone. The city fathers, and here I suppose I speak in a hermaphroditical sense, opposed the moving of the film board to Montreal,
The Address-Mr. Byrne but I think the basis of their opposition was not any fear of what was going to happen to the film board or any concern for it but the fact that Ottawa was going to lose a certain amount in taxes owing to the transfer of staff workers. It was not a case which impressed me very strongly. From the point of view of the film board itself the main objection probably is that removal may deprive the film board of its principal source of what can be called inspiration and information. But again that argument may not be altogether valid if a substantial part of the film board is going to be kept in this city under the commissioner.
The film board obviously must have ready access to facts, and those facts are more easily obtainable in Ottawa than anywhere else. It has to have reasonable access to those various contacts which it needs and which are here ready made. It has to have reasonable access, quick access indeed, to information it may want, and it could conceivably find Ottawa as good a source of inspiration as any other city. But as I say the die has been cast. The government has decided that the move is to be made and we accept it, although we shall watch with a very careful eye to see what is going on.
One thing I should like to impress on the house is that I do not want to see any more sniping by cabinet ministers against the film board. It is not right and it is not fair. I do not want to see the lethargy of government hamstringing the film board as has been the case in the past. Here we have a great creative agency designed to interpret Canada to Canadians and to the rest of the world. It is an agency which should be used much more than it has been in the past. I hope the board will go ahead with its avowed purpose in mind, with courage, conviction and imagination to carry out its job, and I hope above all that the government will have the good common sense to allow the board to do so.


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate you on the great honour of your election to the highest commoner's position in the House of Commons. I also wish to congratulate the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Robinson) on his appointment as Deputy Speaker. I also wish to extend my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Hollingworth) and seconder (Mr. Villeneuve) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. They certainly did a masterly job, and I am happy to see such youthful people taking part in the debates of the House of Commons.
There are a number of matters of very great importance to my riding which I wish to discuss this afternoon. Perhaps some of
560	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Byrne them have priority, but I will take those of a minor nature first. I agree with the plea of my colleague the hon. member for Victoria, B.C. (Mr. Fairey) to the federal government to increase its proportion of payments toward the construction of the trans-Canada highway. It is true that to build a highway through the mountains is much more difficult than crossing either the preCambrian shield or the prairie provinces. It is for this reason that I feel it should be possible to work out some sort of ratio whereby we might obtain greater assistance. It was pointed out by the hon. member for Victoria that certain sections of the highway through the mountains will cost almost $1 million a mile. I know there are several sections within my own riding which are costing almost $500,000 per mile. They are not short sections, but run to several miles.
In this connection I may say also the trans-Canada highway is the full responsibility of the federal government wherever it traverses a national park. A start has been made on the grading of about four miles of the trans-Canada highway within Yoho park, which is in my riding. I believe that in the coming year the federal government should plan to spend between $8 million and $10 million on that section of road to provide a hard-surfaced highway from Calgary to Golden, which is about 18 miles from the Yoho park boundary.
The difficult section of the trans-Canada highway through the Kicking Horse pass area will have been completed by 1954, as a result of the joint effort of the federal and provincial governments. When the sections I have mentioned are finished, they will complete what is commonly known as the triangle tour. It would not be entirely complete, but only a short stretch of provincial highway running north and south would remain to be completed. This would make one of the finest tours in Canada, having the finest scenery and tourist attractions. Already the best of motels in the western Canadian fashion have been established. There is nothing to excel them anywhere in Canada. The establishment of this tour would provide a great source of revenue for the federal and provincial governments.
There is a matter which I wish to bring to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), but in his absence I would draw it to the attention of the entire cabinet. There has been a general request for the extension of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act into British Columbia. Merely because it is called the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act does not necessarily mean the provisions of the act should not extend beyond the Rocky mountains. Is there any


particular reason why prairie farms should have any special consideration? Some farms in British Columbia are just as much in need of rehabilitation, either in the way of drainage or irrigation. In my opinion it is discriminatory to limit the scope of this act and not to include the four western provinces.
During the course of this debate we have heard that the lumbering industry in British Columbia is in some difficulty. Today my riding is particularly affected because there is a strike in progress at that point. It may not be appropriate to speak on this question in this house, because it seems there is little we can do about it. However, the fact that it is mentioned and that we are asking the parties to get together and come to some amicable agreement might be of assistance. Quite apart from the strike situation, there is a recession in the industry in that markets are not too good. Market conditions will not improve a great deal until more of the wheat in the prairie provinces has been marketed.
Be that as it may, among the outstanding issues at the present time is one which I feel is not economic and which should be played down by the operators rather than played up, as it is. That is the question of union security. I had a number of discussions on this matter before coming east, and I cannot understand the argument of the operators that if a union is a good union it need not force any individual to participate in the cost of carrying on that organization as a bargaining unit. The operators admit that a union is necessary. They want to deal with a bargaining unit, and not with individual members. In spite of this they do not wish to provide in an agreement with the union the necessary security for the union to carry on these negotiations.
As a Liberal I agree, as I know many other people do, that the Liberal party is a good party and that they are managing the affairs of Canada in a proper manner. However, I have no doubt in the world that if the payment of taxes for carrying on this administration were to be put on an entirely voluntary basis, every one of us would have to go home tomorrow for lack of expense money. This administration would collapse. When the operators agree that this is a good organization, and they accept it, why can they not go a step farther and give the union the security it requires? In the west we have more progressive labour legislation than you have in the east. In British Columbia we do have the voluntary revocable check-off by law. I do not intend to touch on the question of the gold strike in Ontario, but it is regrettable that its issues hang almost

entirely on the minimum of union security, and that is the voluntary revocable check-off.
There is another grave situation in British Columbia industry, and one of prime importance in my riding. It concerns the lead and zinc mines. Many mines in British Columbia have been forced to curtail their operations, and some have closed down entirely. It is my earnest hope that progress will be made, and I believe is being made, against the proposed imposition of a tariff by the United States. I believe we are in a more favourable position than we were last spring, in that there is not the same danger this tariff will be imposed. I would ask the government, however, to maintain close vigilance, and not to forget that the resolution I introduced on this subject last spring received some support from the government benches. I would hope it is the intention of the government, should this tariff be imposed, to immediately introduce retaliatory measures.
In so far as the lead and zinc industry affects my riding, the largest operation there is the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company. They also have an auxiliary industry, namely the fertilizer industry. At the present time it is working on a full-time basis, whereas the mines and the mill are not. On November 20 the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort (Mr. Bryson) made some statements with regard to fertilizer that I fear may have some effect on the marketing of our product and may lead the consumer, that is the farmer, to believe that he is being gouged. This may adversely affect the product being sold, which is now a very important industry in both East and West Kootenay owing to its stabilizing effect. Everyone is working on a full-time basis, and we should be disappointed to find that our markets are adversely affected by this adverse publicity or in any other way.
In referring to the Alberta nitrogen plant, which was taken over by the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company following the last war, the hon. member had this to say, as reported at page 208 of Hansard:
As the war came to an end, this commodity began to pile up in the Calgary plant-
He was referring to the ammonium nitrates produced by the Alberta nitrogen plant. He went on to say:
-so the government developed a process whereby it could be used in the manufacture of fertilizer.
So far that is a correct picture of the situation. However, the story of Alberta nitrogen is just this. When the war broke out the technical staff of the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company were loaned to the government to develop this plant and run it;
The Address-Mr. Byrne and of course it was run on a non-fee basis. The understanding was that at the end of the war, when industry would again revert to the hands of private enterprise, the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company would have the first refusal of this plant. That is, they would meet the highest offer of anyone bidding for this operation. I have said that it was Consolidated's technicians. It is true they were paid by the federal government, but they developed the process whereby the ammonium used in ammunition could be converted into fertilizer for peacetime use. It was patented, and the patent also reverted to the federal government.
The hon. member went further and said:
In spite of the fact that the federation of agriculture over and over again insisted that the government maintain that plant for the use of the farmers of Canada, they sold it to the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company in Trail, the only monopoly in the fertilizer industry, as far as we are concerned, in western Canada.
Well, as I have said, the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company bought this property on a competitive bid basis. It may be said that they have a monopoly in fertilizer in western Canada. I personally have bought fertilizer right in the town of Kimberley which was made by other companies. The fertilizer plant of the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company is established in Kimberley, and there they have a large operation. Other fertilizer companies have attempted to get into the market on the prairie provinces, but they just have not been successful; they have been unable to compete in that market, and they have not been able to develop, as has been done by the technicians of Consolidated, the type of fertilizer that will give the results that are given by the fertilizer produced by the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company.
To show that the hon. member is entirely confused in his statements I wish to point out that the fertilizer produced at the Alberta nitrogen plant, to which he referred, has practically no market on the western prairies. All that fertilizer, known as Nitro Prills, is exported to the United States; so when he says that a plant at Calgary was taken from the people and given to a private monopoly, and the monopoly was allowed to gouge the farmers, he is completely incorrect.
The fertilizer used in the prairie provinces is produced at Trail, British Columbia; and because of the demand on the prairies for this type of sulphur ammonia an additional plant was built at Kimberley at a cost of approximately $10 million. If the market continues to expand as it has done in the past-and it has expanded a great deal from 28,000 tons in 1942 to some 113,000 tons last year-and if

The Address-Mr. Byrne we do not get too involved by the arguments presented by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort, then the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company intends to build further units, perhaps two or three units, which will provide employment for some 150 to 200 men per unit.
There are more interesting figures relating to the use of this fertilizer on the prairie provinces, and its cost. As a union officer I had considerable discussion with the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company on the taking over of the Alberta nitrogen plant and the manner in which they operated it. As we bargained jointly, bargained for the mine, the smelter and Alberta nitrogen, I became somewhat familiar with the matter. When the hon. member spoke I made it my business to get the figures to correct some of the statements he had made.
The hon. member implies that the farmers are being gouged. I want to quote these figures. From 1935 to 1939 the price range was such that 90 bushels of wheat would purchase one ton of fertilizer. In 1951 and 1952, with the price ranges in existence at that time, it required only 65 bushels of wheat to purchase a ton of fertilizer. Not only the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort (Mr. Bryson) but other hon. members on that side of the house seemed inclined to distort the picture regardless of the consequences to the industry and those people who are employed directly in the industry. The interests of the employees of the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company have a direct relationship to the interests of the company itself. It is for that reason that I make these corrections.
The hon. member has stated that from the summer of 1946 the cost of production under private enterprise rose from $19 a ton to $40.59 a ton, and that it has been going up steadily ever since. I have been unable to discover where the hon. member obtained those production figures, because I have been unable to find similar figures. But let us assume for a moment that they are correct. In 1946 I recall that the wage rate at Consolidated was almost half what it was in 1952. I refer now to the basic wage scale. Perhaps my hon. friend has noted a recent statement by the dominion bureau of statistics which indicates that the highest average personal earnings of all cities in Canada are those of Trail and Kimberley. The people of those communities are mainly employed by this company. I am happy to say that up until 1949 I had considerable to do with bringing about such conditions.
While wages do not make up all the costs of production, they do have some bearing upon it. But the fact remains, as I have 
pointed out, that it takes only 65 bushels of wheat to buy a ton of fertilizer at the present time. It is interesting also to note that studies made in 1952 indicate that the 100,000 tons of fertilizer sold in the prairie provinces increased the yield of wheat by 35 million bushels. Notwithstanding the hon. member's statement, if this matter can be cleared up to the satisfaction of those who will become new users, if they can be given the actual facts, we may expect this picture to continue. That is all I have to say on that matter.
A number of other matters have been bandied about in the house until I am goaded into getting to my feet to take a stand on them. In many respects I agree that a national health program is important to the people of Canada. It may not be as important for the western part of the country because we in British Columbia have a fairly comprehensive program of hospitalization, and most employees are covered by private plans, the Blue Cross and so on.
Early in the election campaign I did hear that the C.C.F. were going to deluge this house with petitions requesting the federal government to bring in a national health program. I have not noticed such petitions being tabled, and I do not know what has happened to them. I do not believe the people of British Columbia feel so strongly about this matter as to want me to vote in favour of that amendment and defeat this government. Perhaps it is out of order to refer to that at this time.
Another amendment has been moved by the Social Credit party which I do not intend to support at this time. I do not believe that the convertibility or acceptance of sterling is the answer to our trade problems at the present time. But apart from that, I am a little suspicious of monetary reformists bringing in an amendment such as this at this time, or at any other time for that matter.
I do not want to refer to provincial matters, but Social Credit members opposite have brought provincial matters into the discussion from time to time and have endeavoured to convince the house that because they have Social Credit in Alberta and because they now have it in British Columbia, everything is going to work out to the best interests of everyone.
A few moments ago I said that our basic industries of mining and lumbering were facing difficulties. Our all-wise provincial government decided to place a 10 per cent income tax on these industries, which were already in a precarious position. I am quite certain that this will not enhance their position one iota. In fact I am sure it will be detrimental.

What worries me is that this amendment may have stemmed from the Social Credit league of British Columbia which to all intents and purposes seems to be telling the government what to do. I agree that is a proper democratic procedure, but when I read the statements made by the newly-elected president of the Social Credit league in British Columbia I begin to wonder where that province is headed. Mr. Murphy, the newly-elected president, has enlightened the people of British Columbia by saying that Social Credit was, and I presume is, the philosophy under which we can have our cake and eat it too.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: An hon. member says "hear, hear". The hon. member comes from Alberta, and he must know perfectly well that you cannot have your cake and eat it too. That was an age-old warning that perhaps I did not heed sufficiently when I was younger. I do not think Social Credit has the immediate answer which would make such a philosophy feasible.
In British Columbia we had 28 and we now have 27 Social Credit members of the legislative assembly. Not one of these monetary reformists knew enough about financing to take over the portfolio of finance. The provincial government had to create a vacancy in order to seek an orthodox financier. To be a reformer the first requisite is to know something about the matter you are going to reform. The fact that not one Social Credit member could be found to fill the portfolio of finance in the provincial government is one of the reasons I have no confidence whatsoever in the fiscal policies of the Social Credit party.
As regards housing, we are all agreed that everything possible should be done short of building houses at government expense, for that would mean the people of Canada would become the landlords and I think that would be a very unhealthy position for any government. We must, however, create conditions under which people can build houses.
I do not agree that the problem is as simple as the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. Ellis) would have us believe. They have a plan. They always have a plan, but that plan does not include the question of where the money is to come from. They do not like to impose fresh taxes, because they have always opposed the government on the question of taxation. They propose to lend money at 2 per cent, and they calculate that the payment on a $10,000 home will amount to only $33.20 a month. They forget to point out that a subsidy will be required to meet the additional interest that is normally
The Address-Mr. Hees charged. That additional interest, which normally amounts to 5 per cent, will have to come out of the taxpayers' pocket. That would not be so bad if the finance minister in Saskatchewan could see matters in the same light as his compatriots here in this house. We all know that if you borrow money from financial interests it is difficult to get it at less than 5 per cent.
When the federal government sold bonds at an interest rate of 3J per cent the Saskatchewan provincial government was the only employer which refused to participate in this bond-selling drive. I recall seeing Mr. Fines' picture in the Time magazine. He was not exactly a socialist in a silk hat. He was wearing a black homburg, however, which did not resemble a hardboiled or miner's hat. When the federal government was attempting to sell these bonds to the people, the small people or the employee class if you will, rather than give them to the large bond companies, Mr. Fines declared, "Let them go to big bond companies and sell their bonds." The fact that the provincial government are unable to sell their provincial bonds does not mean that such bonds could not be sold; but if Mr. Fines refuses to allow people to participate in the purchase of 3| per cent bonds, then how will the government be able to finance housing and pay the difference in the interest charges? If the people of Canada, the taxpayers, are to be asked to subsidize housing then they should be given some benefit from the interest rate.


Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, the announcement the government made a couple of months ago that they intend at this session to amend the National Housing Act in order to make it easier for people with moderate incomes to buy new houses came as a very welcome announcement indeed. From the meagre information available it seems to me the government are moving along the right track and are planning to follow pretty well the suggestions made by the opposition during the past two years. It is encouraging on occasions like this to see that the government does listen to suggestions made by the opposition, and it makes us feel that words we utter in this chamber do not always fall on deaf ears.
If the information we have received is correct it seems, however, that the government is about to falter in one rather important aspect. It appears that the government, instead of making the down payment a flat 10 per cent on all N.H.A. houses up to and including $10,000, is planning to make the down payment 10 per cent on the first $8,000 value of the house, and 30 per cent on the remainder. That will make the down payment on the cheapest N.H.A. house a man


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, it is with considerable hesitation that I rise again to speak in the house. I realize that it savours somewhat of brashness on the part of a new member. However, I am constrained1 to do it on account of an incident which occurred when I spoke earlier in this debate. I refer to the exchange between the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and myself over the terms of sale of certain government properties to Canadair Limited. I greatly regret that the minister is not in his place. I had hoped that he would be here this afternoon. To that end I sent him a note to tell him that I intended to deal with this matter again.
To refresh your memory, Mr. Speaker, I would refer you to Hansard of Friday,
The Address-Mr. C. Cameron November 20, in which is recorded the exchange which took place. I had at that time been expressing some dismay over the apparent sale of properties costing in the neighbourhood of some $25 million for a price of about $3| million, and at that point in my address the minister rose in his place to ask if I would accept a correction, which courtesy I was of course only too glad to extend to him. Then the minister continued in these words, as found at page 224 of Hansard:
The assets that were sold to the Electric Boat Company were not valued at $25 million, $20 million, $15 million or anything of that kind. The buildings were sold; the equipment and the working processes were taken over and liquidated by the company on government account.
Naturally, Mr. Speaker, hearing the minister make this statement disturbed me considerably, because I am not fond of making statements which can be challenged to that extent. I came to the conclusion that my information must have been incorrect. I may say the minister also suggested that if I wished particulars I would find them in the records of the defence expenditure committee. I took his advice and examined the records of that committee.
I could find no reference whatever to these investments at Cartierville. It may be they were under headings where I did not recognize them, but I found something else in the course of my investigation. I found a statement made by the minister in the house on March 20, 1947, which is recorded at page 1541 of Hansard for that year and in which, in answer to a question, the minister had this to say with regard to the properties under discussion;
The total cost of the facilities at Cartierville, including land, buildings, plant, machinery and tooling, amounts to $21,825,777.33.
In addition, I found a record in sessional paper No. 216-B of a further investment on the part of the government which is recorded there in an agreement signed with Canadair Limited when it came under its new ownership, in which the government undertook to pay the cost of extra tooling required for the production of North Star aircraft to the tune of $3 million. I might say that later that special tooling was sold to Canadair Limited for the sum of $1.
As I say, I was rather at a loss to understand this apparent discrepancy between the statement of the minister in 1947 and his statement to the house on November 20 last, until I examined the precise wording of the minister's statement on Friday, November 20. I discovered then that in the first place he said the assets that were sold to the Electric
566	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. C. Cameron Boat Company were not valued at $25 million, $20 million, $15 million or anything of the kind; and technically, of course, he is quite correct because no assets were sold to the Electric Boat Company. The Electric Boat Company had in the meantime bought all the assets of Canadair Limited, and it was to Canadair Limited that these properties were sold.
When he went on to say that the equipment and working processes were taken over and liquidated by the company on government account, I was at a loss to understand just what was referred to by that statement of the minister. I have come to the conclusion that he must have been referring to the inventories of materials and parts which were sold at the same time to Canadair Limited for the sum of $9,745,959.84. Incidentally, sir, in the agreement by which these inventories were sold to Canadair Limited there was a provision by which Canadair Limited agreed to sell back to the crown various quantities of these inventories at cost plus a reasonable profit, which struck me as rather interesting in view of the minister's statement.
I can only come to the conclusion that there was, shall we say, a certain semantic fog in which the minister and I were missing each other, because I note that he says these assets were not valued at $25 million, $20 million or $15 million, and of course he is quite correct because at page 9 of sessional paper 216-B we find the valuation that was put on these properties by the government at that time. The total valuation was $4 million, including $1 for the $3 million worth of special tooling. It is precisely that valuation placed on these properties that I have been protesting in the house, because we have the word of the minister himself that they cost-admittedly not $25 million; I was incorrect there- $24,825,777. I was incorrect to the tune of $200,000.
Now, Mr. Speaker, you may say that this is all water under the bridge, that this transaction has taken place and there is nothing we can do about it. But it has this interest, I think, or should have for members of the house, that it should cause us to scrutinize with the utmost intensity any further sales of government property. I say this because, despite the qualified denial given in the chamber last week by the minister regarding the government's intentions with respect to the Polymer Corporation, there are still rumours current throughout this city that the government does intend at some future date to dispose of that extremely valuable and profitable


piece of property of the people of Canada, and I think in the light of the history of the Canadair corporation transaction we should be prepared to scrutinize it with the utmost care. I have come to the conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that our government has been acting the part of Robin Hood in reverse, because the owners of the property were poor people and the people who got it were very well heeled.
(Translation):


Mr. Raoul Poulin (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, at the risk of boring the house, I wish to associate myself with the hon. members who spoke before me to offer you a personal tribute on the occasion of your election to the office of Speaker. I am one of those who are fortunate enough to have known you for the last four years and to have seen you discharge your duties in this house; without any doubt, you will do more honour to your duties than you will be honoured by them.
I wish also to congratulate the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Lesage) upon the confidence which the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has reposed in him. I may assure the hon. minister as an independent member in this house, quite secure from the excitement which is sometimes caused by partisan enthusiasm, that the people of Quebec as a whole were very happy when they heard of his appointment.
The hon. member's reputation had long since spread beyond the walls of this house, and nobody was surprised to learn that he had been promoted to a key position.
As far as I am concerned, as an impartial observer, I think that the new minister has a great opportunity to become the leading light from Quebec in the federal Liberal party within a few years. I wish it to be well understood, Mr. Speaker, that this tribute I am paying here, humble though it may be, is not mere flattery. On the contrary, I am applying here a principle which I hold very dear, that is to say that we should pay close attention to the actions of public figures, in order to criticize them when they go astray or to encourage and support them when they show themselves worthy of our trust.
I have no intention of speaking at length. I only wish, today, to make a few brief remarks on two points in particular, first the question of bilingual cheques and, secondly, the position of farmers.

On several occasions, during former sessions, I urged the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) to see to it that all cheques issued by the federal government be printed in both languages. I also asked the government to do likewise for all printed matter emanating from its services. Besides, I admit that I was not the only one to do so. I realize, however, that the reaction was slow. And yet, was it not last year that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) said that such a thing was possible, when he referred to family allowance cheques? Is it not a fact that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) told the Conseil de Liaison Frangaise last spring that there was no objection to that? So then, what are we waiting for? In the hope that the claimants will get tired of asking? On this point, let no one misunderstand what I say: as long as I am entitled, with others, to speak in this house, such a thing will not happen.
Are we opposed to bilingualism with respect to coins, paper money and stamps? Apparently, the practical application of the principle of bilingualism has not been harmful, from a strictly electoral viewpoint, to the Liberal party.
This condition I am talking about creates the definite impression that the French Canadians living outside Quebec are in an exclusively English country, while those of us who live in Quebec should be thankful that we are permitted to live in some sort of reservation, which is tolerated, in the very heart of an English country.
Several months have already passed since the Minister of Finance stated that cheques would soon be bilingual in the province of Quebec and even, conditions permitting, across Canada. I for one was not satisfied with that answer.
However that statement received much publicity throughout the country, not only in French newspapers but in English newspapers as well. We have had a general election since then, and it does not appear that such a statement of policy did any harm to the Liberal party.
Several months have gone by since then, but nothing has been done, even as far as Quebec province is concerned. And if it takes that long to carry out that promise in the province of Quebec, how long will it take to carry it out across the country?


Mr. Dufresne:: It was more urgent before the election.
The Address-Mr. Poulin


Raoul Poulin: I would like to know what are those circumstances that have not yet come about and on which the minister is counting to show justice and courtesy to four and a half million good Canadian citizens?
I have said it already but I wish to repeat it once more: we are much more broadminded in the province of Quebec. Whatever their affiliation, our political leaders are broadminded enough to show their faith in bilingualism by printing, in both languages, all the official documents. And yet scarcely more than 12 per cent of the people under their jurisdiction are English-speaking, while, on the federal plane, the French-speaking minority represents more than 30 per cent of the total population. We see, then, that those 30 per cent are unable to obtain from our Canadian statesmen what our leaders in Quebec are generous enough to grant to 12 per cent of Quebec's population.
Where is that spirit of understanding, of justice, and of good will we hear so much about? Have we ever heard the majority in Quebec protest against the off-handed manner in which the leaders, of whatever party they may be, treat the minority?
In the federal field, I am ready to put my confidence in the good sense and the fair play of the Canadian element of English origin, the most important ethnic group in the country, and I am sure that they will be just as well disposed toward the French minority in Canada as we are toward the English minority in Quebec.
In the debate which will follow the presentation of the budget, I intend to urge the government to grant some assistance to our poorer citizens and to our large families. I shall very likely get the answer which was given a few times in the past four years: where will you get the money needed to put your plan in operation? In the present case, it might be my turn to ask the question: How much will the treasury have to disburse to grant my request? And if nobody answers me I shall be compelled to reply myself: not one cent. Where are the objections?
I understand that when some members, myself included, request a national flag for Canada, a national anthem or a representative to the Vatican, it can always be said, and quite improperly in my opinion, that the time has not come yet, that public opinion is not ripe, that unity has not been attained in regard to such matters. Those are debatable matters to say the least. But as far as bilingualism on cheques and other documents is concerned, who are the ones that object?

The Address-Mr. Poulin Where are they? Where and when have they protested and in whose name or on whose behalf?
Those are some of the things that we should like to learn, to enable us to understand why no action has yet been taken on the matter although two ministers have stated that it could be done.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be unpleasant, nor do I wish to impute motives to anyone. Let us simply say, for now, that those who could correct the situation have not yet realized the full importance of the problem and the inconsequence of the present situation. It might be good for them, however, to hurry, because the time might soon come where an important part of our population will accuse them of discrimination and lack of good will.
Dealing now with the second point-and that is the last question I shall bring up-I notice that the speech from the throne has very little to say about the situation of agriculture in Canada. I will quote verbatim everything that concerns that important part of our economy. I quote Hansard of November 12, 1953, page 5:
Our farmers have harvested the second largest wheat crop in Canadian history . . .
A bill to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act to provide for appropriate compensation to farmers whose hogs suffered from cholera, will he placed before you.
It must be recognized that this announcement does not go too far.
Like everybody else, I am, of course, happy to learn that the farmers of the western provinces have benefited from a very abundant harvest this fall. That means prosperity for most of them. Unfortunately, I cannot be equally optimistic in respect of the present situation of our eastern farmers. I refer especially to those who specialize in the breeding of beef cattle.
We all know that the dairy industry is the main interest of the farmers of Ontario and Quebec. Along with that-and directly because of it-the same farmers are also deeply interested in the breeding of beef cattle. They either fatten and sell as they are the young animals they consider useless for the maintenance of their dairy herds, or they sell the dairy cows themselves, when they no longer give enough milk. I would go so far as to say that in a number of cases their income from that source equals or exceeds the income resulting from the sale of dairy products. It is consequently quite in order to say that the situation of the dairy producer, in eastern Canada, is jeopardized with every fall in the price or market for livestock.

Now, what is the situation today in this respect? Overnight, at the beginning of 1952, the price for cattle paid to the farmer fell to an excessively low level. Cattle which were selling for $175 or $200 a head in 1951 are selling this year for $40 or $50 a head, and it is not always easy to find a buyer at that price.
Last autumn, I travelled about the county of Beauce and several other parts of Quebec. I was particularly impressed by the grazing herds; they seemed to grow at both ends, if I may use that expression; I mean that contrary to what is usual at this time of the year, we notice, on the one hand, a great number of fatted calves and, on the other, some old cattle that are also fat and ready for the packing-plant, but not yet sold.
The farmer will lose this revenue and, what is more, he will have to keep these animals in the stalls all winter long, without much hope of disposing of them at a better price next year.
Moreover, all those things the farmer needs to maintain his herd are still too expensive; I shall only mention meals. The farmer is thus, from both viewpoints, in a very critical position, and it is hardly possible to foresee any improvement in the situation, if we let our economy take its course in the hope that everything will come out all right.
This situation looks so serious to me that I am wondering whether the government should not try to do something, without interfering with the sacred principle of free competition and private enterprise? There surely comes a time when the latter is no longer able to serve public interest, when the mechanism of private enterprise, probably because of the mistakes of certain interested parties, does not function properly within our liberal economic system.
Perhaps someone will object that the American market, which much too often gives the lead to ours, is faced with the same difficulties. However I do not see in this fact any reason not to attempt to do something to correct a situation which has become very precarious. I do not admit that the prices on our markets should be based on the prices on the United States markets. There is no more reason for it in this case than in the case, for example, of automobiles and electrical appliances, which are sold much cheaper in the United States.
I do not think the government is to blame for this. However, I do think that they should try and find some means to remedy the state of affairs which I have just described and about which the least that can be said is that

it is certainly very serious for the farmers in my riding.
There is another side to the problem, about which I would like to make known the viewpoint of those I have the privilege of representing here. It is the astounding discrepancy which exists between the price received by the producer and the price paid at the consumer level by those who buy their meat from the retailer. The worker and the low wage earner, who eke out a bare existence since the new rise in the cost of living, still pay practically the same price for their meat as they did when cattle prices were very high. The facts seem to contradict the situation described to us in the House of Commons on Monday, November 30, by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), when he said: "From now on the seller's market is going to become a buyer's market." I believe that in this case it is not a seller's market nor a buyer's market, but rather a middleman's market, that of the Canada Packers, the Swift Canadian or the Legrade Incorporated.
If what we hear is true, it would seem that our neighbours to the south have authorized a government investigation into similar conditions over there.
If things do not get better here, it would undoubtedly be advisable for our government to do likewise to put an end to this shameless exploitation of our workers and wage earners in our cities and towns, who are practically defenceless against callous people who only seek to reap large profits.
Mr. Speaker, if I did not fear to prolong unduly this debate I would call the attention of the house to some of the proposals contained in the speech from the throne which forecast excellent government legislation.
I could mention, among other things, the bills to help the disabled persons and to amend the National Housing Act. However, it would probably be wiser to wait and see whether our hopes will be fulfilled.
Moreover, there are on the government side excellent speakers who succeeded in bringing out everything worth while in that document, so that I could add nothing that has not already been said.
(Text):


Mr. Carl O. Nickle (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, first may I join my colleagues on all sides of this house in extending my con-
The Address-Mr. Nickle gratulations on your elevation to your new high office. I am sure that you, as have your distinguished predecessors, will add honour and dignity to the house and bring new distinction to yourself.
Throughout this house, except perhaps among a small group who pin their hopes on state control or state ownership of everything, there is general agreement or general acceptance of the principles involved in the amendment to the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Because I wish to devote my remarks today to the support of those principles, let me briefly recite the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), and seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green):
We respectfully represent to Your Excellency that the welfare of Canada is dependent upon free competition; and that the prosperity and security of all Canadians will be advanced by government policies which will restore markets for primary products and generally promote a high volume of international trade.
With my colleagues of course I strongly support that amendment.
Much has already been said in this debate about Canada's agricultural industry and its problems, problems which are of vital concern to the west where grain and livestock, and the volume of production, saleability and price of grain and livestock, largely determine the state of economic health of the entire west, and indeed also materially affect the economic health of Canada. My purpose today, however, is not to discuss agriculture. Hon. members who know far more about this subject than I are doing that. I merely wish to emphasize one point, namely that western Canada today is too dependent for its economic health upon this single industry. The building up of a diversified economy in the west is vital to the security of the people there.
Like the maritimes, the west needs what Ontario and Quebec already possess, namely diversified industry. We need in the west, as indeed we do in all Canada, greater freedom of enterprise and the incentive that encourages the speed-up of our national building. We need freedom for growth, the right to sell our products with the absolute minimum of restrictions in the markets both Canadian and foreign; and I also mean, of course, with full awareness that trade must be a two-way deal.
We need people, many more millions of people in our west and elsewhere across this country to provide human resources for our development and greater human markets for

The Address-Mr. Nickle our own products. But expanded immigration, Mr. Speaker, must go hand in hand with basic resources and industrial expansion. We need capital; we need many billions of dollars. We must offer the incentive of freedom, fair dealing and possible profit to continue getting capital in the required amounts from Canadians as well as from the United States, Great Britain and other lands.
We western Canadians, perhaps to a greater degree than those elsewhere in our country, realize the importance of breaking down the barriers to international trade. Without export markets our agricultural industry upon which the western economy is now so dependent, would die and carry the west into the grave with it. Those export markets will continue to expand on a healthy basis only if our overseas customers can earn dollars through the sale of their products to North America with which to pay for our wheat, cattle, apples, cheese and other products. Particularly important in this regard are the motherland islands of our British commonwealth.
We western Canadians also realize, perhaps to a greater extent than easterners, the vital importance to our economy of increasing co-operation with our neighbour to the south in the mutual breaking down of trade and tariff and other kinds of barriers between our two great nations of North America. The industrial future of Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, based for example on their hydrocarbons-coal, oil, gas and by-products-will be shaped to a very considerable degree by the extent of freedom of movement of those products over the Canadian-United States border and the extent to which our two nations accept the economically sound integration of mineral resources on a continental rather than a national basis.
It is these hydrocarbon resources, which have been found by free enterprise in steadily increasing amounts in the vast regions from the Rocky mountains to Manitoba, that provide western Canada with the greatest opportunity in our history to build a diversified economy of industries to supplement the present mighty agriculture.
On the broad questions of greater freedom of trade and free enterprise there have been some important statements in recent weeks. The speech from the throne delivered by His Excellency the Governor General had this to say for Canada's present government:
My ministers are convinced that nations can best achieve economic strength and security through more liberal trade and overseas investment policies and they are continuing their efforts to bring about the progressive reduction of trade restrictions.

I recall the words of President Dwight Eisenhower when he addressed this parliament on November 14. Let me quote what he said:
The free world must come to recognize that trade barriers, although intended to protect a country's economy, often in fact shackle its prosperity. In the United States there is a growing recognition that free nations cannot expand their productivity and economic strength without a high level of international trade.
An outstanding Canadian, Donald Gordon, president of the Canadian National Railways, had some common-sense things to say about trade barriers, economic nationalism and free enterprise when he addressed the bankers' club of Detroit a week or so ago. Let me quote a few of his words:
Free enterprise means to me not freedom from competition, but rather freedom to enter into competition; to buy and sell in any market at the best price as determined by natural economic forces operating in a framework of fair opportunity.
This government slammed the doors against competition by Canadian Pacific Air Lines with the government monopoly, Trans-Canada Air Lines, in the field of air cargo transport, but it might have taken different action had it listened to such stirring words by Mr. Gordon:
Free enterprise means not freedom from competition, but rather freedom to enter into competition.
In days ahead, when weighing decisions on other matters now pending, I trust this government will remember also another key statement by Mr. Gordon:
I am profoundly convinced that any policy attempted along the lines of economic nationalism, or falling short of an all-out effort towards clearing away all impediments to the international exchange of goods and services . . . will not only work against the interests of the United States and Canada, but may well be calamitous to the kind of world we would like to live in.
The chief of my party, the Leader of the Opposition in this house, made an important restatement of Conservative party policy on November 16 when he pledged my party to all-out support of free enterprise. I am in firm agreement with such words of his as these:
Freedom within the law is that right of every citizen of Canada, and as an individual, or jointly with others, he has the right to set up a new business, engage in a new type of production, or venture into new fields with a possibility of reward which offers some return for the risks he takes. Success brings increased employment and prosperity for all.
Nothing else has yet been discovered which provides the incentive upon which an expanding economy can be built. This is no time to be limiting expansion in this young country of ours. Years ago we found that even with all our

resources, restrictive practices could prove disastrous to Canadian workers. Let us take no chance of repeating that mistake.
Through the years there has been a tendency in Canada, as well as in other nations, to bring government increasingly into business, a tendency due in part to actions and attitudes of business, politicians and the public in other nations, as well as actions and attitudes of business, politicians and the public in our own Canada. More and more has government been getting into business, granting or expanding direct subsidies to some industries, extending indirect subsidies through such means as tariff barriers to other industries, and also in some instances going directly into business, sometimes as a government monopoly.
I am, on principle, against government in business, and against subsidies direct or indirect to industries. So probably are most Canadians, who as taxpayers have to foot the bill. However, it is a bit like sin- most everybody is "agin" it. But we must accept the fact that sin, like government in business, subsidies and tariffs, is with us. Nevertheless I firmly believe that the less we have of these things, the better off Canada and the world will be.
I believe the great majority of Canadians recognize that subsidized industries-whether by direct subsidies, tariff supports or other aids -are in some degree sick industries. As with sick humans, we nurse them; but the sooner they can stand on their own feet and fight their own battles of life without nursing, the better off they and we will be.
While there are obvious immediate benefits from government nursing for those working in or dependent upon subsidized industries, we must also consider the great drawbacks. First, there is the cost to the economy as a whole and the burden upon Canadians generally, of the nursing care, the direct and indirect subsidies, and the higher cost of goods behind a tariff wall. Second, there is the tendency of sick industries to sicken healthy industries around them, and for the demands for nursing care to pyramid. Third, there is the tendency of tariffs and other barriers to international trade to pyramid between nations, thus weakening industries whose major markets must be found beyond their national borders and creating new barriers and misunderstandings between nations.
I believe it is the responsibility of this and succeeding governments, this and succeeding parliaments, and also the responsibility of Canada's taxpaying public and of Canada's industries and business leaders, to resist the trend toward what sometimes
The Address-Mr. Nickle seems the easiest and politically expedient way out of a problem, subsidies of one form or another.
In my own words, and with quotes from statements of others, I have outlined the general principles guiding my thinking on industrial development, freedom of enterprise and trade policies for Canada. Let us briefly apply those principles to some phases of the new industrial hopes for western Canada.
Recent years have brought proof beyond doubt that our west is a vast treasure-house of crude oil, natural gas and the associated by-products of sulphur and liquid hydrocarbon. Free enterprise, made up of hundreds of companies Canadian and foreign, has already proved up some 2,000 million barrels of oil, over 14,000 billion cubic feet of gas, and many millions of tons of associated by-products, worth in all over $5 billion.
The important fact is not the measure of reserves proved to date, but the growing proof that reserves many times greater than those known today are still hidden below the ground waiting for discovery. The rate of discovery, and the rate of increase in value of those resources to the west and Canada, depend upon incentive.
The best incentive is freedom to grow and the right to sell into the most economic markets at the best possible prices. The alternative to such freedom, if this western industry is to grow, is subsidized nationalism. The geography of North America, and the population and market distribution over North America, leave no other alternative. The west's oil and gas fields and its petrochemical plants of the future, are a long cost-distance removed from Canada's major market, Ontario and Quebec. Much closer and more economic are markets in the neighbouring United States, provided Canada and the United States do not erect a border barrier. By effective international co-operation now and in the future the west's great new resources can grow by stages, on a sound basis, to ensure a long-term supply of hydrocarbons for Canada, a supplementary supply for our neighbour, and a strengthened Canadian economy.
In Quebec and Labrador vast iron ore deposits have been uncovered, and hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent to develop these deposits and provide a railway link to the St. Lawrence, opening doors to markets. This great project is only possible now because of the freedom provided to ship a high percentage of the ore to our hungry neighbour, the United States.
If we took the stand that Labrador ore, together with the iron deposits being developed at Steep Rock and in western Ontario,
572	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Nickle must be held in Canada for our possible future needs, the great projects now developing would be seriously restricted, perhaps even killed. Instead, we are following the common-sense plan of selling ore to foreign markets in order to ensure development of Canadian reserves, the resultant expansion of Canadian markets for steel, the expansion of Canadian plants for the processing of ores, and speeding the discovery rate of new Canadian reserves, thereby looking after Canada's future in this regard.
The same common-sense principles apply in regard to our other base metals, zinc, lead, copper and so on. What would happen to the important base metal mining and smelting industries in British Columbia, the prairies, central Canada and the maritimes if we closed the door to exports on the ground that the reserves should be held for Canada's possible needs, sometime in the long-term future?
Consider the vast aluminum industry of Quebec and the great new aluminum plant at Kitimat, created by mating low-cost Canadian hydroelectric energy with bauxite imported from South America and the West Indies. These vital Canadian industries would sicken and decline if the bauxite-producing countries barred export on the grounds that the processing should be done in the country of origin, or that the bauxite should be held for their own future needs. Our Canadian aluminum industry would also slump should the doors to foreign markets for its surplus be slammed shut.
If we are to bar the door to export for one or two of our natural resources on the grounds they may be needed sometime in the distant future to serve our own needs, why not extend the same argument to all our resources, for example, the products of our vast pulp and paper and lumbering industries, our iron ore and other base metals, and so on down the list?
No, Mr. Speaker. With oil and gas and their by-products, as well as with all Canada's treasure-house of resources, their discovery and development and the extent of their contribution to Canada's growth and economic health, depend upon incentive and freedom to market at fair prices, with the prospect of fair return.

All engineering and geological authorities on western Canada's oil and gas resources, including the top authorities in the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys and dominion geological survey, now agree that the west's ultimate reserves will be many times those known today, if incentive to discover continues. In other words we are going to have oil, gas and by-products adequate for all Canadian markets, plus the United States markets within economic reach, for far more years than we need worry about. Then ultimately, when demand outstrips the supply of natural oil and gas, Alberta's tar sands and coal deposits will provide the means for liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons for many more hundreds of years.
Why not, therefore, plan our marketing on the soundest basis, reaching first into the nearest and most economic markets both in Canada and the United States, then gradually reaching outward to the most distant Canadian and American markets as sound economics permit? Through effective co-operation with the United States such a program could bring United States gas into the mass market of our east, pending ultimate deliveries from western Canada. We already operate along this line in the case of oil, with foreign oil serving the eastern half of Canada's market and our own western surplus going into the nearest United States markets. If it be Canada's desire that only Canadian gas go as quickly as possible to Ontario and Quebec, markets that normally, on an economic basis, would be served by western gas in the second stage of market development, then we must pay the price-subsidies.
To all in government, to all believers in free enterprise, free competition and greater international trade, and to all opponents of too much government in business and too much business dependence upon the taxpayers who pay the bills of government, I urge careful consideration of the matters I have outlined today.
On motion of Mr. Nickle the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, December 3, 1953