1954-04-26

QUESTIONS


Mr, Dinsdale:: 1.	What was the average price per bushel of amber Durum wheat to the export market during the 1952-53 crop year?
2.	What was the average price per bushel paid to producers of amber Durum wheat?
3.	What accounts for the difference in selling price and price to the producer, if any exists?
4.	What was the average price per bushel of amber Durum wheat to the domestic market?
5.	What accounts for the difference, if any, between domestic price and export price?
6.	What percentage of amber Durum wheat grown in Canada is produced in Manitoba?
7.	What percentage of this wheat is sold to the domestic market, and to the export market?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Average prices received

1952-53 Pool Account-Wheat
(a)	Under international wheat agreement- $1.824527 per bushel basis No. 1 amber Durum wheat in store Fort William/Port Arthur or Vancouver.
(b)	Outside international wheat agreement (class II)-$2.6381903 per bushel basis No. 1 amber Durum wheat in store Fort William/ Port Arthur or Vancouver.
(c)	Average of export sales-$2.3408896 per bushel basis No. 1 amber Durum wheat in store Fort William/Port Arthur or Vancouver.
2.	$2.2766075 per bushel basis No. 1 amber Durum wheat in store Fort William/Port Arthur or Vancouver, less operating and administrative costs of 4-33068 cents per bushel.
3.	The final price to producers reflected different selling bases for Durum wheat, namely, export prices under the terms of the international wheat agreement, export prices outside the international wheat agreement and domestic selling prices as provided by Canadian wheat board regulations, 1952-53 and 1953-54 and amendments thereto.
4.	$1.8296569 per bushel basis No. 1 amber Durum wheat in store Fort William/Port Arthur or Vancouver.
5.	From August 1, 1952 to September 23, 1953 Durum grades of wheat were sold on the same price basis:
(a) Under the international wheat agreement.
(b) In the domestic market.
From September 24, 1953 Durum grades of wheat were sold in the domestic market at a premium of 10 cents per bushel over the board's selling prices for Durum wheat under the international wheat agreement. Over the period of the 1952-53 pool account wheat, export prices for Durum wheat outside the international wheat agreement were substantially higher than prices quoted under the international wheat agreement.
6.	The Canadian wheat board is not aware of official estimates of production of Durum wheat in Manitoba. Production, however, is highly concentrated in the prairie provinces and in 1952-53 total board receipts of Durum grades of wheat from producers amounted to 8,288,289-8 bushels, of which 1,725,745 bushels,, or 20-822 per cent were in Manitoba.
7.	This question cannot be answered for the reason that there is no way of identifying grain produced in any province after such grain is unloaded at terminal elevators in Fort William/Port Arthur or elsewhere.


OLD AGE PAYMENTS-BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. Goode:: 1.	How many senior citizens in British Columbia, 70 years of age and over, receive the old age pension?
2.	How many senior citizens in British Columbia, 65 to 69, receive the old age pension?
3.	How many senior citizens in British Columbia, 70 and over, receive the cost of living bonus from the provincial government?
4.	How many senior citizens in British Columbia, 65 to 69, receive the cost of living bonus from the provincial government?
5.	What is the total amount of the cost of living bonus paid to senior citizens by the provincial government?
6.	What is the total amount of the cost of living bonus paid to senior citizens, by the provincial government, in the 65 to 69 age group?


Mr. Robertson:: 1.	In February, 1954, 84,646 senior citizens were in receipt of old age security pension in British Columbia.
2.	In February, 1954, 8,093 senior citizens were in receipt of old age assistance in British Columbia.
3.	26,258.
4.	6,270.
5.	During the calendar year 1953, the total cost of living bonus paid by the British Columbia provincial government was $3,755,269.25.

Questions
6.	During the calendar year 1953, the total cost of living bonus paid by the British Columbia provincial government to those in the 65 to 69 age group was $643,398.89.


WHEAT SALES, 1951-1952
Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	What was the total amount of wheat sold by all elevator companies and licensed grain handlers from warehouses or terminal elevators, including sales for domestic purposes, during the crop year 1951-52?
2.	Of such total what was the amount in each of the grades from No. 1 hard to feed wheat?
3.	What was the amount of such sales which were listed as (a) tough, or (b) damp, giving the respective grades in each case from No. 1 hard to feed wheat?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Statistics are not kept on a basis which would provide an answer to this question.
2 and 3. See answer to No. 1.



INCOME TAX, 1945-53  QUEBEC

Mr. Boisvert:: What was the revenue collected in the province of Quebec with respect to the income tax from 1945 to 1953 inclusive (a) from individuals: (b) from corporations; (c) from the succession duty?


Mr. McCann:: Tax collections in the province of Quebec by the taxation division of the Department of National Revenue:
Fiscal year ended 31st March
Income Tax
(a)
Individuals
(b)
Corporations
(c)
Succession duties
1946
1948
1950
1952

$	4,410,013
4,568,285 7,025,416 7,807,023 5,405,580 9,093,781 6,319,126 6,818,068 6,770,603



WHEAT STORAGE AT CHURCHILL, ETC.

Mr. Bryson:: 1.	How many bushels of wheat were held in store at the terminal elevator at Churchill, from November 1, to April 1, in the years 1952 and 1953?
2.	What elevator companies shipped wheat to Churchill in the years 1952 and 1953?
3.	What amount of money was earned by each company in the form of diversion charges?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	As at April 1, 1952, 1,996,507-10 bushels; as at November 1, 1952, 2,047,897-30 bushels; as at April 1, 1953, 2,093,701-30 bushels; as at November 1, 1953, 2,516,299-00 bushels.
2.	Year 1952: Canada West Grain Co. Ltd., Canadian Consolidated Grain Co. Ltd., Federal Grain Ltd., Inter-Ocean Grain Co. Ltd., McCabe Grain Co. Ltd., Lake of the Woods Milling Co. Ltd., National Grain Co. Ltd., Parrish & Heimbecker Ltd., Pioneer Grain Co. Ltd., Searle Grain Co. Ltd., Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, United Grain Growers Ltd., Waskesiu Mills Ltd.
Year 1953: Same companies as above plus Ogilvie Flour Mills Ltd.
3.	It is not the policy of the board to disclose the earnings of individual companies.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY-PROPOSALS BY WESTERN PROVINCES

Mr. Leboe:: 1.	Have any representations been made to the government from any source in the western provinces respecting the proposed St. Lawrence seaway?
2.	If so, of what nature were such proposals?
3.	Has the government considered any possible advantages to the western provinces in the construction of this seaway?
4.	If so, what are these advantages?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Several letters have been received from organizations and individuals in the western provinces and these correspondents have commended the government for acting on the St. Lawrence seaway and recommending that work be proceeded with at the earliest possible moment.
3.	It is felt that this question is answered by the statement made in the House of Commons in 1951 on December 4 by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier), as follows:
As a matter of fact it is difficult to go very far in ranking the benefits to the various provinces in order of importance. Rather than argue about which will gain the most, let us look at what concrete opportunities will be opened up for each.
The prairies would find a substantial saving in the cost of moving grain, flour and other products to

Questions
markets in eastern Canada and overseas. Moreover the seaway would permit large ocean vessels to move into the great lakes to relieve such shortages of shipping as occurred this year. Shortages occur from time to time to hinder the grain movement, for at present the only vessels that can enter the lakes are too small and too few to make much impression.
4.	Answered by No. 3.



MEAT INSPECTION-TORONTO AND MONTREAL

Mr. Hodgson:: 1.	Under whose jurisdiction is the inspection of meat carried on in (a) the Toronto area; (b) the Montreal area?
2.	Was a penalty imposed on the Toronto firms: <J) Industrial Packers; (b) William Puddy Beef Company; (c) L. Goldman & Son, for breach of the Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act, 1939? If so, what penalty was imposed?
3.	What authority has abattoir commissioner C. T. Hunt to settle infractions of the Live Stock and Lave Stock Products Act, 1939?


Mr. Gardiner:: 1.	(a) and (b). The Canadian Department of Agriculture inspects and grades meat for human consumption in plants and establishments engaged in interprovincial and export trade in accordance with the provisions of the Meat and Canned Foods Act and regulations. Inspection of other plants and establishments is a responsibility of provincial and municipal authorities.
2.	No. Investigations are still under way with a view to determining whether prosecutions should be undertaken.
3.	None.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD


Mr. Hansell:: 1.	How many people are employed in the Canadian wheat board offices in Winnipeg?
2.	How many are employed in other parts of Canada?
3.	How many outside inspectors or field men are employed in each province and at what salaries?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	624.
2.	54.
3.	18. It is not the policy of the board to divulge the salaries paid to individual employees.
The foregoing numbers of staff are as at April 10, 1954.



U.S. SURVEY OF HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Has the government any information concerning a survey undertaken by the United States department of labor, in a number of American
cities for the purpose of ascertaining the total annual cost of a representative list of goods and services considered necessary for urban families to provide for health, efficiency, the nurture of children, and participation in social and community activities?
2.	If so, can such information be made available to parliament?
3.	Has the Canadian government undertaken a comparable survey in Canada, so as to determine the annual cost of a modest but adequate level of living, in terms of dollars, as distinct from the percentage basis of the consumer price index?
4.	If so, what are the results of such a survey?
5.	If not, is consideration being given to the making of such a survey?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Yes. The bureau of labor statistics of the United States department of labor published a budget titled "The City Workers Family Budget" in the February 1948 issue of the Monthly Labour Review. This document contains the following statements:
The budget was designed to represent the estimated dollar cost required to maintain this family at a level of adequate living-to satisfy prevailing standards of what is necessary for health, efficiency, the nurture of children, and for participation in community activities.
This is not a "subsistence" budget, nor is it a "luxury" budget; it is an attempt to describe and measure a modest but adequate standard of living.
A detailed description of the budget as well as total dollar cost of purchasing it in thirty-four large United States cities at March 1946 and June 1947, was provided in the above mentioned issue of the Monthly Labour Review. This budget was last priced at October 1951 and costs of a budget in thirty-four large United States cities as of this date were published in the Monthly Labour Review of May 1952.
2.	The document described in the answer to question No. 1 is for sale by the superintendent of documents, United States government printing office, Washington 25, D.C. It may be consulted in the library of parliament. See last annual supplement to the catalogue of the library of parliament.
3.	No. The budgetary studies made by the government of Canada are restricted to determining on a factual basis the goods and services actually purchased by representative groups of Canadian families.
4.	See answer to No. 3.
5.	No. The determination of "a modest but adequate level of living" requires a series of subjective judgments on which it is extremely difficult to secure any general agreement.

Questions



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY, NOVA SCOTIA

Mr. McCulloch (Piclou):: 1.	Has the government of Nova Scotia let any contracts under the trans-Canada highway agreement?
2.	If so, (a) how many, and for what type of work; (b) in what amounts; (c) in which locations; (d) when is it anticipated the contracts will be completed; (e) to what extent does the federal government share the cost of the projects?


Mr, Bourgel:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) One, for the construction of two bridges and approaches; (b) $148,895; (c) (i) Horne bridge over McCulloch brook near C.N.R. subway at Westville road, Pictou county.
(ii) Caledonia bridge over Sixmile brook near Salt Springs, Pictou county.
(d)	By November 30, 1954; (e) Under the terms of the Trans-Canada Highway Act the federal government may contribute up to 50 per cent of the cost of the work to the province.
WHEAT STORAGE, 1951-1952 Mr. Diefenbaker:
What was the total amount of wheat in store in both country and terminal elevators by grade, from No. 1 hard to feed wheat, including the number of bushels graded as (a) tough; (b) damp, as of (i) the beginning of the crop year 1951-52; (ii) at the end of the said crop year?


Mr. Dickey:: In country elevators:
Grade
1 Manitoba hard	
1	Manitoba northern	'2	Manitoba northern	" " " j ] '3	Manitoba northern	'4	Manitoba northern	'No. 5	" " " 'Garnets	[Special bin	
]. '.
All others including tough and damp off grades of the above grades
Totals	
In public and semi-public terminal elevators:
1	Northern	
2	Northern	' [""
3	Northern	
4	Northern	
No. 4 Special	
No. 5 wheat	
No. 6 wheat	* *"
Dried 4 Northern	' j [
Dried No. 5 wheat	" ' ")
Rejected 2 Northern	
Rejected 3 Northern	
Rejected 4 Northern	"
Rejected No. 5 wheat	' " " '
Rejected No. 6 wheat	!.!!!!!!!"!!!!!!!!!
Rejected 3 Northern sprouted	
Rejected No. 5 wheat sprouted	
Rejected 1 Northern mixed heated	
Rejected 2 Northern mixed heated	!.!!.!.!!!
Rejected 3 Northern mixed heated	
Rejected 4 Northern mixed heated	!!!!"]!!!
Rejected No. 5 wheat mixed heated	" " ' " j [
Rejected No. 6 wheat mixed heated	
Rejected 4 Northern rejected mixed heated	
Rejected 2 Northern a/c Tartarian buckwheat	
Rejected 3 Northern a/c Tartarian buckwheat	
Rejected No. 5 wheat a/c Tartarian buckwheat	
Rejected 2 Northern mixed gravel	
Rejected 3 Northern mixed gravel	" " " "
Rejected No. 5 wheat mixed gravel	
Rejected 3 Northern mixed gravel & cinders	!...
Rejected 4 Northern mixed gravel & cinders	
Rejected No. 5 wheat mixed gravel & cinders	
Rejected No. 6 wheat mixed gravel & cinders	" " "
Rejected 4 Northern mixed earth	
[Mr. Dickey.)
(i) As at beginning of crop year 1951-52 (Aug. 1,1951)
bushels
2,982 2,420,390 7,501,784 6,927,340 7,669,355 22,434,892 857,550 37,186 25,527,668
73,379,147
543,608 1,996,059 2,925,159 2,592,205 5
11,290,662
16,525,593
2,486
3,403
9,595
1,552
9,096
20,423
7,356
4,916
15,798
17,338
1,573
20
2,995
38
(ii) As at end of crop year 1951-52 (July 31,1952)
bushels
176,291
3,652,746
16,492,161
12,646,308
28,890,346
364,459
105,390
34,946,637
97,274,068
72,552
1,258,777
2,576,527
3,343,833
15,676
9,600,637
4,785,186
4,362
9,732
1,600
3,150
2,136
3,435
4,065
4,443 20,192 15,054 35,501 6,429 546
1,930
1,519
5,003
1,461

Questions
(i) As at	(ii) As at
beginning of	end of
crop year	crop year
1951-52	1951-52
Grade	(Aug. 1,1951) (July 31,1952)
Rej. No. 5 wheat rej. mixed gravel and cinders Rej. No. 6 wheat mixed heated rej. a/c earth..
Rej. 3 Northern mixed rotten kernels	
Rej. 4 Northern mixed rotten kernels	
Rej. No. 5 wheat mixed rotten kernels	
Rej. No. 6 wheat mixed rotten kernels	
Smutty 1 Northern	
Smutty 2 Northern	
Smutty 3 Northern	
Smutty 4 Northern	
Smutty No. 5 wheat,	
Smutty No. 6 wheat	
Smutty rej. 3 Northern mixed heated	
Smutty rej. No. 5 wheat mixed heated	
Sample red spring broken	
Sample red spring heated	
Sample red spring mixed gravel	
Sample red spring mixed rotten kernels....
Sample red spring heated rotten kernels...
Smutty sample red spring broken	
2	C.W. Garnet	
3	C.W. Garnet	
Rejected 3 C.W. Garnet	
Rej. 3 C.W. Garnet a/c Tartarian buckwheat...
Feed wheat	
Rejected feed wheat mixed heated	
Rejected feed wheat mixed rotten kernels..
Rejected feed wheat a/c rotten kernels....
Rejected feed wheat mixed heated sour	
Smutty feed wheat	
Rejected No. 6 wheat mixed earth	
bushels
1,434
874
8,925
34,900
9,571
17,852
12,138
9,232
6,247
2,054
36,142
57,690
82,737
1,459
3,693,466
4,487
1,073
4,808
bushels
1,944
1,974
1,122
24,840 3,077 8,119 12,568 7,758 20,143
4,097
3,516
36,450
7,444
3,783
2,720
49,518
136,867
1,175
1,527
650,671
1,507
2,351
(a) Tough
Tough 1 Northern	
Tough 2 Northern	
Tough 3 Northern	
Tough 4 Northern	
Tough No. 5 wheat	
Tough No. 6 wheat	
Tough feed wheat	
Tough and heating 4 Northern	
Tough and heating No. 5 wheat	
Tough and heating No. 6 wheat	
Tough rejected 2 Northern	
Tough rejected No. 5 wheat	
Tough rejected 4 Northern heating	
Tough rej. 2 Northern mixed heated	
Tough rej. 3 Northern mixed heated	
Tough rej. 4 Northern mixed heated	
Tough rej. No. 5 wheat mixed heated	
Tough rej. No. 6 wheat mixed heated	
Tough rej. feed wheat mixed heated	
Tough rej. 3 Northern rej. mixed heated	
Tough and heating rej. 2 Northern mixed heated..
Tough and heating rej. 4 Northern mixed heated..
Tough and heating rej. No. 5 wheat mixed heated_
Tough and heating rej. No. 5 wheat rej. mixed heated
Tough rej. No. 5 wheat rej. mixed heated	
Tough smutty 2 Northern	
Tough smutty 3 Northern	
Tough smutty 4 Northern	
Tough smutty No. 5 wheat	
Tough rejected 3 Northern a/c mildew	
Tough rej. No. 5 wheat mixed gravel and cinders.
Tough rej. feed wheat a/c mixed rotten kernels..
Tough sample red spring heated	
Tough and heating sample red spring heated	
Tough 2 C.W. Garnet	
Tough 3 C.W. Garnet	
Tough rej. 2 C.W. Garnet mixed heated	
110,893
547,306
645,747
1,417,594
1,213,799
631,533
3,805
6,707
10,585
11,539
14,478
4,324
1,182
1,941
2,201
1,420
11,334
2,260
2,990
66
16,788
1,988
1,400
3,477
462,065
1,209,048
1,193,788
1,218,172
179,5%
18,246
1,904
4,526
8,245
11,551
17,513
17,480
7,369
1,124
3,023
1,226
232
1,420
9,343
1,308
6,535
1,403
17,473
20,698
25,776
98,611
1,460
Questions

Grade
(b) Damp
(i) As at	(ii) As at
beginning of	end of
crop year	crop year
1951-52	1951-52
(Aug. 1,1951) (July 31,1952)
bushels	bushels
Damp 3 Northern	
Damp 4 Northern	
Damp No. 5 wheat	
Damp No. 6 wheat	
Damp feed wheat	
Damp and heating No. 6 wheat	
Damp and heating feed wheat	
Damp rejected 4 Northern	
Damp rej. 3 Northern mixed heated	
Damp rej. 4 Northern mixed heated	
Damp and heating rej. No. 6 wheat mixed heated	
Damp smutty rej. 3 Northern mixed heated	
Damp and heating smutty rej. No. 5 wheat mixed heated
Damp sample red spring	
Damp and heating sample red spring heated	
Totals	
2,647
1,315
1,552
5,317
1,305
1,143
477
1,235
44,637,363
11,589
7,252
26,295
10,988
3,645
5,655
1,526
1,917
1,031
5,334
27,376,709



WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCE ACT


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Has the government received representations, at any time since November 12, 1953, asking that the War Veterans Allowance Act be amended so as to provide (a) for an increase in the amounts of the allowance payable thereunder; (b) for an increase in the total amount of income permissible to recipients of the war veterans allowance?
2.	If so, from whom?
3.	Have these matters been studied by the government, or by any officials thereof, since November 12, 1953, to determine whether or not such requests should be implemented?
4.	If so, by whom?
5.	Have any reports thereon, and any recommendations, been made to the Minister of Veterans Affairs?
6.	Will legislation, based on such reports or recommendations, be recommended at this session?


Mr. Lapointe:: 1.	(a) and (b) Yes.
2.	Commands and branches of veterans' organizations, Canadian non-pensioned veterans widows and some individuals.
3.	4 and 5. Studies of relevant facts have been made by officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs, who have reported to the minister. The government has had the representations and the reports under consideration.
6.	It is not customary to forecast policy in giving answers to questions on the order paper.



NATIONAL FILM BOARD &quot;EYE WITNESS&quot; SERIES

Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):: 1.	What firm or firms were the distributing agents in 1953 for the national film board's ''Eye Witness" series?

2.	What is the total amount paid to the national film board for these films?
3.	Does the national film board distribute these films in any other way?
4.	If so, how?
5.	What was the total cost of producing "Eye Witness" in 1953?


Mr. Harris:: 1. (a) Canada.
Columbia Pictures of Canada, Ltd., handle the Canadian theatrical distribution of this series. The following theatre chains have shown the "Eye Witness" series and its French language counterpart, "Coup d'Oeil" during 1953-54:
(1)	B. L. theatres (Bernstein and Lieber-man).
(2)	Exhibitors Booking Association.
(3)	Famous Players (including subsidiary firms such as Franklin-Herschorn, F. G. Spencer and Twinex).
(4)	France Films.
(5)	National Theatre Service.
(6)	Odeon Theatres.
(7)	Premier Operating Corporation.
(8)	United Amusements.
(9)	Independents (including such firms as O'Brien Theatres, Loews, etc. and such outlets as community theatres, parish halls, garrison theatres serving as commercial theatres for communities).
In addition, the C.B.C. and Rediffusion Inc., have telecast "Eye Witness" and "Coup d'Oeil" in Canada.
(b) Abroad by distributor and country.
International Film Distributors, United Kingdom; International Film Distributors,

New Zealand; Columbia Booking Office, Netherlands; Belgavox, Belgium; New Realm Pictures, Limited, United Kingdom; (they also distribute through Army Kinema Corporation to British army bases.) Kamerafilm (Eye Witness No. 5 only), Norway.
2.	Total amount 1953-54*
Theatrical	$3,342.98
Non-theatrical rentals, etc. 23.20 Television	 198.85
Total	$3,565.03
'Preliminary figures.
3.	Yes.
4.	In addition, the series were distributed by the national film board through;
(1)	Urban and rural circuits in Canada.
Questions
(2)	Sale of 16mm prints in Canada and abroad.
(3)	Television in Canada and the United States.
(4)	Distribution through film libraries of Canadian posts of the departments of external affairs and trade and commerce abroad.
5.	The 24 films in the "Eye Witness" and "Coup d'Oeil" series cost a total of $115,911 in the fiscal year 1953-54.



TAX RENTAL AGREEMENTS PAYMENTS

Mr. Lafonlaine:: 1.	What amount was paid each year, since 1947, to each province which signed the dominion-provincial tax rental agreement?
2.	What amount would the province of Quebec have received each of the said years had it signed this agreement?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1 and 2.
Payments each fiscal year under tax rental agreements (in addition to statutory subsidies)
Under 1947 agreements	(thousands of dollars)
1947-48	1948-49	1949-50	1950-51	1951-52	1952-53	TotalProvince	(a)	(a)	Newfoundland . .	4,860	7,220	7,932	2,054	22,066P. E. I	1,577	1,770	1,927	2,160	2,352	689	10,474Nova Scotia. . .	10,330	10,673	11,471	13,003	14,198	2,183	61,859New Brunswick. .	8,705	8,478	9,320	10,594	11,611	2,530	51,237Manitoba	9,496	13,410	14,529	16,381	17,920	2,949	74,683Saskatchewan . .	10,261	14,070	15,207	16,947	18,344	2,537	77,366Alberta	9,904	14,024	15,276	17,343	19,106	5,009	80,661B. C	15,217	21,969	24,519	27,862	30,534	5,845	125,946Total	65,490	84,394	97,110	111,509	121,996	23,795	504,293Payable to Quebec	if it had signed	an agreement. .	45,142	64,154	69,953	78,268	85,148	22,623	365,288
(a) Payments were made by quarterly instalment which commenced on September 30, 1947. Thus only three instalments were paid in fiscal year 1947-48. The final instalment under the 1947 agreements was paid in June, 1952, and thus fell within the 1952-53 fiscal year.
Under 1952 agreements
	1952-53	1953-54
Province	(thousands	of dollars)Newfoundland. . .	. . 10,722	11,825P. E. I	. . 3,259	3,657Nova Scotia. . . .	, . 18,094	19,508New Brunswick. .	. . 14,946	16,178Ontario (a). . . .	. . 123,327	134,448Manitoba	. 23,005	25,039Saskatchewan. . .	. . 23,530	25,254Alberta	. . 27,241	29,802B. C	. . 40,095	43,516Total	. . 284,219	309,227Payable to Quebec if it had signed an agreement (b)	
111,703	121,335(a)	Ontario chose to retain its succession duty field; therefore the rental payments shown are after deducting an estimate of the credits allowed against federal succession duties for Ontario duties. The amount of these deductions cannot be finally calculated for a number of years.(b)	These amounts are the rental payments Quebec would have received if it had signed an agreement which included rental of succession duties. If the province had signed an agreement under which it continued to levy succession duties the rental payments would have been reduced by deducting an estimate of the federal credits given for Quebec duties.
Questions



PAPER AND SILVER CURRENCY

Mr. Hansell:: 1.	What was the total amount of paper currency media in use in Canada as at January 1, 1954?
2.	What was the total amount of silver money in Canada as at January 1, 1954?
3.	What was the total amount of money minted by the Royal Canadian Mint in Canada during 1953?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1. December 31, 1953 Bank of Canada notes in
circulation	 $1,599,124,687
Less: Held by chartered banks 263,791,733
Bank of Canada notes in hands
of the public	 $1,335,332,954
2. December 31, 1953 Subsidiary coinage issued less amount withdrawn from circulation
Silver	 $ 89,550,237
Nickel	 7,813,082
Tombac	 570,847
Steel	 3,109,691
Bronze	 12,130,181

Less: Held by Bank
of Canada ... $	386,296
Held by chartered
banks	 18,433,874	18,820,170
Subsidiary coinage in hands of
the public	 $ 94,353,868
3.	$7,625,964.



TUNNEY'S PASTURE, OTTAWA

Mr. Hodgson:: 1.	What is the full legal description of the whole of the property at Tunney's pasture on part of which the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation head office and buildings are situated?
2.	From whom was this property purchased?
3.	What was the purchase price and date of purchase?
4.	What has been spent on this property for (a) surveys, subdivision plans, etc.; (b) buildings (giving details); (c) landscaping; (d) any extras?
5.	Has the government used this property for any other building projects?
6.	If so, for what purpose?


Mr. Bourgei:: With respect to this question I must say that I had a word with the hon. member. I told him that the head office and buildings of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation are not situated in Tunney's pasture but are built on the Montreal road. I understand that the hon. member is agreeable to redrafting his question accordingly.


Mr. Speaker:: This question is now dropped and will be redrafted.



SCRAP IRON EXPORTS

Mr. Hansell:: 1.	Was any scrap iron exported by Canada during the last five years?
2.	If so, to what countries, and what total amount in terms of tons and dollars was exported to each country in each of these years?


John Horace Dickey: 1 and 2. Canadian exports of scrap iron,
by countries, during the		last five	years were	
as follows:-				
Year	Country	Tons	Value1949	United States ....	39,975	$	1,009,2031950	United States ....	62,618	2,034,2211951	United States ....	39,804	1,615,6781952	United Kingdom .	48,517	2,419,844Argentina	8,834	437,786Japan	3,129	122,946United States ....	27,308	1,206,607Totals 	87,788	$	4,187,1831953	United Kingdom .	194,812	7,925,118Germany West ..	14,357	583,943Japan 	104,361	3,862,871Mexico 	228	13,517United States	96,251	3,491,706Totals 	410,009	$15,877,155



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Ellis:: 1.	How many immigrants were admitted to Canada during the period April 1, 1945 to March 31, 1954?
2.	What were the countries of origin and how many from each country in each year?
3.	What was the occupation listed for each head of family and/or individual immigrant from each country of origin?
4.	What was the religious affiliation of these immigrants by country of origin?
5.	How many of the total number of immigrants from each country of origin came over in family groups, and how many came over as individuals?


Mr. Harris:: Return tabled.


QUEBEC HARBOUR COMMISSION-PERSONNEL
Mr. Dufresne:: 1.	What was the number of permanent and nonpermanent employees of the Quebec harbour commission on April 1, 1954?
2.	What are the names and addresses of those employees?
3.	What is the yearly salary of each of them?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: Return tabled.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the serious unemployment situation existing today, will the government give consideration to continuing the payment of unemployment insurance benefits to those whose unemployment insurance credits have expired and who, through no fault of their own, are unable to find work?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, consideration was given to that question before the Easter recess, and it was decided not to take that step.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosetown-Biggar):: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is the government giving any consideration to support by Canada of the five-point peace plan to settle the war in Indo-China, advanced by Prime Minister Nehru at New Delhi on Friday last?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I understand that my hon. friend's question refers to the speech made in the House of the People by Prime Minister Nehru on Saturday, April 24.


Major James William Coldwell: It was in Friday's paper.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Then it must have been a preview because we have just received from the Canadian High Commissioner in New Delhi a summary of the statement on IndoChina made by the prime minister in the House of the People on Saturday, April 24. It is being studied very carefully by us here. We have also passed on this summary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), who is now leading the Canadian delegation at the Geneva conference, as the proposals of Prime Minister Nehru will no doubt be given very careful consideration by those delegations which will be participating in the discussions on Indo-China at Geneva. In view of the fact that other countries are more directly concerned than Canada with this immensely complicated situation, I do not feel I should say any more at this time.
[Later: 1


Mr. E. D. Fulion (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether, in regard to the matter to which he just
Inquiries of the Ministry made reference in reply to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), and other developments in the Indo-China theatre, reconsideration has been or will be given to the position of the Canadian delegation at the Geneva conference with a view to ensuring that we will take part as an interested and concerned party in the discussion on Indo-China?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I would not like to commit the government to making any recommendation to parliament at this time to become directly involved in what is taking place in Indo-China. There have been statements made in this house that our obligations which might involve military action in the East were limited to what we were doing under the aegis of the United Nations. Now, there might arise a situation where it would be felt that we should go beyond that, but the government will have to give that very serious consideration. Before definitely committing Canada to action which might involve the participation of military forces, the government will, however, certainly bring its recommendation to parliament.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think the Prime Minister has misunderstood my question. My question was whether in view of these developments the Canadian delegation to the Geneva conference would be taking part in the discussion on Indo-China as an interested party; not whether the government of Canada was going to make any commitment with respect to the conflict there. The basis of my question was that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) in the external affairs debate some three weeks ago indicated we probably would not be taking part in that conference on Indo-China because we were not immediately concerned. My question relates to whether in view of the new developments we can any longer continue to take the position that we are not concerned in what goes on there.


Mr. Si. Laurent:: Canada has never taken the position that it was not concerned. It has taken the position that it was not directly participating in what was taking place in Indo-China and, as a consequence, that it had no standing to participate in decisions which might be made with respect to military action in Indo-China. We wish to fully discharge the spirit of the statements made to the house, that we are not going to involve Canada in matters that might require military action for their implementation without making a full disclosure to this house and a recommendation as a consequence of that disclosure.

Inquiries of the Ministry WATER POLLUTION


NORTH SASKATCHEWAN RIVER-INQUIRY AS TO PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. Campbell (The Balilefords):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister received a request from any provincial premier for a western provincial conference with the federal government to discuss the pollution of the North Saskatchewan river? If so, when will such a conference be held?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, no letter has been received from any provincial premier requesting a provincial-federal meeting to consider the pollution of the North Saskatchewan river. The premier of Saskatchewan did forward, or at least we received three copies of certain resolutions adopted by the legislative assembly of Saskatchewan in which it was requested:
That this assembly urges the government of Canada to take cognizance of the health hazard and inconvenience which Saskatchewan citizens living along the course of the North Saskatchewan river have suffered as a result of the pollution of this stream . . .
That is all we have received in that connection.


LIMITATION ON EXPORTS OF BASE METALS TO UNITED STATES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinion):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if negotiations are proceeding in any form between the government of Canada and the United States with respect to the possible limitation of export by Canada of base metals to the United States; if so, what stage these negotiations have reached and what position the Canadian government is taking?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, there are no such negotiations current at the present time.


INCREASE IN PRICE AT HEAD OF THE LAKES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Bryson (Humboldt-Melfori):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Does the minister intend to raise the price of wheat by seven cents a bushel at the head of the lakes, as he indicated he would do when lake shipping was resumed this spring?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Trade and Commerce does not set the price of wheat. That is the function of the wheat board. However, it might interest my hon. friend to know that the price of wheat at Fort William has advanced by four cents a bushel over the last two or three weeks.


SUPERANNUATED CIVIL SERVANTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) which he might like to take as notice if he does not have the information immediately available. Can the minister tell the house what change in the civil servants' superannuation regulations makes it necessary to conduct a survey of retired civil servants, demanding information on any employment they may have, their rates of pay, and their periods of employment?


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend was good enough to send notice of this question to my office, but I received it just before entering the house. I will take this as notice and attempt to give an answer tomorrow.


Douglas Charles Abbott: that the house go into committee of supply.


DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I propose to avail myself of the opportunity presented by this motion to deal with a subject which was mentioned earlier, and which has received fresh emphasis since we met here just under two weeks ago.
Within that time there have been a number of statements and events which have impressed the necessity for some definite steps being taken to bring together at the earliest possible date the government of Canada and the governments of the provinces in order to deal with these matters which are causing concern, not only to the members of the different legislative bodies, but to the people of Canada generally.
As an example of the kind of statement to which I refer, there was a speech made by the minister charged with the responsibility for civil defence in which he dealt with the

changing picture which has been presented to us as a result of the hydrogen bomb. He pointed out that with the enormously increased destructive power of this bomb we must review our attitude to the whole problem of civil defence.
I am referring to the speech made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) at Windsor on April 23. Having reviewed the new situation resulting from the terrible power of this bomb, the minister had this to say, as reported in a dispatch in the Windsor Star of April 24:
It is no longer possible, he said, to indulge in the idle luxury of debating whether this civil defence job is a federal, provincial or local responsibility.
The size of the possible threat is much too great for that; it is so large that it clearly and inevitably involves us all.
I do not think that there will be much tendency on the part of any 'non. member in this house to disagree with the fact that this is a problem which involves us all. This is a subject which is of primary importance in the minds of people throughout the world who hope that there may be some possibility of peace through the joint efforts of the freedom-loving nations. Having said that, may I point out, however, that it is one thing to emphasize the seriousness of this situation and it is another thing to leave the impression that there is any less reason to discuss where the responsibility lies.
Let it be granted that every one of us must be prepared to consider this subject and to join in every way we can in preparing to meet the threat which is of a nature that we do not care to contemplate but which could be a dreadful reality. It had been pointed out by municipality after municipality across Canada that their burdens were already so heavy that they could not meet the financial responsibilities involved in some aspects of civil defence. If this problem has suddenly increased both in scale and in importance, that fact is all the more reason why there must be some understanding as to how this plan of civil defence is to be carried out, how the reassessed responsibilities are to be borne and how the financing of those responsibilities is to be accepted by the different bodies charged with the responsibility of finding the money necessary for that purpose. This is one of those problems which have remained unsolved because of the failure of the government of Canada to continue those conferences which might have found a solution of our difficulties along those lines.
Then let me refer to something else that, within this past week, has emphasized the problems that we face. Last week was education week. In different parts of Canada the
26, 1954	4107
Suggested Dominion-Provincial Conference cost of education and the problem related to the financing of education at the municipal level was being considered by those who have the responsibility of dealing with that subject. From many parts of Canada came requests for direct assistance by the government of Canada in a field which, under our constitution, is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the provincial governments. Surely that fact in itself emphasizes the growing complexity of this problem. Furthermore, within the time since we last met, from a number of municipalities have come recommendations that assistance in different forms be given to the municipalities directly from the government of Canada because of the inability of those municipalities to meet certain of their obligations without still further burdening the homes and the real estate within those municipalities.
These things have impressed on the minds of all of us the fact that there is not today a satisfactory understanding of this problem or anything approaching a solution of something that has been discussed on so many occasions in the past. Before we adjourned for the Easter recess I expressed the hope that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) would extend to the provinces an invitation to attend a conference where these problems could be discussed. The Prime Minister has made no reference to that suggestion. We now meet again, and on this first day that we meet I refer again to this subject and I mention only some of the pressing demands which suggest the need for bringing together the governments within this country in order to discuss ways and means of solving those problems which are much in the minds of every one of us.
Mr. Speaker, I sought to emphasize the fact that this is not a subject which is causing concern in Canada alone. I pointed out that in Australia, under another federal constitution although a slightly different one, discussion is taking place on this same subject with an increasing sense of urgency. We also find in the United States discussions of the same subject. Mr. Speaker, under our constitutional system, this is something as to which the Prime Minister is called upon to act. If there is to be a conference, then it must be the responsibility of the Prime Minister to decide that this conference will take place. I sought to emphasize previously that this is a problem which can cause misunderstanding as well as considerable difficulties in many fields unless it is tackled and dealt with in the manner that was suggested by this government itself some years ago. After all, the war years left in this country- as in other countries-problems which were
4108	HOUSE OF
Suggested Dominion-Provincial Conference the inevitable consequence of great changes in the pressure upon governments for immediate and prompt action. When in 1942 the provincial governments agreed to certain proposals that were then made, they did so recognizing that the urgent demands of war called for some measure of joint action which would avoid any delays that might embarrass the government of Canada in accepting its international obligations at that time. There were differences of opinion in those days. Generally, however, the situation was accepted as one of the necessities of world war. The same situation developed in large measure in the United States, Australia and other countries where a federal system has been established.
I recognize that it is not appropriate at this time to discuss the details that are set forth in the budget or in any way to parallel that discussion or invade the field of the budget debate. However, I do want to point out something that apparently needs to be pointed out in view of certain comments I have seen.
I pointed out on ah earlier occasion that the request for a conference of this nature, which has been asked for, I believe, by every province in Canada either in the form of letter, statements in the legislature or by requests by the premiers of the provinces, does not in any way suggest that our position has changed with regard to any of those details which may be related to the problems that have arisen, largely as a result of the failure to have such a conference.
May I say without any reservation that our position has not changed in any way with respect to the rights of the provinces in the field of taxation, with respect to the right of the provinces to determine their own course and with respect to the rights of the provinces voluntarily to enter into agreements or not to enter into agreements as the case may be. I certainly wish it clearly understood that in again emphasizing the need for such a conference I am not in any way changing the position which has been stated emphatically over and over again, that any province which does not enter into an agreement to abandon its traditional field of taxation has a perfect right to tax in that field and should be able to do so with the kind of co-operation it received from the government of Canada in earlier days when taxes levied by the provinces were, in the case of several provinces, collected by the federal authorities.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I be permitted to interrupt the Leader of the Opposition? I do so because a moment ago he indicated that it was his understanding that this debate today on a motion to go into supply should not parallel the debate on the motion to go into 

ways and means already on the order paper. I was happy to hear him say that was his understanding because he will probably recall that on the motion to go into ways and means the hon. member for Greenwood moved an amendment the other day, paragraph (f) of which reads as follows:
(f) has failed to reach agreement with the provincial governments in regard to a clearly defined reallocation of taxing powers so that the provincial governments and municipal councils may have adequate financial resources to carry out their rapidly-increasing responsibilities.
I have been listening intently to the Leader of the Opposition ever since he began his remarks and it struck me that whatever he had to say about the responsibilities of either municipalities or provincial governments with respect to civil defence could have been fully discussed under this amendment which, I think, covers the ground that he himself covered in his speech today. The minute he left the subject of civil defence he went into the question of the taxing powers of the provincial governments and their need for additional revenue and, if I recall correctly, his suggestion as to a dominion-provincial conference was made when he was discussing the motion to go into ways and means prior to which this amendment was moved.
I merely ask for clarification at this moment. It is also my understanding that during this debate we should not parallel a debate of which notice has been given and which is supposed to be resumed within a reasonable time. I am reminded at this time of citation 246 of Beauchesne, third edition, which reads as follows:
Besides the prohibitions contained in standing order 41, it has been sanctioned by usage both in England and in Canada, that a member, while speaking, must not: . . .
(d) anticipate discussion on a motion set down for future consideration.
I know that the Leader of the Opposition does not want to duplicate a debate. It is a wholesome restraint upon members that they should not debate now a question which they can debate on a motion already on the order paper. I would be glad to hear him explain the position he takes with respect to what I have said.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Winch:: I rise on a point of order. .


Mr. Speaker:: I have asked that a point of order be clarified and the Leader of the Opposition is entitled to explain his position.


George Alexander Drew: I will explain as briefly as I can the reason for presenting the remarks I have and the reason why I believe they are appropriate under the circumstances. I availed myself before adjournment of the very wide

latitude afforded by the budget debate to make a request which was not directly related to any point in the amendment. I indicated at that time that I did not propose to discuss the budget but that I would do so on a later occasion. I then expressed the hope that the Prime Minister would meet an increasingly difficult situation by announcing that a conference, long overdue, would be called. I have today sought to indicate why I believe that is more urgent than ever. In doing so, I sought to mention one or two subjects that in my opinion did suggest increasing urgency in relation to that matter.
The remarks I was making at the time Your Honour rose related to certain suggestions that were made, in spite of my very clear statement that I was merely making a request for a conference and not discussing the budget at that time, that this meant a change in attitude with regard to certain fiscal problems. I am simply stating this is not the case, that I was confining my remarks at that time to the need for a conference. I have sought today to express my belief that a conference is necessary. I have sought to emphasize the way in which certain recent events and statements support that claim and, Mr. Speaker, I have made the remarks that I had proposed to make in that respect. Therefore I will present the motion I had intended to move which will indicate to you what my purpose was. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming):
That all the words after "That" to the end of the question be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"in the opinion of this house immediate consideration should be given to the extension of an invitation by the Prime Minister of Canada to the premiers of the provinces to a conference which would resume discussion of those matters being considered by the constitutional conference which adjourned on the 28th of September, 1950, and such other matters as now require joint consideration by all the governments of Canada."


Major James William Coldwell: I am
not sure what interpretation to put upon this amendment. It seems to me that if it simply criticizes the government for having failed to reconvene the conference which adjourned on September 28, 1950, it is of course in line with some criticisms I made myself during the budget debate. But as I understand the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), he was discussing one phase of dominion-provincial relations which is not directly involved in the constitutional discussions that he suggests should have been carried on during the past few years, that is to say, civil defence.
It seems to me that this is a very broad amendment.
26, 1954	4109
Suggested Dominion-Provincial Conference


George Alexander Drew: I do not want to interrupt the hon. member, but perhaps I might be of assistance by saying I had hoped I had made it clear it was the financial consequences of civil defence I was discussing, and the need for dealing with that problem, not in any way the problem of civil defence as such.


Major James William Coldwell: If we are discussing the
financial problems connected with civil defence, this resolution, it seems to me, goes far 'beyond that, and cannot be related to the conference which adjourned on September 28, 1950, because my recollection is that when I raised this subject during the budget debate and began to criticize the government on the ground that the conference should have been reconvened at an earlier date because some financial matters needed to be discussed, I was told that the conference on constitutional matters was not intended to deal with the financial relationships of the provinces and the dominion. I accepted that because I recognized immediately that that interpretation was correct.
If, however, we are discussing civil defence there is quite a lot I should like to say about it. The dangers of the hydrogen bomb, which have been revived this afternoon, were brought to the attention of this house two or three weeks ago, not only by me but in a very able and forceful speech by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch). I should like to express the opinion once more that, while we should take every precaution we can, and that includes, of course, any system of warnings required to warn us of the approach of hostile planes, we should see to it also that our national defence department retains in Canada such interceptor planes as might be necessary under those circumstances. I want to say very explicitly that this new weapon has changed the whole picture of civil defence within the past two or three months.
While we must take every precaution and prepare for any emergency, I am one of those who believe there is no real defence against the hydrogen bomb, except the defence that can be obtained through settling international disputes through the United Nations Organization, and by the representatives of the government of Canada pressing by every means possible the study of a general reduction in armaments. It is all very well to say we have to press for an agreement not to use the hydrogen or atomic bomb, but when a nation gets into a corner we cannot tell whether or not such an agreement will be honoured. On behalf of those associated with me, I want to say that we believe Canada should take every available means to
4110	HOUSE OF
Suggested Dominion-Provincial Conference assist in bringing about a general agreement, not only for the abolition of these fearful weapons of war but for the placing of atomic energy and hydrogen development under an international body which would have the unrestricted right of inspection.
We should also do everything possible to end war and remove the causes of war, and bring about a general disarmament amongst the nations by agreement. I see no other real defence against these weapons today. While I shall support any measures that are intelligent to try to mitigate the results of any such attack that might come to us if we cannot reach this sort of agreements, yet I am certain in my own mind there is no real defence against these dreadful weapons. I believe that Canada should use her influence -I would hope and believe she will-in promoting the idea of general disarmament amongst the nations. As I say, it seems to me that in an indirect way this resolution is attempting to bring about a conference on a problem that should be dealt with directly, rather than by the oblique mention we have in this amendment. Had the amendment been confined to a conference on civil defence, as I understood it was likely to be from what the hon. member said at the outset of his remarks, I would have found it much easier to come to a decision as to what to do with this particular amendment.


Mr. Martin:: Is my hon. friend aware of the fact that about three weeks ago in this building there was a dominion-provincial conference with all the ten provinces on civil defence, when the whole problem of the hydrogen bomb was discussed, including the matter of financing civil defence in Canada.


Harold Edward Winch: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is my understanding that under a motion for committee of supply only one grievance at a time can be raised. I have listened very intently to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), and in my estimation he has raised three points of grievance: one, the hydrogen bomb; two, civil defence; three, a dominion-provincial conference. I say, sir, that cannot be done under this motion, especially in view of his remarks when he was tying it in with his remarks during the budget debate, and that particular subject is not before us.
On a point of order, therefore, sir, I am asking which one of the grievances we are dealing with. To which one does the motion refer?


Mr. Speaker:: As the hon. member has pointed out, great latitude is afforded to members during the debate on the motion to go into supply. I do not think one has to


be too particular as to the extent of the remarks of the one who does present the amendment, but the concrete form of the thoughts expressed in the speech is supposed to be reproduced in the amendment. However, I am in the same difficulty as that expressed by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). We heard about civil defence and the difficulties of the provinces with respect to taxing powers. And, having listened to those remarks, we have now an amendment which relates to the calling of a conference to resume the discussions of points which were under study in a constitutional conference.
Now, as I recall it, there was no matter of civil defence or even of taxing powers being then discussed at that constitutional conference. And as to the second part of the amendment which refers to "such other matters as now require joint consideration by all the governments of Canada" that, to me, is fully included in paragraph (f) of the amendment which was moved to the motion to go into ways and means only the other day and which, as I say, will be resumed within a very reasonable time.
That is all I must consider when I am dealing with citation 246 of Beauchesne's third edition, to which I referred a minute ago, and which has reference to anticipating a discussion of which notice appears on the order paper.
Citation 467 is quite clear on the subject. The last part reads as follows:
-shall not relate to any decision of the house during the current session, nor to any item of the estimates, nor to any resolution to be proposed to the committee of ways and means, nor to any matter placed1 on or whereof notice has been given in the order paper.
Now, I think the Leader of the Opposition had his own suspicions as to the value of the course he was following today, because he did point out that this discussion today should not parallel that which was inaugurated on the motion to go into ways and means the other day, and which is about to be resumed.
I should like to submit this decision to the judgment of the house. In my view this amendment is not in order. It covers a very wide field which certainly can be fully covered in the other amendment to the motion to go into ways and means, which debate had been initiated before the recess and which is about to be resumed. It was announced by the leader of the house that shortly after the recess we would resume debate on the motion to go into ways and means. I think we would be creating a very dangerous precedent in our proceedings if we were to accept an amendment of the kind now offered by the Leader of the Opposition, when

already there is one on the order paper which offers just as great latitude to discuss all these points.
I would say that what is contained in this amendment today is merely the substance of the amendment made on the motion which is already on the order paper. As a matter of fact paragraph (f) could have read:
has failed to extend an invitation to the premiers of the provinces to a conference which would resume discussion of those matters being considered by the constitutional conference which adjourned on the 28th September, 1950, and such other matters as now require joint consideration by all the governments of Canada-[DOT]
And so on, to the very end. That would include exactly what is in the amendment offered today. And if the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) the other day in moving his amendment failed to include that part which is contained in the amendment today, then I think that he ought to resort to other methods to bring it about, but it should not be done by way of an amendment to the motion to go into supply today, particularly when the discussion is to be resumed on the amendment to the motion to go into ways and means.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I wish to deal with only one point you raised. I take no exception to what Your Honour has said, other than that I would not wish to leave it unchallenged on the record that there was any suspicion in my own mind that the amendment I have now offered is covered by an amendment already on the order paper.
I do not propose to debate the point, but I did wish to make that clear. Your Honour can make your ruling, and I do not wish to raise any unnecessary issue on a point of procedure of this nature. But I do wish to point out that my only thought in raising the point today is to seek an indication in the house in regard to a positive expression of a desire for a conference. I have asked the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) for a statement. We are waiting for a statement from the Prime Minister, and I think we should have a statement from him as to whether he will or will not call a conference.


Mr. Speaker:: At this moment I think my position must be that I shall rule the amendment out of order. However, I should like to have the sense of the house on that ruling. If the hon. member is not going to appeal the ruling I would ask the house to make its opinion known, because it is a very important matter.
We have before us a motion to go into committee of ways and means, and the debate on that motion is known generally as the budget debate. To that motion we have had
26, 1954	4111
Suggested Dominion-Provincial Conference an amendment; and in that amendment is included much of what is now contained in this new amendment offered by the Leader of the Opposition to the motion to go into committee of supply.
As the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) has said, the debate on the motion to go into committee of supply covers a very wide field. There is not a single word in the amendment, however, which could not be covered in the debate for which provision is now made on the order paper. I have quoted citation 246, which states that we should not anticipate discussion of a motion of which notice has been given, or which is already on the order paper for future discussion.
I think for the purpose of protecting the observance of the rules I must hold that, by virtue of the citations I have quoted, the amendment now offered is not in order; and I would ask the house to express its views in the matter. In order to bring it to a head I shall say that the amendment now offered is not in order.


George Alexander Drew: Since I have indicated that I do not propose to force a vote on the matter, I hope Your Honour will permit me to point out the tremendous difference between a statement of regret that a result has not been achieved, and a positive proposal that something should be done with which this house certainly, in my opinion, has a right to deal.
Let me give an illustration. Surely under the broad field and scope of the budget we deal with all aspects of national defence and subjects of that nature. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that there were a necessity to have some international conference of some kind-and the government shows a great inclination to attend conferences not held in this country-then surely there would be an opportunity to present a motion indicating the view of the house that such a conference should be held.
In the present instance I am simply presenting to the house a positive request that there be called a conference which has been asked for by the provincial governments. And no reason has been given why it should not be called. The calling of that conference is not, in itself, related to the budget. It could bring under discussion subjects entirely independent of the budget. I say that under the circumstances we should be permitted to vote on this, so that there might be an indication of the views held in the house on the subject. If on the other hand Your Honour follows what is an unusual course, that of preventing a motion of this kind, then most

Suggested Dominion-Provincial Conference certainly I would have no choice but to support my own belief that the amendment I have offered is in order-if such a vote is called.


Mr. Speaker:: The Leader of the Opposition appears to be under the impression that, because he wants the house to make a pronouncement on a certain proposal he has put forward, necessarily it must be accepted. Now, I have no objection to his view, that the house should pronounce its opinion as to the extension of an invitation to a conference. But what I am objecting to is that now, on a motion to go into supply, we are discussing what is virtually contained in an amendment to the motion that the house go into committee of ways and means-which debate is already on the order paper, and is about to be resumed. Now I am using words that he used himself. We are paralleling a debate, and that we cannot afford to do. If the hon. member will look at citation 467 he will see that on a motion to go into supply he does not have to move an amendment. He is entitled to discuss anything that he wishes, and he has done so. He discussed civil defence and other subjects. I am inclined to believe that the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) is quite right. If, in introducing a subject on the motion to go into supply, the hon. member wanders over the various fields which come within federal matters, hon. members are apt to ask themselves: What are we going to discuss? On the motion for the house to go into ways and means latitude is given. It is the budget debate, and all the matters which the hon. member has brought up here are apt to be discussed; but today it is a motion to go into supply. He is using that motion to discuss a lot of the things that are reserved for the other debate, and he is not giving hon. members a chance to assess on what subject their remarks should bear.
From now on, once an amendment has been proposed, what is the debate going to be? Is it going to be on civil defence? Is it going to be on the resumption of a conference with respect to the matter of allocating the various subjects under the constitutional act so that we shall have power to amend our constitution here in Canada? Or would it have to do with the various powers pertaining to taxation, which is a duplication of the amendment contained in paragraph (f) of the motion proposed by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell)? There is a lot of merit in what the hon. member for Vancouver East said, namely, that when we are discussing a grievance it must be a specific subject, because it is my duty, whenever an hon. member leaves one subject, to make sure that all the discussion of that subject is terminated before

another one is initiated. That is another difficulty that I am confronted with. Surely if the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) today wishes to move an amendment, which is to me another amendment akin to that which is being moved in the budget debate,
I do not know whether it is wise for us to create that precedent.


George Alexander Drew: May I simply say, Mr. Speaker, that I agree with Your Honour that this is an important subject. I hope that you will not place on record a decision, I mean by vote, which might be embarrassing, because after all it is the motion that counts. I am quite prepared to ask that this amendment be withdrawn by consent so that the necessity for a vote is not presented. With the consent of the house I ask that this amendment be withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to withdraw his amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: Are there any other subjects?


Harold Edward Winch: May I speak on the point of order again? I am going through with what I understand to be the rules of the house, namely, that only one grievance can be raised at a time. As I said before, the Leader of the Opposition has raised three. Now, sir, it is very difficult for hon. members to know which grievance is before us, because I understand that if a grievance has been discussed we cannot raise it again. What is the grievance of the Leader of the Opposition?


Mr. Speaker:: I think we have now left the subject of the wide grievance contained in the amendment, because the hon. Leader of the Opposition has had leave to withdraw that amendment. I would imagine that we can now go over to wheat or to any other grievance.


MARKING OF PACKAGES &quot;MADE IN CANADA&quot;
Major James William Coldwell: have something which I wish to raise very briefly. I could not raise it on the orders of the day, but it has to do with the marking of packages which are allegedly made in Canada. As I understand it, we have no general law governing the marking of goods as "made in Canada". I also remember that such legislation is rather difficult to formulate, but we do have a statute which is the Unfair Competition Act, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, chapter 274. I refer to section 11, which reads:
No person shall, in the course of his business,
(b) direct public attention to his wares in such a way that, at the time he commenced so to direct

attention to them, it might be reasonably apprehended that his course of conduct was likely to create confusion in Canada between his wares and those of a competitor.
We passed an act in 1952 or 1953 which I believe has not been proclaimed, and which will supersede the legislation to which I have just referred. But, as I understand it, it deals perhaps a little more specifically with the problem in mind, since it refers to the geographical origin of the goods in question.
I do not want to demonstrate one particular article, but I do have in my hand an article which is marked "made in Canada" and the package is marked "printed in Canada". The article contained in that package was marked "U.S.A." What I rather suspect is that the fabric out of which the article was made originated in the United States and was brought into Canada and probably turned into a child's garment in a Canadian factory, but marked "made in Canada".
At a time when the textile industry is in need of work, it seems to me that anything of this nature should be very carefully looked into by the government, and the legislation should be strengthened, if possible, so that an article marked "U.S.A." cannot be put in a package that is marked "made in Canada", in a package also containing, in print, "printed in Canada". It seems to me that we should have on our statute books legislation that would prohibit that sort of marking when the article is made-of course, I am giving the company the benefit of the doubt in this respect-from an imported fabric in a Canadian factory. But my real purpose in rising is not only to say that we should strengthen the legislation to meet problems of this description, but to say that we also have on the statute books of Canada an act of this parliament which might assist, and which has not yet been proclaimed. That is the point I have in mind. Whether we can succeed in formulating new legislation that would meet cases of this description, or not, I do not know because I am not a lawyer; but I do know that we have stronger legislation than the legislation now in effect. And what I am suggesting to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Gar son) and to the government is that the legislation passed by this parliament in an attempt to do something along the lines that I believe necessary should no longer be delayed; it should be proclaimed and brought into effect immediately, as I say, particularly in view of the conditions in an industry which needs all the work that it can possibly get. I am not asking for any protection for Canadian industries; all I am asking is that we should have packages accurately marked. If the goods are made in Canada, then they should be marked "made
26, 1954	4113
Marking of Packages "Made in Canada" in Canada"; but if the goods are partly manufactured or, as I think likely in this case, if the fabric itself is manufactured in the United States, then some marking should be put on the package to indicate that, while the article may be made in Canada, the material from which the article is made originates in another country.
Whether it is the United States or any other country does not concern me at the moment. What I am concerned with is that we have passed legislation which was designed to strengthen our administration in this regard. That legislation is on the statute books but has not yet been brought into effect by proclamation. Why this delay? What I am asking is that the government should proclaim this legislation, if it is stronger, as we were told it was at the time, and endeavour to restrict the marketing of goods claimed "made in Canada" which are not in reality made wholly in Canada.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, as I am the minister responsible for the legislation in question now on the statute books but not yet proclaimed, I should perhaps give a word of explanation as to the reason for the delay in proclamation. This legislation for its operation requires rather extensive and detailed regulations. A committee has been working on the preparation of these regulations for the entire period since the act was passed at the last session of the last parliament. I have received a report of the committee within the last few days and as soon as it is possible to bring it before my colleagues I intend to do so. I think, however, it will be necessary to give a good deal of publicity to these regulations after they have been made in the interests of the people who will derive benefit from the legislation. There will have to be a period during which the regulations can become known, otherwise there would be considerable confusion. However, I hope that that period can be kept to a minimum and that the will of parliament can be carried out as soon as possible.
With respect to the other point raised by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, as I indicated to the house at the time legislation was before us dealing with the Patent Act, it is intended to set up a commission of inquiry into the Patent Act, the Copyright Act, and other related legislation. It is not intended that this inquiry should go into the whole scope of new trade mark legislation recently passed by parliament, but I should think the terms might be made broad enough so that interested parties who wish to make representations in regard to further improvements in that act would have an opportunity to do so.

Supply
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
[Stage Direction]
341. Departmental administration, $1,316,383.
Item stands.

[Stage Direction]
295. General administration (including the former customs excise seizure expenses and adjustments), $2,822,515.
Item stands.

[Stage Direction]
424. Departmental administration, $625,101.
Item stands.

[Stage Direction]
78. Departmental administration and payments to Canadian Commercial Corporation and other corporate agencies for services provided in connection with defence purchasing and production, $6,446,812.
Item stands.

[Stage Direction]
162. Departmental administration (including the former administration of justice-miscellaneous expenditure, including expenses of litigated matters), $427,600.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the minister stated on the eve of the Easter recess that he would today call four departments. We have now had four and a fifth is now about to be called.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, when I compiled the list this afternoon I thought it would be preferable to have the Department of Trade and Commerce and Department of Defence Production together for the purposes of debate, and I also submitted the Department of Justice because I understood the hon. member for Kamloops wished to have a debate on this particular matter. That is the reason why I submitted the fifth department.


George Alexander Drew: I think it is only right and I believe it would very much preserve good relations in these matters if the statement made by the minister before we adjourned is respected and four departments called on this occasion.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, if you would allow the Department of Justice not to be called at this time we could go on with the others.


The Chairman:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.


THE BUDGET
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, April 14, consideration of the motion of Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Macdonnell.
Harold Edward Winch: The Budget-Mr. Winch employees, and the five-day week. Mr. Speaker, be that as it may, I think it is terrible and horrible what the Post Office Department of this government is doing in order to try to squeeze the last dollar out of their own employees.
I am not speaking from hearsay at all. When I was in Vancouver last week a postal employees' delegation met me. What did I find? I found something that is not to be found in any employer-employee agreement in the entire Dominion of Canada. The government announces that they will pay overtime rates to their postal employees and that they are now to be on a 40-hour five-day week in some parts of Canada. What are you doing where these employees are on the 40-hour five-day week? You are pulling the dirtiest, lowest stunt ever pulled by any employer in Canada. What are you doing? You say that they are entitled to time and a half overtime rates. O.K. They are on a 40-hour five-day week. The Post Office Department issued an order and I have got it right here. What does it say? It provides that before an employee can collect one cent at the time and a half overtime rate he has to work 48 hours in the week. There is a 40-hour week but the overtime rate does not come into effect unless you work 48 hours in the week.
Show me one union agreement, show me one employer-employee agreement that is as low as that. It means even more than that, Mr. Speaker. If a statutory holiday occurs in a week the employees do not get paid for it at the overtime rate unless they work for forty-eight hours in the week. I have heard of some rotten deals in my life but that is the rottenest I ever heard of. I have the government's own order setting out that although the employees are on a 40-hour week they do not collect the overtime rate of pay unless they work 48 hours. It goes beyond that. May I ask the house leader if he will take note of this? May I, Mr. Speaker, ask the house leader if he will take note of this?


Douglas Charles Abbott: He will.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask the house leader to take note of this?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Do not take yourself too seriously.


Harold Edward Winch: On January 14 I stated, as found at page 1109 of Hansard, that the government had in mind changing the night differential in the post office. I now refer


the house to page 1146 of Hansard of January 15 where it will be found that the minister said:
I believe he also stated that he had been informed that the department was endeavouring to eliminate the night differential granted to postal employees. We have no such thought in mind. I am afraid that he is getting his information from an unreliable source.
That is the statement the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) made on that date. That order, Mr. Speaker, was put through and the night differential has been wiped out in the postal service. When I said that it was going to be done the minister said no, that I did not have a correct source of information. I have spoken to the postal employees in the city of Vancouver and the night differential has been wiped out. What does this mean? At that time the night differential meant that those who worked for seven hours got paid for eight. The government has now put an order into effect whereby they get a slight increase in wages but not a sufficient amount to make up for the loss of the night differential. This penny-pinching government is stealing a few cents in order to get an extra hour from those who have to work on the night shift in the post offices. You should be darn well ashamed of yourselves. But I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the house leader that the important point is that I was given the lie on the floor of the house by a cabinet minister. It did go into effect.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, it is not in order for any hon. member to make a reference of that kind. If any explanation is needed now-I am sure it will be made later if necessary-may I point out that if the facts are as the hon. member says, and I have some doubt, he is speaking of a date in January when the minister's reference could have been made precisely as it was and yet by government action some weeks later a change could be made. If that is so, the circumstances would not justify the description the hon. member has now given. Therefore I would ask him to withdraw his remarks.


Harold Edward Winch: I am not withdrawing the remarks. I am going to ask the minister to supply the date of the secret order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Douglas Charles Abbott: This is not the British Columbia legislature.


Mr. Speaker:: May I ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration what is the remark he is complaining about? I must apologize for not hearing it, but I was being

detained here by a very interesting conversation with a colleague of mine. I did not hear the remarks made by the hon. member for Vancouver East.


Walter Edward Harris: The hon. member for Vancouver East recited certain facts in connection with the Post Office Department. He said that on January 14 he made certain remarks and that on January 15 the Postmaster General answered him but that despite that answer certain action was taken at a later time which was contrary to what the minister had said. The hon. member used the words that the minister gave him the lie and I am asking that they be withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Vancouver East has heard the recapitulation of what he said. Am I to assume that the expression reported as having been used by him was in fact used by him? In the circumstances I am sure that he will know what course he should follow.


Harold Edward Winch: I would say, Mr. Speaker, with deference to you, that the information given this house does not represent what is now in effect in the Post Office Department.


Mr. Speaker:: Does that mean that the hon. member withdraws the expression? As he knows, the formula for that is to say that he withdraws the offensive words.


Harold Edward Winch: I withdraw. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I ask that the minister who has just spoken should tell us what was the date of the order which changed the night differential?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: May I ask the minister to allow me to interject a word here? We are not in committee. We are now proceeding to debate the budget, and the hon. member for Vancouver East is anxious to ask questions. Perhaps we ought to dispose of the motion now before the house and reach the committee stage where he can ask as many questions as he wishes, but not now.


Harold Edward Winch: I am saying it now so that they can be ready at the committee stage.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Just making a constituency
speech.


Harold Edward Winch: There is another point. I want to point out just what this government is doing through its Post Office Department. I am only going to speak about Vancouver because I know about Vancouver. This government is trying to pull a very fast one to save money. There is an agreement on wages so far as the Post Office Department is concerned, and what is being done? I am not blaming the minister. Perhaps he does not 83276-260
The Budget-Mr. Winch know anything about it, but he ought to know. I am going to tell him right now what is being done. In order to cut the throats of those who should have these wages,-


James Joseph McCann: That may go in British Columbia, but it does not go here.


Harold Edward Winch: -they hire what is called casual labour. I have heard of some of these casual labourers who have been working for months in the Vancouver post office department. Some of them have been there for years, and they are doing the same work as those who are on the permanent staff. There is this difference. If the Post Office Department calls them casual employees, they are paid 97 cents an hour. If these men were on the permanent staff they could reach a salary of $280 per month.
I met a delegation of post office employees in Vancouver, and they said they call these men "permanent casual employees." The government gets away with paying them 97 cents an hour. I think it is time the government and this department got into a hole and pulled it in over them.
In Vancouver, sir, there was a chap doing electrical maintenance work. I did not see him, but the delegates from the post office association who came to see me told me about him. This man was receiving the prevailing union rate. Not long ago his position was abolished, and the civil service commission called for applications for this job. This man was told to make application and he would have a priority. He did make application, and he got the job, but at $100 per month less than he had been receiving. Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious what is going on in this government. I do not think the same thing is happening in all departments; as a matter of fact, I am told it is not. It is in this Post Office Department.
I do not blame the minister. I do not think he knows what is occurring, but I think he has some rotten, putrid advisers. I think it is time something was done about them. I think the minister ought to make an investigation right now of what is occurring. Yes, you have increased wages. Yes, you have introduced the 40-hour five-day week. But what are you doing? You are bringing about the rottenest conditions between employer and employees in Canada, and that is being done by a department of the Dominion of Canada. I am very sorry the minister has not been here while I have been speaking. Since he is here now, I want to say again that I do not believe he knows what is happening in the Post Office Department. I do not think he knows of the policy or the
4118	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Winch things that are being done in his department that have brought this department to the position of being known as the most disreputable, despicable employer of labour in the Dominion of Canada.
Since the minister introduced the changes in the Post Office Act, naturally the changes have been made under his authority, but perhaps without his knowledge. But you are bringing them down to a position that is a shame in Canada. I am sorry, but I have just reached the end of what I had to say about the minister's department, and he is now here. While he is here, however, and although it is going to take up some of my time, I want to say again that I think it is terribly wrong that a directive should be issued-I have it here-that no overtime rates shall be paid unless a man has worked over 48 hours in the week. The employees are supposed to be on a 40-hour week basis. I have your directive here, Mr. Minister, and it is wrong. I feel it is wrong you should tell this house that no change in the night differential was under consideration, when there has been a change made in the night differential. The increase in wages does not cover the extra hours of work, so you are gaining a few cents on the night differential from those who work at night.
I want to continue now, Mr. Speaker, with one other phase of my remarks. If the minister is to be brought in, he should be brought in when I commence these remarks. I want to speak to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier).


Douglas Charles Abbott: He is attending the dominion-provincial conference today.


Harold Edward Winch: I hope he is more successful in that than he has been with something else. I want to speak about what he had to say in this house under date of March 25, as it appears in Hansard at page 3319. He had this to say:
However, with reference to the transfer to Canadian National Telegraphs, X was unable to give any information to the house, because the departmental officers were in Montreal discussing the arrangements. These have now been completed and, in my opinion, they are as satisfactory as they were with the British Columbia Telephone Company. For that reason I am sure the house will be interested in knowing what are the terms of the transfer.
The Minister of Transport said that the terms of transfer of the employees of the government telegraph service were as good as those in the transfer of the telephone system. I am not expressing my own opinion, but when I was in Vancouver I was met by a delegation of those who were formerly the employees of the government. What did they have to say? They said that the employees


of the government telegraph service, one of whom had thirty-one years of service, had received the dirtiest deal that they thought had ever been given to any employee of the government. I have read the statement of the Minister of Transport concerning what he maintains were the terms with reference to the transfer of the government service employees to the Canadian National Telegraphs. The employees say that all the information is incorrect. They say they met as employees with the Canadian National Telegraphs representatives, and that as a result they found their seniority lasted only a short time, and that inside of two months they would be reduced to what is known as a non-schedule basis, under which they would have no guarantee of wages, no seniority, and would not have the protection of any union agreement.
Eight employees in Vancouver refused to accept the proposal offered by Canadian National Telegraphs. One of these men, Mr. J. F. Christie, had been thirty-one years in the service of the federal government. Another, Mrs. Mighton, had been twenty-six years in that service; Mr. Oliver had been in the service seven years, and Mr. Coleman five years in the civil service and seven years in the army-and the time in the army has to be recognized.
The offer was such that all these employees had to refuse. They lost seniority; they lost superannuation rights under this non-schedule basis-and it must be kept in mind that only two, of all employees, came under the schedule basis. Under the non-schedule basis they would lose not only their standard of wage but also their seniority rights.
Something is greatly wrong in this connection, when we see those who have served the Dominion of Canada well being left completely stranded, as these employees were. And I would ask hon. members to keep in mind the fact that one of these men had been thirty-one years in the service of the federal government. It was wrong for the Minister of Transport to state in the House of Commons that the agreement with Canadian National Telegraphs was equal to that with B.C. Telephone Company. Everyone admits that B.C. Telephone was tops in its agreement and gave seniority and the same rates of pay-everything their own employees had. They even took three of the employees of the telegraph system into their employment.
The offer given these men by Canadian National Telegraphs was not the one the minister described to us, and these men quit the service. I say the federal government has a responsibility in the matter in having

Canadian National Telegraphs give the same rates of pay to employees in the federal telegraph service. Failing that, then I say the federal government must accept the responsibility of taking care of its loyal servants who, in the cases I have mentioned, served for periods ranging between seven and thirty-one years. I am going to ask the government to consider this matter, to see what can be done.
I said I was going to discuss only three points, and I have done so. First of all, something must be done-and done right now-on a federal basis to take care of the employable unemployed. This has been a federal government responsibility since 1945. The government has failed to keep its promises. Our municipalities and provinces are being faced with costs which are rightfully those of the government here in Ottawa. I say the Post Office Department is not being fair to its employees. I suggest that the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) should take careful note of the advice he is receiving, because I think some of it is very bad. Unfortunately the condition of ill repute must be his responsibility, because it cannot be traced to those whose responsibility it ought to be.
While I have no doubt the information given by the Minister of Transport was given in all sincerity, the fact is that it was incorrect, and he has received bad advice. It has been shown that the offer made to the employees by Canadian National Telegraphs was not as he indicated to the house it would be. I suggest the minister should make an investigation immediately, not just through the officers of Canadian National Telegraphs but through meeting directly with the employees who would not accept the offer because they believed it was so vicious it was not worthy of consideration.
It is time the government tucked in its shirt and pulled up its pants. Instead of making excuses it should get down to facts. If it does I am sure it will realize that there are many things in Canada that need correcting, and the government can make the necessary corrections if it only will.
(Translation):


Mr. Bona Arsenault (Bonaventure):: Mr. Speaker, on April 6 the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) made his annual budget speech, in which he stated the financial position of the country and clearly defined the stand taken by the Canadian government with respect to the new personal income tax recently imposed by the government of the province of Quebec.
83276-260J
The Budget-Mr. Arsenault
On that occasion, the Minister of Finance, who has long since won the admiration and the gratitude of the Canadian people, once more gave proof of the courage he has always shown in the face of difficulties. One must not forget that he too is from Quebec and that his love for his province is just as strong and sincere as that of any of us from Quebec and of any of those who, outside the house, have set themselves up as the defenders of our province.
On April 14, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage), in one of the most brilliant speeches of his political career, analysed in detail the serious problem which arises in the field of fiscal relations between the federal government and the government of Quebec.
His speech made a deep impression on the intelligent people of the province of Quebec,
Through his ponderation, his high-mindedness, his noble sentiments, the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet showed us that it is still possible for citizens of a province to examine and discuss dispassionately, without undue provocation and useless arrogance, a problem common to us all and the importance of which cannot be overemphasized.
The problem of intergovernmental relations between Quebec and Ottawa is of too high a level and its implications are much too important for the future of our province to transform it into a common matter of political partisanship.
We therefore have, as elected representatives of the same province, an opportunity which is perhaps unique in history, of resorting to all the resources of our intelligence to do each our share, no matter how small, for the settlement of a problem the solution of which can only be found in the search for truth, in moderation, in mutual respect and more particularly in the honest and sincere recognition of the rights and duties of each of the parties concerned.
We of the Canadian parliament are the first to recognize the right of the province of Quebec, and of any other province, to direct taxation, because this is the only taxation field which, under the constitution of this country, the provinces share concurrently with the Canadian government.
Section 91, subsection 3, of the confederation act grants to the Canadian government the right to resort to "any mode or system of taxation". This is quite clear.
4120	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Arsenault
Under section 92, subsection 2, the provinces have the right to resort to direct taxation "within the province . . . for provincial purposes," but their right in that regard is parallel to that of the Canadian government, since the federal government, under section 91, has access to "any mode or system of taxation".
Besides, this point has never been challenged before the courts, neither by the province of Quebec nor by any other province in this country.
Consequently, since the money levied by the Canadian government, under its taxation legislation, is its own property, nobody has the right, through a provincial law or otherwise, to order that part of this money which is the Canadian government's own personal property, shall be, without any agreement to this effect, diverted to the benefit of a province, whatever the motives may be.
In order, then, to apportion this direct taxation field as evenly as possible among the various provinces-a taxation field to which both the federal and provincial governments have access according to the instrument of confederation-every province in this country, with the sole exception of the province of Quebec, has signed fiscal agreements with the Canadian government.
Even Ontario and New Brunswick, which are at present under Conservative administrations, even Saskatchewan, which has a C.C.F. government, even Alberta and British Columbia, which have Social Credit governments, have loyally concluded agreements with the Canadian government, on the basis of friendly co-operation, with a view to the apportionment of personal and corporation income tax fields.
There has been no thought, on the part of these provinces, that in so doing they were giving up any portion at all of their autonomy. On the contrary, the very fact that such agreements do, in fact, exist conclusively demonstrates that the federal government acknowledges that the provinces enjoy rights that parallel its own in the field of direct taxation.
If the leaders of the province of Quebec had shown towards the Canadian government the same spirit of co-operation evinced by the other provinces of our confederation with regard to the apportionment of direct taxes and many other matters, the taxpayers of Quebec would not have to deplore today this hateful system of double taxation and would not have lost from $30 to $40 million a year since 1947.
And yet there are not two constitutions, one for Quebec and one for the other prov-


inces, and section 92 of the confederation act, concerning the provincial powers of direct taxation, does not apply solely and exclusively to Quebec, but to all the provinces of this country. The name of Quebec is not even specifically mentioned in this regard.
Efforts have been made, among the people, to rouse passions, to exploit the attachment of the French-speaking Canadians to their race, to their language, to their religion, by suggesting falsely, to say the least-


Mr. Dufresne:: That is what the Liberal party has done for 25 years.


Bona Arsenault: -that the apportionment of taxes as between the federal government and the provinces is a question that concerns the fields of education, of language, or of religious faith.
The rights of the provinces in the field of education are not established by section 91 or section 92, but rather by section 93 which guarantees those fundamental rights not only to the province of Quebec but to all the provinces of this country. The rights of the French language in this country are recognized neither by section 91 nor by section 92, but by section 133, which guarantees rights not only to the French language but also to the English language.
Can anybody tell me under which principle the distribution of profits among partners in the same undertaking, or the fair apportionment of the product of taxation between the federal government and the provincial governments can possibly be considered as a religious issue?
No, Mr. Speaker, this is nothing but a question of taxation, a matter which concerns the apportionment of the proceeds of taxation, a question to be dealt solely under sections 91 and 92 of the confederation act.
This is hardly surprising, for it is not the first time that such bogeys are being unearthed to impress the people of Quebec. Many of those who are now listening to me will recall that, from 1927, when a Liberal government introduced old age pensions, up to 1937, the provincial governments of the day in Quebec, while pretending to safeguard the sacred rights of that province, denied pension benefits to the older citizens in that part of the country, while during those ten years such benefits were being distributed in the other provinces. During those ten years the citizens of Quebec who were over 70 were sacrificed for the sake of a provincial autonomy which was not at all at stake, and thus lost millions of dollars.

In 1936, on the eve of a provincial election held that year, the present prime minister of Quebec, who was then leader of the opposition, advocated with a gesture that honoured him and that he likes to recall, co-operation with the Liberal government in Ottawa, as regards the payment of old age pensions in Quebec, on the same basis as in the other provinces.
The first payments were made in 1937. And, since 1937, that is since the introduction of old age pensions in Quebec, has the province lost or sacrificed in any measure its autonomy or its sacred rights?
But, that is not all. Again, when the so beneficial Family Allowances Act was introduced by a Liberal government in 1944, the slogan of provincial autonomy and sacred rights was heard once more in the province of Quebec and in at least one other province in this country, a province well known to the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew).
Here in this house, the then Conservative members, many of whom still sit among us, made speech after speech denouncing, with the energy of despair, the establishment of family allowances, in which they saw a measure seriously threatening the sacred rights and the autonomy of the provinces.
Today, however, after an experience of ten years in the administration of this profoundly human legislation, no one, even on the other side of the house, any longer claims that the safeguard of provincial autonomy requires the abolition of our system of family allowances.
And how many members of the Conservative party, beginning with the Leader of the Opposition himself, would dare to utter publicly the speeches they have made against the institution, by a Liberal government, of family allowances.
It is often repeated-many things are said-that Ottawa draws $300 million in personal income tax in the province of Quebec.
It is never said however that Ottawa gives to the province of Quebec, through old age pensions, family allowances, pensions for the blind and subsidies to help the building of hospitals in Quebec, over $200 million per year. It is never said however that the $300 million received by Ottawa from personal income tax in Quebec is not even sufficient to cover the large amounts generously distributed by the federal government in
The Budget-Mr. Arsenault Quebec by way of pensions, allowances, unemployment insurance benefits, public works, grants of all kinds for the maintenance of its various services.
The least that one could do would be to recognize that what Ottawa draws in taxes from Quebec with one hand it gives generously with the other hand to the people of Quebec.
People who advocate social security measures, such as old age pensions and family allowances are called centralizers. Yet there is no more decentralized and more beneficial legislation in Canada than these measures enacted through the wisdom and foresight of the Liberal governments which have held power at Ottawa one after another; these measures today enable the St. Laurent government to take money from the pockets of people who have the means of alleviating the burden of those who are less privileged.
We are accused of being centralizers-


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: It is true.


Bona Arsenault: -while under the terms of the fiscal agreements made with the provinces-listen carefully-we are actually bringing about decentralization and distributing the national income on a more equitable basis for all provinces.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Let the hon. member repeat that in the province of Quebec.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: You would not understand.


Bona Arsenault: As we all know economic centralization has come about as the years went by in the centre of the Canadian territory, and more particularly in the two largest cities of Canada, Toronto and Montreal, where are located the head offices of most of the largest business and financial institutions.
For example, mail-order houses, insurance and trust companies and commercial and financial establishments by the thousands drain each year through their innumerable branches disseminated throughout the country millions if not billions of dollars from the public which they send to Toronto and Montreal. As a consequence, these thousands of financial and commercial establishments are liable to taxation on their profits only in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec where their headquarters are located.
4122	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Arsenault
The people of the maritime and western provinces of Canada, who have the same right to be called Canadians as we have, have often and strongly objected to being thus deprived of sources of revenue essential to the good administration of their provinces, owing to the unfair situation I have just mentioned and from which they have had to suffer since it is a result of the economic centralization which exists in our country. And that is why we have rich provinces, provinces less rich and poor provinces.
The principle which is followed by the Canadian government in the distribution of old age pensions, family allowances and other social security benefits amongst the people of our country is exactly the same on which is based a fair distribution of the tax proceeds between the federal government and the provinces, through financial agreements.
Economically strong and developed countries subscribe millions to the United Nations and the Colombo plan in order to assist economically weak and underdeveloped nations.
We should all the more, it seems to me, endeavour to regulate our own country's economy by helping out those of our Canadian provinces which, for reasons beyond their control, happen to be economically weaker. Besides, the companies whose head offices are located in Toronto and Montreal find their markets in those very provinces.
Within the field of its jurisdiction the government of the province of Quebec acts no differently. The government, through taxation, collects money where it is to be found, in the richer counties of the province and distributes it, in the form of subsidies or public works, in the counties where money is less plentiful.
As there are in Canada provinces which are wealthy, some which are less favoured, and some which are poor, there are also in the province of Quebec counties which are wealthy, some which are less favoured, and some which are poor.
For example, taxes collected from rich taxpayers on the island of Montreal cover a large share of the cost of the construction of roads, bridges, and other highway work, and of the improvement of provincial public services in the poorer sections of the province.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is true indeed.


Bona Arsenault: Would the present opponents of fiscal agreements between the Canadian government and the provinces, who in the past have declared themselves firmly


opposed to our beneficial social security measures, by any chance wish for the establishment in Canada and more specifically in the province of Quebec of the conditions which prevail in other countries, where opulence in its most arrogant form disdainfully looks down at poverty in its lowest depth.
Would they like to see, through social discrimination between citizens of the same nation, communism become deeply rooted in Canada, as unfortunately it is already in too many countries of the world, before the government of our country recognizes its duties towards the Canadian people as a whole?
At the beginning of the last war, all the provinces of Canada agreed, in return for financial compensations, to relinquish for a time their concurrent rights to personal and corporation income taxes.
If these wartime fiscal agreements were considered necessary to control our country's economy at the very moment when, to fight nazi dictatorship, the federal government was levying barely $500 million a year for national defence, how much more indispensable should be today the co-operation granted by all the provinces of our confederation to the government of the nation, when, in order to fight communism, a dictatorship one hundred times worse than Hitler's, the Canadian parliament is forced to levy an enormous amount of more than $2,000 million a year to meet the heavy requirements of national defence.
And that is also why, ever since 1945, the Canadian government has submitted to the provinces a series of fiscal agreements meant to replace the wartime taxation agreements. Having seriously studied the scope of these new draft agreements and having submitted in turn their own suggestions to the federal government, every province in this country, with the sole exception of Quebec, reached an agreement with the latter administration.
But even had it not chosen to co-operate with the federal government on the same basis as the other provinces, the Quebec government, as early as 1947, could have taken advantage of a section of the federal income tax legislation under the terms of which it was authorized to retain for its own use 5 per cent of the total amount of federal income tax levied in the province of Quebec, that is, from $12 to $13 million annually.
Here again the province of Quebec-and in doing so it was quite within its rights-

did not choose to take advantage of this federal offer. In this way, then, the people of that province have, so far, been deprived of an amount of more than $100 million.
The government of Quebec, having neglected to avail itself of so many opportunities to lighten the load which its taxpayers were called upon to carry, has suddenly come to life and taken upon itself to impose a new personal income tax upon the people of that province.
Moreover, with no previous consultation or negotiation with the Canadian government- which, after all, is not exactly that of an enemy country-taking no account of a law voted by the federal parliament under whose terms the amount which provincial taxpayers may deduct from federal income tax is limited to 5 per cent, heedless of the fact that this action constitutes a serious threat to the fiscal agreements concluded by all other provinces and whose basis is this 5 per cent of personal income tax, the Quebec government maintains, through the press, that the federal government should allow Quebec taxpayers to deduct from the income tax which they are legally obliged to pay to the federal government, the full amount which it has pleased the Quebec government to provide for through its own legislation.
I am all for the idea of the province of Quebec receiving its share, and all its share, of the financial advantages made available to the provinces by the Canadian government; and in my humble opinion, the province of Quebec never went far enough in that direction.
But to demand at the same time that this transfer of funds, from the federal government to the province-since the matter indeed concerns the revenues derived from federal taxes-be made solely upon the terms arbitrarily dictated by Quebec is, in my humble opinion, going a bit too far.
Our tax legislation does not allow a deduction of 15 per cent, but of 5 per cent. The basis of financial agreements concluded between all the other provinces and the federal government is not 15 per cent, but 5 per cent, as far as the personal income tax is concerned.
And that basis of 5 per cent is not the upshot of a dictatorial challenge by the federal government or of any of the provinces which gave assurance of their co-operation, but the result of patient studies and painstaking negotiations between the Canadian government and the provinces which have signed fiscal agreements, under our democratic processes.
The Budget-Mr. Arsenault
In order to modify this basis of 5 per cent, the assent of the nine other provinces which have signed fiscal agreements would be required and the Canadian parliament would have to consent to a revision of the Income Tax Act.
Yet, as has been ably shown by the hon. Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, at page 4079 of Hansard of Wednesday, April 14 last, one of the main results of the suggested changes in our Income Tax Act, that is the substitution of the figure 15 for the figure 5, would be to allow Ontario to collect $62 million more for each $29 million received by Quebec, should Ontario denounce or terminate her present fiscal agreement. And it would be in Ontario's interest to do so, unless the federal government agreed to grant this additional $62 million to Ontario through an amendment to the existing fiscal agreement.
For we know that the collection of individual income tax yields more than twice as much in Ontario as in Quebec.
Therefore, by virtue of what provincial rights can the Quebec government leave the federal government with but one alternative, that is to grant Ontario $62 million for each $29 million paid to the province of Quebec? Is that the best suggestion Quebec can offer for the solution of this distressing problem?
To create a multitude of other more serious difficulties is not the best way to solve a problem.
Let us suppose for example that the city of Montreal, under the principle of unilateral deductibility, should decide by a resolution of its council and without consulting the provincial government that granted its charter, to collect a gasoline tax, the proceeds of which would be specifically earmarked for the improvement and the maintenance of the city streets.
Rather than enter into negotiations with the Quebec government, suppose the city claims, through advertisements in the newspapers, that, in the interest of autonomy and of the citizens of Montreal, this tax should be deducted from the amount derived by the provincial government from its gasoline tax, within the limits of greater Montreal, up to at least the amount the city is obliged to levy for the maintenance of its streets.
What would then be the attitude of the premier of Quebec?
In the extremely unlikely case where the Quebec government permitted such a tax

The Budget-Mr. Arsenault on gasoline to be collected according to the whims of the city of Montreal, would not other towns, villages, and municipalities of the province, for instance Quebec city, Sherbrooke, Three Rivers, be strongly tempted to invoke the same principle and to follow the example of Montreal?
How long could a public treasury, be it provincial or federal, be maintained under such a system?
Some say that since the federal government already grants a 5 per cent deduction under the Income Tax Act, the 15 per cent tax asked for by the province follows the same principle.
No, Mr. Speaker, the principle is not the same.
In one case, the 5 per cent represents an amount placed by the federal government at the disposal of those provincial governments who refuse to accept the advantages of a fiscal agreement, 5 per cent of the personal income tax collected by the federal government being the very basis upon which the amounts to be paid under multilateral agreements are computed.
As far as the 15 per cent is concerned, it is an amount which a province wants to take without agreement, without consultation, without negotiation, without authorization, in spite of the law of the country and in contradiction of the basis upon which rest the fiscal agreements with all the other provinces.
True, the provinces have rights. But the same constitution also grants rights to the federal government which has very heavy responsibilities towards the Canadian people.
Consequently, if the Canadian government accepted the principle that Quebec or any other province could enact unilateral legislation providing for the refund of the amount of taxes which that province decided, for one reason or another, to levy, how could the Canadian government continue to meet its crushing load of obligations contracted to ensure the national, economic and social security of the Canadian people?
Since 1945, the Canadian government and more particularly the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) have made great efforts to find a basis of financial co-operation with the provinces, which would be fair and equitable for each and all of the provincial governments and respect provincial autonomy while enabling the government of the Canadian nation to fulfil its obligations towards all the citizens of the country.


That basis of co-operation has been found and accepted by all Canadian provinces, except the province of Quebec.
The federal-provincial agreements are perhaps not perfect, but they nevertheless constitute the best formula which men of good will have yet been able to find in the interest of good administration of the provinces and of the prosperity of the Canadian nation.
Thanks to these fiscal agreements and to numerous other financial arrangements between the Canadian government and the other provinces, such as those relating to the construction of a trans-Canada highway, grants to universities, housing, protection of our forestry resources, aid to fisheries, conservation of our water resources, development of physical fitness, setting up of national parks, etc., the other provinces of the confederation fully share in the marvellous economic development of our country.
Meanwhile, in the province of Quebec, they keep on wasting extremely valuable time in discussions over principles which are not at issue; bogeys are set up as has been done so often in the past, for instance with regard to old age pensions and family allowances; and they unfortunately instil in the minds of our Quebec youth the idea that Ottawa is the capital of a foreign country, if not an enemy country.
Again this morning, I was reading in a Montreal newspaper this headline: Duplessis continues to wage his war against Ottawa.
Is there no other solution to this difficult problem of fiscal relations between Quebec and Ottawa than a struggle to the death where everybody, Quebeckers and Canadians, stand to lose?
I share the views of those who believe in conciliation. I still think that intelligent men may come to an agreement in the interests of the taxpayers of a whole province who are anxiously awaiting a settlement of the matter, and who are insisting upon one.
Let us reduce the problem to essentials. What is the point at issue?
Quebec wants to receive and Ottawa wants to give. But there is no agreement of a formula under which Quebec would receive and Ottawa would give. And the tragedy of all this is that Quebec, the one province which requires far less than what Ottawa is willing to give, is the very one which is accusing Ottawa of refusing to give.
Is that not the case?
What the Quebec provincial government wishes to obtain through this new personal income tax legislation which it has imposed on its taxpayers is $22 million more per year for a period of three years.

Even if it were possible for the central government to allow Quebec taxpayers the deduction of such an amount from their federal tax, without jeopardizing the fiscal agreements with the other provinces, that would not solve the problem.
In my humble opinion, the province of Quebec has never asked for enough.
What we Liberal members from Quebec in this house want is the full participation of our province in the economic development of the Canadian nation.
What I now ask for, on behalf of the taxpayers of my province, is the full measure of financial co-operation, made available to the province of Quebec by the government of my country.
If it is not possible for the Quebec government to recover the hundreds of millions it has already lost, often under the most futile pretexts, let us strive, at least, to show more solicitude for our fellow citizens, the taxpayers of Quebec, and try to find a formula acceptable to both parties concerned.
We all know that the fiscal agreements between the federal government and the provinces provide for the rental of three taxation fields, personal and corporation income taxes, and succession duties.
Yet, we also know that with the consent of the other provinces that have signed fiscal agreements, the Canadian government made an exception in the case of Ontario, which still levies succession duties, the proceeds of which are deducted from the total amount granted to the province under the fiscal agreement.
Does this exception, in the fiscal agreement with Ontario, with regard to succession duties not point to the possibility of co-operation, wherein the governments of Quebec and Ottawa could work out a modus vivendi, at least on a provisional basis, under which Quebec might obtain a larger part of tax revenues, without hardship for her taxpayers and without jeopardizing the present fiscal arrangements?
Would it not be possible, with the consent of the other provinces, to extend to the collection of corporation taxes in Quebec the exception granted to Ontario in connection with the collection of succession duties, besides extending this latter exception to the province of Quebec?
The Budget-Mr. Arsenault
I have not much experience in financial and intergovernmental matters of this magnitude but is there not in this a possibility which would justify a more thorough investigation by men of good will, working quietly, secure from indiscretions and blatant publicity?
In return for this important concession on the part of the federal government and the provinces which have signed fiscal agreements, would it not be possible for the government of the province of Quebec to agree, without renting its taxation fields and while continuing to collect succession duties and corporation taxes as it does now, to a suspension of its individual income tax law, in order to avoid double taxation in Quebec, and could not the province conclude with the federal government a special and temporary financial agreement providing for the payment, by the federal government, of amounts considerably higher than those the province could collect under its latest income tax act?
During the present debate other formulas leading to an honourable compromise may be put forward, no doubt, but the one I am suggesting, in all humility, sincerity and good faith, would result in the following:
1.	It would require, on the part of the province of Quebec, no tax rental agreement whatsoever;
2.	It would encroach in no way, either upon provincial rights or upon the rights granted to the federal government by our constitution;
3.	It would interfere in no way with the existing fiscal agreements between the federal government and other provincial governments;
4.	It would do away with double taxation on personal income in the province of Quebec;
5.	It would mean for the government of Quebec financial advantages substantially greater than those which a provincial personal income tax might make possible.
Moreover, as soon as the communist menace lessens or vanishes, as soon as the international tension eases, the national defence expenditures will proportionately go down, and the federal government, no doubt, will greatly reduce taxes, especially the personal income tax.
Such a situation would make it easier for the federal government, with the co-operation of the provinces, to bring about important amendments to fiscal agreements now in force, in order to enable the provinces to resort, in

The Budget-Mr. Balcer a greater measure than in the past, to direct taxation without increasing the burden ol their taxpayers.
(Text):


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Order. I am sorry to have to interrupt but I must advise the hon. member that his forty minutes have expired.


Bona Arsenault: May I have a minute?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: If the hon. member has unanimous consent to continue his remarks he may do so.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(Translation):


Bona Arsenault: Liberal members from the province of Quebec who sit in this house are as conscious of the rights of their province and of the interest of the Quebec taxpayers as any of their political opponents.
Although they live in Quebec they are nonetheless Canadians. And as such, in the fulfilment of their duties, they do not forget that in 1867 it was decided once and for all that our country, Canada, would not be made up of ten nations, but of only one nation, from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
Therefore, all of us from Quebec should strive to always act in such a way that the government of the Canadian nation may, within the scope of the confederation act and in close co-operation with all the provinces within our confederation without exception, continue to make and increase if possible its truly magnificent contribution to the building of a happy and prosperous Canadian nation.


Mr. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned twelve days ago, two ministers had acquainted us with the government's centralizing policy as regards the request of the provincial authorities of Quebec for the deduction of the provincial tax, and today, the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Arsenault) has repeated those very arguments, to which he added some of his own, without, however, substantially improving the government's position.
It would be difficult to imagine a weaker argument in favour of their refusal. In view of the unpopular position of the government, all three wanted to leave the impression that they were expecting a suggestion from the prime minister of Quebec. "We are leaving the door open," they said, "and if the prime minister of Quebec wants to come and discuss the matter with us, we will be delighted."


And yet, there is nothing clearer, nothing more precise or reasonable than the Quebec government's proposal.
The province of Quebec, which is experiencing an industrial expansion unmatched in its history, is faced with the increasing needs of its population. Quebec, where large families are legendary, has acute problems to solve, in order to give her children the education they deserve and have a right to expect, in a wealthy country such as ours.
The province needed more revenue to give her population the same treatment as that afforded the rest of Canada. The Quebec government had to resort to income taxation and showed its good will in taxing, under the constitution, personal incomes on a scale representing 12 to 15 per cent of the amount the taxpayers must pay to the federal government.
The provincial government could have gone farther but it has shown the good will of Quebec by asking the deductibility of an amount less than that offered by the federal government for the signing of the agreement involving its autonomy. By doing so, it affected in no way the agreements concluded between the federal government and the other provinces.
Thus, the poorer, or so-called poorer provinces could still receive these subsidies which are indispensable to them. But, at the same time, it showed that the people of Quebec are determined not to sell their rights for a mess of pottage.
And what were the arguments advanced by the federal government to reject such a reasonable offer which in no way disturbed its plans?
Here are a few examples. First of all, the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), in his budget speech-that is, speaking for the Liberal government-said that he could not allow this tax to be deducted because the province might perhaps, some day, claim a deductibility of 30, 40 or 60 per cent.
This is a childish argument since what is involved is an amendment to the Income Tax Act and since absolutely nothing prevents the government from taking a decision to the contrary. If it cannot allow the extent of deductibility which is being asked for, it can simply refuse, being the sole judge in this matter.
If the request of the provincial authorities is unreasonable, nothing prevents the federal government from rejecting it. But, so long as the provincial government's request means less than the amount which the federal gov-

ernment is ready to grant at the price of a signature which Quebec feels reluctant to give, it has no right to refuse.
As for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage), in addition to this same argument, he advances another still less acceptable. He said that if Ontario took advantage of the principle of deductibility, that province would receive, on the 15 per cent basis, more than it gets from the outright grant. Yet, if we grant 15 per cent to the province of Quebec, how can we refuse it to Ontario, says the minister. Once more, however, it is a feat of imagination which enables the minister to suggest this, for the problem he raises does not exist. Let the federal government grant to Ontario the right to deduct an amount not exceeding the sum that province receives under the agreements and nobody will complain, at least nobody from the province of Quebec.
It is clear when we go over the arguments advanced by the government that it intends to pursue its policy of centralization without the slightest concession. That much talked about freedom to accept or refuse the agreements means that the province must either sign an agreement on the terms chosen by the federal authorities, or lack the necessary funds and be forced to compel her taxpayers to pay double taxes.
Yet, before the last election, the federal government allowed those of the provinces which had not signed an agreement to deduct their share of corporation income tax. Permission was also granted to collect a tax from corporations for educational purposes.
The Minister of Finance, speaking once more on behalf of the government, said in 1953, before the election, when he announced that the corporation tax could be deducted:
The general effect of this will be to place corporations in Quebec, which is without a tax rental agreement, on the same basis as those operating in other provinces in respect of the burden of corporate income tax.
In the same speech, on the subject of financial agreements, he said:
The virtue of this approach was that it was not dependent for success on the unanimous acceptance by all provinces. A cardinal principle in the offer was that no pressure, direct or indirect, should be placed on any province to accept an agreement. This has been a fundamental position of the federal government's attitude ever since.
As I said a moment ago that was before the last election and now that the government has been re-elected, in spite of the promises and assertions of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), the only freedom left to the province of Quebec is to live isolated in a province 83276-2614
The Budget-Mr. Balcer whose citizens are placed in an inferior financial position to that of the other citizens of the country.
Until the election, the government seemed to consider these agreements as temporary, but today it considers them as permanent and does not intend to call further federal-provincial conferences to discuss the problem of taxation.
At the beginning of this debate, the leader of my party set forth before the house all the advantages that could result from such a conference.
A meeting between the federal and provincial authorities would enable Quebec to assert its rights and protect its autonomy; it would bring an end to this isolation in which Quebec has found herself since she refused to sign those agreements which were unacceptable to her.
Each year, our province is losing several million dollars as a result of this refusal, and, to cope for a time with this lack of revenue, the provincial government is forced to make use of its right to personal income tax in order to get an amount of $22 million needed for educational purposes, for the health and welfare of its people.
It is quite evident that the federal authorities show ill will in refusing this deduction though it would cost them less than if the province of Quebec had accepted the $115 million offered in exchange for her taxation rights.
It is also obvious that the federal government thought that they had found in this double taxation a means to force Quebec to give up her autonomist policy.
This deductibility which the province of Quebec is asking is surely only a temporary measure, pending a new reallocation of taxes, according to the spirit of confederation and in the interest of Canadian unity.
It has been recognized by our party that the federal government should necessarily allow deduction of the provincial tax. At its recent convention in Ottawa 800 delegates unanimously passed a resolution to this effect.
Certain newspapers, such as L'Action Catholique and Le Devoir-which, by the way, have been waging a magnificent battle with the federal government on this issue- have expressed concern over the fact that the leader of our party devoted his budget debate speech to demanding that another meeting of federal and provincial authorities be called with a view to allowing the provinces to benefit from a reallocation of taxation fields

The Budget-Mr. Balcer according to the principles of confederation, without, however, repeating the resolution adopted at the convention.
But I am pleased, in my capacity as senior member of my party for Quebec, to repeat once more that that resolution was adopted unanimously at our party's convention, and that our party and our leader demand that the federal government allow that deduction.
I insist upon the fact, though, that this deductibility should only be a temporary measure, and that a stop must be put to federal centralization. A new conference should be called so that the provinces may recover their autonomy within the limits of their rights and obligations.
The whole basis of taxation must be revised for, as Sir Wilfrid Laurier once said: "Every successful attempt made by the parliament at Ottawa to deprive a province of a right it enjoys, however immaterial that power might be, is a step further in the direction of legislative union."
And more recently, the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King spoke along the same lines.
We know that the Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King, during the earlier part of his political career and when he was in the opposition, always wanted and always tried to be looked upon as the emulator of the great Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
On one of those occasions when Mr. King took his inspiration from the policies of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, he stated, on April 3, 1930, here in this house:
(Text):
When on a previous occasion we were discussing this matter of grants from one treasury to another, I said I thought it was an unsound principle; in fact, I think I used the expression that it was a vicious principle to have one body raise the taxes and another body spend the people's moneys thus raised. Is there any hon. member who will disagree with me in that statement? There is none. That is the extent of the statement I made. I was referring to a principle of financing, speaking simply in relation to what is sound and what is unsound in financing. Anyone interested in financing, whether of a municipality, a province, a dominion, an empire, or a league of nations, will, I think, admit it is unwise, an unsound, a wrong principle for one body to have to do with raising the taxes and another to be concerned with the spending of the money so raised, that other body not having to account to the representatives of those who have paid the taxes.
(Translation):
We can readily see the tremendous difference between the centralizing policy of the federal Liberal members of today and the attitude of their heroes of the past.
If the other provinces are interested, rather from a financial point of view, in resisting


any attempt on the part of the federal government to seize their rights, it is both human and quite understandable that Ottawa's alluring offer could have an effect on the poorer provinces, which must, indeed, get special assistance.
I believe, however, that the campaign launched by the Liberals against the prime minister of Quebec, because he refuses to play their game, is very damaging. They are trying to make out the provincial government of Quebec as a "troublesome" government, with which it is impossible to get along, and they even go so far as to accuse it of separatism and of wanting to consider the rest of the country as a foreign state.
But if, from 1945 to this day, the province of Quebec has had to refuse this deal, which would have brought it more money, the reason for this rejection may be found in its history. Indeed, whether we accept it or not, the fact remains that the province of Quebec is different from the other provinces. Its population is French-speaking and Roman Catholic in a country where the majority is Protestant and Anglo-Saxon.
Up to now, in Canada, even with this duality of language and religion, we always did get along very well together. There have been some clashes, some temporary difficulties but everyone will agree, I think, that Quebec has always tried to deal fairly with the Protestant minority and to grant it freedom and its most sincere co-operation.
Under all our provincial governments, our Protestant school system has always enjoyed the greatest freedom, a fact which can be quoted as an example to all the countries of the world.


Pierre Gauthier: Hear! Hear!


Léon Balcer: What the government of the province of Quebec is asking today is that the federal government, which represents the country as a whole, should treat Quebec with this same fair play in the matter of provincial taxation.
And I do not call fair play the refusal by the federal government to allow the deductibility of the provincial tax with the sole purpose of forcing Quebec to sign an agreement which the population of the province does not want its government to conclude.
Within the last twelve days, I have realized, by reading the newspapers and discussing this question with the citizens of my riding, that the immense majority feel that the federal government is dealing unfairly with them by refusing to allow the deductibility of that tax.
I am therefore convinced that I would not honourably represent the electors of my constituency if I did not avail myself of every

opportunity to ask justice for Quebec without doing harm to the other provinces but thereby strengthening national unity.
(Text):


Mr. H. J. Murphy (Westmorland):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to take part in this debate. I shall be very brief in my thanks to the government, because if I spent my time in thanking the government for the many things they have done in my constituency I would have little time left to ask them for some more.
Last November I drew the attention of the government to the need for assistance for the fishermen in New Brunswick, particularly the herring fishermen. I am happy to report that action has been taken, and I wish to thank the government on behalf of the herring fishermen of the county of Westmorland for the assistance given. At the same time, and on their behalf, I would invite this nation to the annual Shediac lobster festival held in Westmorland county, where one would get inside information as to what fishermen have to do.
Last fall I also referred to the importance of the Canadian National Railways in the economy of the city of Moncton and the county of Westmorland. I pointed out at that time that we in Moncton were acutely affected by the lay-offs because we did not have other industries to absorb these skilled men. One of the greatest reasons for the layoffs on the C.N.R. has been the dieselization of the railway. We do not wish to see progress stopped, and we cannot ask that the railways revert from dieselization to the use of coal. Nor can we expect the government to subsidize any part of the country; yet we feel that our shops are equipped to manufacture freight and passenger equipment. In fact, witnesses at the railway committee told us that last year fourteen units of railway and freight equipment were modernized in the Canadian National Railways shops in Canada, and that three of these were done in Moncton. They consisted of two cars for sleeping accommodation and a diner. I was very happy to hear this and I hope that more of this work will be done in Moncton. Of course, that is up to the management of the Canadian National Railways which, in fact, is the people's railway and I hope that some attention will be paid to my request.
Before leaving the subject of the Canadian National Railways I should like to point out that besides a large number of present employees there are a large number of former employees who are now on pensions. These pensions are based on the wages they received while working for the railway. Many of them were retired at a time when
The Budget-Mr. H. J. Murphy wages were very low, and consequently their pensions are small. I should like to bring this matter to the attention of the government and I hope it will be taken into consideration.
At this time I should like to trace some of the economic changes in New Brunswick since confederation and to make a suggestion as to how the economic situation could be bettered. Last fall I mentioned the Chig-necto canal. I should like to go into the matter more fully at this time. Although this idea is not a new one it is better now than ever before, because shortly we shall commence work on the St. Lawrence seaway which, when completed, will enable central and western Canada to ship directly to the overseas markets, to South America and to the Atlantic region of Canada. I feel that those living south of the isthmus of Chignecto should be able to have the advantages of shipping directly to western and central Canada without adding a trip of 400 or 500 miles around the province of Nova Scotia.
As I see it, the Chignecto canal is part and parcel of the St. Lawrence seaway and it could be referred to or called the St. Lawrence seaway of the maritime provinces. Whatever reasons there have been in the past for not constructing this canal, they no longer apply in view of the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway. In addition, there are the great eastern base metal finds in Gaspe and northern New Brunswick which are dependent to a great extent for their development on this canal project which would be the direct route from the mines for the great industrial centres of the United States.
At the outset let me say that we are interested in the Chignecto canal as a finished product and not as a capital work project of short duration. As has been said in this house, public capital works projects are not the employment measures they used to be because of the diminishing amount of manpower which is used in such projects.
There are the strongest reasons for the conviction that the canal would revitalize the whole economy of Canada's seaboard region. Lumbering, farming, fishing, mining, shipping and manufacturing would all enjoy the benefits, and low-cost water transportation would be bound to extend the marketing radius for the native products. In western Canada corresponding benefits would be felt not only in lower prices for maritime products delivered there but also in lower transportation costs for western produce in the markets of the Atlantic region.
The construction of the Chignecto canal would provide a short route in sheltered
4130	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. H. J. Murphy waters to the trading points of the bay of Fundy and New England for the products of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. It would increase coastwise shipping between the ports on the gulf of St. Lawrence, the bay of Chaleur, Northumberland strait and then on the bay of Fundy. It would increase regular steamship sailings between the Atlantic provinces and central Canada. At this point I might mention that in the railway committee we were told that a steamship will ply shortly between Nova Scotia and Bar Harbor, Maine, showing that the days of coastwise shipping have really just begun in eastern Canada and are not at an end. A Chignecto canal would make it convenient for vessels plying between Montreal and points on the Atlantic seaboard to call at ports, not only in the bay of Fundy but in northern Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and northern New Brunswick to load or discharge cargo in passing.
It would revive native industries which flourished years ago but which could not survive the pressure of ever-increasing rail charges; it would stimulate the establishment of new industries; it would create a new economy in the Atlantic provinces.
It may surprise many residents of Canada to know that four years after confederation the percentage of population employed in industry in Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick was almost equal to the percentage of population similarly employed in Quebec and Ontario. Seventy-five years later, however, there had been a tremendous change. Ontario and Quebec had been steadily enriched, and their industrial employment average rose. In the three Atlantic provinces there had not been an increase, but a devastating decline. Incidentally, New Brunswick in that period had dropped from first place to second place from the last among the five provinces. Prior to confederation the maritime provinces were regarded as the most prosperous region in British North America. New Brunswick on a per capita basis was the most industrialized of any of the provinces then comprising Canada. The lack of the Chignecto canal is one reason why our prosperity and industrial developments have lagged far behind Quebec and Ontario.
In 1871, of every five Canadian industrial workers one was employed in the maritimes. In 1946 the ratio had dropped to one out of every seventeen. Again, in 1871 the industrial wages paid per inhabitant in New Brunswick were the highest of any of the provinces. In 1946 that province ranked second last in wages.


The extent to which the failure to build the Chignecto canal has arrested maritime development is difficult to estimate. That failure, together with the distress which overwhelmed the seaboard provinces during the depression of the 1870's, were marked factors in retarding our progress. Previously prosperous communities declined in the years following confederation. Industries decayed and our youth, denied opportunities at home, migrated because of the compulsion of economic necessity. The beneficiaries from these involuntary migrations are the other parts of Canada and the New England states.
The industrial design of the Atlantic provinces has been the darkest shadow in the history of confederation and the people of that region have come to the conclusion that one of the most productive remedies, a remedy which would confer lasting benefit, is the construction of the Chignecto canal. The volume of traffic now passing through our Canadian canals far exceeds the expectations of those men who had the faith, foresight and courage to embark on the policy of canal construction. The failure of those men of faith, foresight and courage to include the construction of the Chignecto canal is the failure that we must rectify.
The history of the canal project began more than 260 years ago in the days of the first Acadian settlement in the maritimes. The intendant saw the advantage of serving the isthmus, and his suggestion of how to go about it was quite simple. He suggested that a way be cleared across the flats and thus allow the 47-foot high tides of the bay of Fundy to do the rest. The intendant was not an engineer but his vision of the need, even in those far-off days, was sound.
Actually it was not until 1822 that the first practical step was taken. A survey for the canal was made in that year, and it was followed by others. The most competent engineers of that day agreed that the surveys showed the project to be both feasible and desirable. In the pre-confederation negotiations of 1864 and 1866 the Chignecto canal was repeatedly discussed by delegates. I will show later that this construction was actually promised as an inducement to the maritime provinces to enter confederation.
The first parliament of Canada quickly got down to business on the canal project when, in 1868, it ordered the reports of all surveys referred to the then minister of public works for study. When this was done hopes of early action ran high. Departmental officials who examined the engineering and other data for the minister were so decisive in their recom-

mendations that Senator Robert B. Dickey of Amherst, Nova Scotia, declared, and I quote:
This great work is now removed from the category of provincial questions and has become a dominion necessity.
It looked as though the undertaking would be gone ahead with immediately, but other factors intervened. Canada was engaged in reciprocity negotiations with the United States, and the enlargement of Canada's waterway system entered into the discussion. This led to the necessity for making an extensive survey of all canal projects. In 1870 a royal commission, headed by Sir Hugh Allan, was established to carry this out. The Allan commission's report divided its recommendations into works of first, second, third and fourth classes. The first class embraced, and I quote:
all those works	which	for the general
interest of the dominion should be undertaken and proceeded with as fast as the means at the disposal of the government will warrant.
The Chignecto canal was placed in this category. Included in the works of the first class recommended by the Allan commission and their estimated costs were:
The Sault Ste. Marie canal, $550,000; The enlargement of the Welland canal, $6,550,000; The Laurie canal-Ottawa, $1,800,000; The Chambly canal, $1,500,000; The deepening of the river St. Lawrence between Quebec and Montreal, $800,000; The Baie Verte or Chignecto canal with a minimum draft of 15 feet, $3,250,000; The St. Lawrence canals, $4,500,000; Deepening the upper St. Lawrence river, $220,000.
With the exception of the Baie Verte or Chignecto canal, all the canals in the first class have now been built. No explanation satisfactory to the people of Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick has ever been given as to why the Baie Verte canal has not been constructed.
However, things went so favourably that the government of the day, under Prime Minister Macdonald, called for tenders for the canal's construction but behind the scenes violent disputes had arisen between the departmental engineers on one hand, and the engineering experts of the Allan commission on the other. This dissension continued until 1873 and it is clear from a speech delivered in the House of Commons by Sir Charles Tupper, who later became prime minister of Canada, that prejudices and jealousies arising from frustrated personal ambitions had much to do with the obstructive delays which held back the work on the canal.
Canada's second government, that of the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie, twice included money for the Chignecto canal in the federal estimates, but in the meantime the great depression of the 1870's overwhelmed the
The Budget-Mr. H. J. Murphy country. With financial catastrophe on every side the Mackenzie government appointed another royal commission to go into the question of the Chignecto canal.
Little was heard again of the Chignecto canal until the late 1920's. In that decade, when the rest of the country was attaining new peaks of prosperity, it became alarmingly clear that something was wrong with the Atlantic region. In parliament the maritime representatives once more demanded the Chignecto canal. A royal commission was appointed by the Mackenzie King government in June, 1930, and instructed to inquire into the project in the light of new conditions. Before this commission met the Mackenzie King government was defeated at the polls. The incoming R. B. Bennett ministry, after a delay of one year, named its own commission.
There is a striking parallel between the conditions under which this commission held its hearings and those which formed the background for the Young commission in 1873. Again the world was in the throes of a great depression, a depression recognized as one of the worst in history. Again the government's policy was one of retrenchment, of reducing administration spending and avoiding further financial commitments.
Construction of the Chignecto canal was a definite pledge made prior to confederation in 1867 to the three maritime provinces by the representatives of Ontario and Quebec. In the years following confederation parliament was repeatedly reminded by those who had been delegates to the pre-confederation conferences at Quebec and London that, in the words of Senator Amos E. Botsford of New Brunswick, that the Chignecto canal, and I quote:
. . . was held out by the Quebec conference as an inducement to New Brunswick to go for confederation.
Senator Robert B. Dickey of Nova Scotia declared that "it was distinctly understood there that this canal should be constructed".
John Burpee, member of parliament for Sunbury, New Brunswick, declared that if the people of New Brunswick had not been satisfied that the canal would be built they would never have consented to the union.
Senator R. D. Wilmot, of New Brunswick, asserted that the canal had been discussed at the London conference of 1866. It was the understanding of the delegates that it would be one of the first public works undertaken.
These and similar confirmatory statements were made in the presence and hearing of other parliamentarians who attended the preconfederation conferences. They were made

The Budget-Mr. Nesbitt not once but many times, and in no case were they contradicted, or was any doubt cast upon their authenticity. There have been at least ten surveys of the Chignecto isthmus in the last century and a quarter. With only minor differences of opinion on technical aspects, all agreed that the canal was feasible. The following are some savings in miles that would be afforded by the Chignecto canal. The savings are of two kinds; that is to say, there is one route around Cape Breton island and one route through the strait of Canso. The difference between the maximum and minimum savings is 60 or 70 miles. I will give you the maximum savings that would be afforded by the construction of the Chignecto canal:
Montreal to Windsor, N.S., 561 miles; Montreal to Hantsport, N.S., 561 miles; Montreal to Parrs-boro, N.S., 561 miles; Montreal to Joggins, N.S., 640 miles; Montreal to Digby, N.S., 452 miles; Montreal to Hillsborough, N.B., 645 miles; Summerside to Saint John, N.B., 662 miles; Summerside to Portland, Maine, 511 miles; Charlottetown to Boston, Mass., 422 miles; Saint John to Montreal, 481 miles; Saint John to Pictou, N.S., 553 miles; Saint John to Newcastle, N.B.,	612 miles; Saint John to
Charlottetown, 618 miles.
The Chignecto canal is a national need. In fairness to the Atlantic region, as well as in the interests of the whole country, Canada must keep her promise and build it now.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, there are two points with which I should like to deal during the present debate on the budget. Both of these matters relate directly to the budget itself. First of all is the matter of the textile industry and other similarly affected industries in the country such as the machine tool industry. I know that these matters have already been dealt with in this house at great length on many occasions besides this and that they will probably be dealt with again. But this problem with respect to the textile industry, the machine tool industry and others, of course arises owing to the matter of cheap labour and exchange advantages when trading with other countries which far overcome any tariff advantages there may be to the industries in this country.
I am particularly interested in this matter because in the city of Woodstock, which is the principal city in the riding I represent, there are 2,000 textile workers, many of whom are out of work and most of the remainder are on a short-hour week. In addition, the town of Ingersoll, which is a town of 7,000 persons also in my riding, is virtually dependent on the machine tool industry and lately that industry has been threatened for the same reasons, namely by the importation of machine tools from Holland, England

and, in some cases, the United States. For the sake of brevity I should like to deal chiefly with the matter of the textile industry. As I say, I do not intend to deal with it at any great length because it has been dealt with many times before.
As I think most hon. members of the house know, within the last few months a great many textile plants throughout the Dominion of Canada have been closing down, many of them apparently permanently. Since the textile industry is, I understand, the largest employer of persons in the Dominion of Canada,-a year ago almost 200,000 persons were employed in the industry-this situation is an extremely serious one. Recently the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) made a speech after delivery of the budget at, I understand, a radio press conference. The implication of the minister's remarks has caused a great deal of concern in various parts of the country, particularly in my own constituency. I have not before me the exact words of the minister because they were made over the radio but the effect or the implication of his words was that if certain industries, particularly the textile industry, were not able to stand on their own feet, they would have to go by the board. I do not know whether the minister is returning to orthodox Liberal policy of 1911 when the matter seemed to boil down to the question of whether or not Canadians were to be hewers of wood and drawers of water but this impression, rightly or wrongly, has certainly been created by the minister's remarks on that occasion.
I think it is only fair to ask of the minister the following questions with regard to the textile industry, the machine tool industry and certain other industries. How far is the government going to go with regard to this matter of allowing Canadian industries to be put out of commission by competition from foreign countries? The second question is this. Are we going to have a textile industry or are we not? If so, to what extent? As I think every hon. member in this house well knows, there are many considerations other than the economic one which require that we have a textile industry in Canada. The country was glad enough to have one in 1939 when the war broke out; and this statement most certainly applies to the machine tool industry as well.
Mr. Speaker, my remarks will take about two minutes with respect to this matter, and I should like to finish them if I may do so. There is one further thing in this regard. The present policy of the administration has caused a great deal of dislocation in the textile industry in particular. Many plants

have closed, and many are on short time with the consequent loss of purchasing power within the country. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) recently suggested to a group of farm implement workers that if they could not get a job in that industry, they could go some place else. This is certainly not an easy matter today because there is in this country a big housing problem, a fact which I understand the government is well aware of in view of the new housing act. It is not easy to go from one town to another and to find a new place to live. The cost of moving is extremely high these days, and if you have to go any distance it is an expensive proposition. More than that, there is another question that arises. Can the new industries in the country absorb all these people who have lost their jobs in the textile industry? Lastly, a great social problem is created. It is a hard thing for a person who has had a senior position of some form or other in the textile industry-a dyer or something like that; a high salaried man-suddenly to have to go out to find a new job in a totally unrelated industry and to take a menial job at a reduced income. That is extremely hard on him and on his family. I think that these are things which the minister should take into consideration with a view possibly to making some changes in the excise tax and in the Customs Act.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I should now like to direct one or two brief remarks to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) with respect to an alteration to the Unemployment Insurance Act that I wish to suggest. It is my feeling that in times of economic stress, or recession as we say nowadays since the other word is no longer in vogue, some consideration might be given to changing the unemployment insurance regulations so that if those seeking jobs in the country should be in excess of a certain figure, let us say, 300,000, the government would be in a position to declare that there was a situation calling for emergency action, and that under such conditions the one day waiting period in a week be set aside until the number seeking jobs had receded to the figure set-300,000.
I fully realize that under ordinary economic conditions the theory behind the Unemployment Insurance Act is that those drawing unemployment insurance share part
The Budget-Mr. Nesbitt of the load. In that way the one day waiting period is somewhat analogous to a $25 deductible insurance policy. However, in times when the number of those seeking jobs becomes larger than a figure that could be decided upon after careful study I submit that the one day waiting period should be abolished for the following reasons. It would alleviate the economic pressure, from a sociological standpoint, on families in need. It would keep up purchasing power in the country and help to prevent the downward spiral which is the reverse of the upward spiral of inflation.
This type of alleviation as far as it goes would be somewhat better than a program of public works as it would affect those most directly concerned in any period of recession. It may be that the thinking behind the act may have to be revised. If a proposal such as I have made were adopted I realize there would have to be greater contribution from employees, employers and the government, but I still feel that consideration should be given to this suggestion and that in times of recession it would help matters materially.
There is a subject in the budget with which I wish to deal at some length. I refer to the change in the income tax proposed by the minister so far as the taxation of mutual fire and wind insurance companies is concerned. To review the history of this matter very briefly, these mutual insurance companies have come into being because of a need in the country. As most hon. members are aware, the ordinary straight line insurance companies, as they are sometimes called, are not at all anxious to, and in many cases will not insure farm properties. So far as the few companies that will are concerned, their rates are very high. When the need arises this type of thing grows up. The only way farmers can protect themselves is to band together and form mutual insurance companies. These companies are analogous to credit unions.
I do not propose to go into the subject of credit unions at any great length at the present time. I only wish to say that credit unions, like mutual insurance companies, came into being as the result of a need. Standard banks and loan companies, because of very heavy overhead and the difficulty and cost of collection, have to charge very high interest rates on small loans. As a result the people who needed such loans the most were quite unable to get them because the interest rates were out of all proportion to the good derived from the loan. Accordingly credit unions came into being, and I feel quite sure that most hon. members know that they are
4134	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Nesbitt able to lend money at very low rates of interest because of the fact that there is no overhead in office expenses and because people do the work for nothing on a voluntary basis. There is also the fact that, credit unions being localized, the officers in charge know the people with whom they are dealing and they have a much better idea whether or not they are a good risk.
I only mention this in passing because credit unions are somewhat analogous to mutual insurance companies, and I point out that credit unions are not taxed. Then there is the question of co-operatives which are again somewhat similar in nature to mutual insurance companies. Co-operatives are of course taxed to a certain degree. Without going into the details of the taxation of co-operatives at any length, may I say that after their patronage dividends are refunded they have to pay a tax of 3 per cent of the capital employed at the beginning of the year, but this is a relatively small amount. It is a very low rate of taxation.
To get back to the main subject of mutual insurance companies. As most of us realize, these companies are not basically profit-making institutions but, as I have already pointed out, only a group of farmers banded together in order to insure and look after themselves.
I do not think anybody would take any exception to a tax being placed on the interest from any investments that these mutual insurance companies hold. I think that is a fairly self-evident thing. The income from such investments should be taxed, but in my view the surplus of these insurance companies, with one reservation which I am going to deal with immediately, should not be taxed.
The minister may very well say that these companies do not necessarily have to pay a tax on their surplus because it can be returned to the policyholders in the form of a dividend. But section 117 of the Ontario insurance act-and I believe the situation is much the same in the other provinces-sets out that such companies, depending on the amount of policies outstanding, must have a surplus of a certain size in order to be in a position to refund to the policyholders. These figures have been outlined in some detail by my colleague, the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith), and as they have already been set out I will not take up the time of the house to deal with them again. But I should like to mention in passing that the amount of surplus that has to be set aside before refunds can be made is related to the amount of insurance policies that have been underwritten.
I would agree that any surplus arising after the figure set by the Ontario act has been


reached probably should be taxable, but it is very unfair to tax the surplus of a company until this figure is reached. Such a surplus is in the nature of a reserve. Its amount is laid down by the provincial government concerned and the companies have no choice but to observe the law. This reserve is set up to protect the policyholders and until the amount of surplus or reserve set is reached none of the surplus can be refunded by the company. I should like to suggest that mutual fire insurance companies and mutual wind insurance companies not in a position to legally make refunds should be free of taxation. Otherwise it makes it very difficult for these companies to build up the surplus required by the province in order to be in a position to refund.
For example, a company in my riding increased its policies by $10 million between 1950 and 1952. Accordingly, under the terms of the Ontario insurance act it had to increase its surplus by $60,000 before the company could make any refunds to the farmer policyholders. During this period from 1950 to 1952, the surplus was increased by nearly $50,000 but $17,000 of this had to be paid in taxes. During this period, therefore, only $33,000 was actually added to the surplus. I point out that taxation at this rate makes it very difficult for such companies to reach the surplus necessary before any refunds can be paid.
I cannot understand why the minister has made this proposed alteration in the Income Tax Act. It certainly discriminates against the poorer insurance companies. The richer companies, who have already established the necessary surplus under provincial legislation to enable them to pay refunds, can do so and they do not have to pay any further taxes of this type at all. All these companies have to do is to pay out any future surplus in the form of refunds. This proposed amendment, as just pointed out, makes it extremely difficult for the poorer companies to build up the surplus to the point where they can make refunds.
This situation has been aggravated by the economic conditions prevailing in Canada during the last few years. Inasmuch as building and replacement costs have greatly increased during the past years many people have increased their insurance policies, and the amount of insurance underwritten by these companies has greatly increased, thus increasing the surplus they must have before any refunds can be made.
With all respect, the tax appears like a spite tax imposed by the minister as a result of the supreme court decision last May which enabled these companies to get around the

former section of the Income Tax Act. Following the supreme court decision it was held that mutual insurance companies did not have to pay income tax except on income from investments.
It seems that this might very well be a spite tax because in Ontario, for example, there are 66 mutual fire insurance companies. In 1951, when taxes were levied at about the same rate as proposed by the minister now, the total taxes collected amounted to approximately $184,000. In 1952 the taxes from these 66 companies amounted to approximately $158,000. From the point of view of the total revenue required for the budget, this amount seems relatively trivial.
It hardly seems fair for the minister to reduce taxes on diamonds, furs, cigarette holders, pinball machines and other luxuries, while, in effect, at the same time putting a tax on an essential article such as fire insurance which farmers, as a rule, can get in no other way. It seems very unfair, as I said, to tax an essential service and make the farmer the goat.
I should like to say a word now about mutual wind insurance companies. In the last few years in Ontario, for some unaccountable reason and I suppose we shall have to ask the weatherman about this, there has been an increased hazard from tornadoes. The result has been that a great many more persons are taking out wind insurance and those who have such insurance have been increasing it. Shortly before the Easter recess, according to the newspapers, tornado warnings were posted in Ontario. The result has been that wind insurance companies have had to greatly increase the amount of insurance they have had to underwrite, thereby increasing the amount of surplus that these wind insurance companies have had to have. If they are taxed on the surplus it makes it difficult to build it up to the point where they can make refunds to their customers.
In conclusion on this subject I would stress that the minister should give this subject further consideration. I am sure he has had many representations already, but it does seem unfair that credit unions are not taxed, co-operatives are taxed in a relatively small way, whereas mutual insurance companies, which are basically and essentially the same type of thing, should have this tax on their services. As I said before, I do not believe the people who are concerned with mutual fire insurance and wind insurance companies are worried about paying taxes after the surplus has been built up to the point where they can make refunds to their patrons. It is during the period of building up the surplus
The Budget-Mr. Bourque to the point required by provincial law before they can make refunds that they object to the tax.


Mr. Romuald Bourque (Ouiremoni-St. Jean):: May I first add my congratulations to those that have already been accorded to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) for the skill and clarity with which he has again this year presented his budget to this house. Under the direction of the minister, the Department of Finance has gained added distinction, and the succession of budgets introduced by the minister has brought credit to Canada not only among our own people but in many nations abroad. I join in expressing the general regret that the minister has determined this shall be the last budget he will present to this house. For that reason this budget has been described as his swan song, but like all the others that have gone before it, its melody has been one that must please the great majority of the people of Canada.
The consistent melody throughout the minister's tenure of office has been sound financing which has kept this country's books in balance, and which is reflected in the position held by the Canadian dollar in the money markets of the world. We are the envy of many nations whose financing, perhaps for reasons beyond their control, has constantly led from one deficit to an even larger deficit. Our Minister of Finance, rightly I believe, determined upon a policy of paying as we go without imposing unbearable burdens upon the taxpayer. He has managed thus to reduce our national debt, meet all our obligations and provide essential funds for our expanding defence forces.
In the history of this country to be read by future generations the term "Abbott budget" will be read with pride by all those who make a serious study of this period of world-wide financial problems and difficulties. We have been well served by a minister who has grasped the fundamentals of budget making, who has a sense of history and who wisely looks to the future while formulating his budget for today. The Abbott budgets have been worthy successors to those of Fielding and Robb and Ilsley, which through good times and bad maintained this country's finances on a sound foundation and contributed to our national growth and development.
As a member of this house and a supporter of this government I was proud when the minister, in his important budget address, spoke as a Canadian who put the welfare of his country above local, sectional or party interests. This government is pledged to

The Budget-Mr. Bourque maintaining and developing Canadian unity; to the encouragement of increasing co-operation and understanding between the provinces. We are building here a great new nation. To succeed we must be prepared at times to sacrifice some of those things which may seem important to us as individuals, but which play no part in drawing together our various racial and religious groups and helping them to work and live together in harmony.
As a French Canadian and a Catholic I have addressed many audiences in many parts of Canada, and have spoken steadily and consistently in support of national unity. I have frequently pointed to the dangers that lie in the continuance of ancient prejudices, and have urged all those who believe in the future of Canada to speak up for understanding and friendship between all our people and between all our regions.
It has been said many times since world war II that Canada stands in the same position as the United States occupied in the concluding decades of the nineteenth century. We might also look to an even earlier period and find an example of the problem that seems to be facing Canada today. Abraham Lincoln, one of the greatest presidents in the history of the United States, was dedicated to the preservation of the union. Opposed to him were the forces of one section of the country which flaunted its pride in its past and took up arms in order to break the union which had been achieved less than a century before. In his first inaugural address President Lincoln spoke for the union in these words:
Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our national fabric with all its benefits, its memories, and its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it. Will you hazard so desperate a step while there is any possibility that any portion of the ills you fly from have no real existence? Will you, when the certain ills you fly to are greater than all the real ones you fly from-will you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake? All profess to be content in the union if all constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right, plainly written in the constitution, has been denied? I think not. Happily the human mind is so constituted that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of view, justify revolution-certainly would, if such a right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by affirmations and negations, guarantees and prohibitions, in the constitution, that controversies never arise concerning them. But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration. No

foresight can anticipate, nor any document of reasonable length contain, express provisions for all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labour be surrendered by national or by state authority. The constitution does not expressly say . . .
From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the government must cease. There is no other alternative; for continuing the government is acquiescence on one side or the other . . .
If a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which in turn will divide and ruin them; for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy a year or two hence arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present union now claim to secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this. Is there such perfect identity of interests among the states to compose a new union, as to produce harmony only and prevent renewed secession? Plainly, the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does, of necessity, fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible; the rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible, so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some forms is all that is left.
The union survived, thanks to the strength of a president who saw the threat to its existence as the most important fact that existed at the time of his inauguration. Canada, too, must survive, not as a group of individual, independent states or provinces, each adopting and following its own policies regardless of the interests of all the others, but as a federation of provinces concerned of course about their own prosperity and their own rights but dedicated to the development of a single great nation, in the prosperity and development of which all will share.
My own province of Quebec has a long and stirring history in which all of us whose heritage is French take pride. We have no wish to sacrifice our language or our religion; and no responsible person in Canada has ever suggested that we should. Neither do we have any wish to be considered apart from the rest of Canada nor to be looked upon as other than good Canadians. The Minister of Finance, who comes from the province of Quebec and who represents an important constituency in that province, recognized that fact in his budget address. He spoke in support of a principle which surely all of us here in this Canadian parliament must accept, the principle that this federation of Canadian provinces must be preserved and that no individual or group, from whatever misguided notions, shall have the right to destroy it.
World conditions imposed upon the minister the necessity of keeping our defence budget

at a high level, and thus made impossible the reductions in taxation which he and all members of the government would have liked to introduce. Taxes upon business continue to be heavy and this burden, made necessary by the continuing high cost of defence and other essential public services, constitutes a threat to our continued economic development.
It has already been pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that Canada, through high wages, taxation, and the high cost of operating in a country of great distances and great climatic variations is in danger of pricing itself out of world markets. This danger has already been demonstrated by the textile industry, which finds itself unable to compete with textile producers from other lands. Unless we are to weaken our defences and lower our standard of social security and pensions, we must continue to maintain our sources of revenue which come through taxation. I would suggest to the minister and to his successor as head of the Department of Finance that some consideration be given to a source which has until now been entirely overlooked both in this country and, I believe, in the United States.
Capitalist organizations are subject to taxes upon their earnings, whether these come from their own operations or from their investments. During the past years of full employment another group of capitalist organizations has developed and has remained tax free. I refer to the great labour unions with huge memberships. The unions receive dues from their members and in many cases have established large reserve funds which are invested in stocks and bonds and thus return dividends, or profits each year to the union. I have no argument with this. They are to be commended on their sane business acumen and foresight. I am pleased, as many others must be, to see that the labour unions are recognizing the importance of profits and thus are likely to be more concerned in the future than some of them have been in the past about the earnings of capitalist companies. The fact that many of these unions will share in the profits of these industries will bring a closer and more intimate understanding between capital and labour and we will all benefit by this mutual interest in the country's industries.
Neither do I suggest that any tax should be imposed upon capitalist labour organizations which is not also imposed upon other capitalist groups. All incorporated companies that make a profit pay taxes upon those profits. It seems only fair and equitable that labour unions which make a profit should be similarly taxed.
The Budget-Mr. Purdy
I have no figures for Canada, but I do have some astonishing figures indicating the extent of labour union profits in the United States and there seems to be no reason to think that the profits of Canadian unions, in many cases only the Canadian branches of American unions, should not be on a comparative basis. Writing in the Daily Mirror of New York on April 9 this year, Victor Riesel reported that Dave Beck, head of the teamsters union, told a California audience that his union has been earning an average profit of $113,000 a month on the stock market, or more than $1,500,000 a year. Riesel estimates that the union has some $5,000,000 invested in securities and has a reserve of some $32,000,000.
Just a month ago, Riesel reports further, the American Federation of Labor central labour union in Philadelphia employed a securities adviser formerly connected with a local brokerage house. The city's 195 unions will share the services of this adviser to make certain their funds are invested in the most potentially profitable stocks. The C.I.O. national maritime union recently deposited some $25,000,000 from one of its welfare funds in a bank for future investment.
The bigger unions, Riesel reports, have funds as high as $175,000,000. The international garment workers union earns about $1,000,000 a year on investments and the locomotive firemen and enginemen's union takes in $1,100,000 a year, according to recent reports.
The trend towards labour investments in the United States is increasing as reserve funds grow, and the same situation will develop in Canada. Here is a legitimate source of income or profits taxation which should not be overlooked and it is one which fairly tapped could only be welcomed by those who insist each year upon the imposition of higher and higher taxes upon profits. I offer the suggestion for serious consideration to the Minister of Finance who must welcome any new source which will permit him to maintain present high revenues without imposing undue hardship upon those who are already paying the nation's taxes.


Mr. G. T. Purdy (Colchesler-Hanls):: Mr. Speaker, one week ago today the people of Nova Scotia at Halifax buried a great chief to a province's, yes, to a nation's lamentation. I was a member of this house during the period of Angus L. Macdonald's labours here as minister of naval affairs. Following that, for the next four years, I was one of his bonnets in the legislature of Nova Scotia, the province he loved so dearly. Last year it was my privilege to carry his colours in the

The Budget-Mr. Purdy provincial election. I was not successful, but his government was again returned with a substantial majority.
In the early thirties it fell to the honour of Mr. C. P. Blanchard of Truro in my constituency, that of Colchester-Hants, to place the name of Mr. Macdonald in nomination in the provincial convention as our leader. At that time he was practically unknown in politics. From that time until his death I had been closely associated with him in political matters and am proud to say that I loved Angus L. Macdonald. His name has now been added to the long list of great political figures from that little province down by the sea who have gone to their great reward:	Howe, Thompson, Tupper,
Fielding, Borden, Ralston and scores of others. Angus Macdonald is gone, but his memory will remain in Nova Scotia forever.
One of his greatest ambitions in recent years was to lead the 100 pipers over the Canso causeway at the time of its opening. The causeway will be opened soon. The pipers will march, and the pipers will play, but instead of the colourful dress of the band, many of us will see through a veil of tears leading that procession the gallant figure of Angus L. Macdonald with his kilts swaying in the breeze and the tune we will hear will not be "The Road to the Isles", but "Flowers o' the Forest". While in the case of Angus L. Macdonald memory is not the only thing that grief can call its own, yet it was my hope that the causeway would be named after him. I understand, however, that Mrs. Macdonald has given her consent to the Halifax-Dartmouth bridge being named in his memory, which may interfere with this. The bridge is a provincial-municipal undertaking and I feel that the people of Canada as a whole would not wish that Nova Scotia alone be responsible for preserving in stone or some other suitable way forever and a day the memory of this great Canadian.
I suggest that the opening of the causeway, which is a federal-provincial undertaking, would be the time and place for such recognition and urge the minister from Nova Scotia and his associate the minister in charge of the historic sites and monuments board to take my suggestion into prompt and favourable consideration.
The late Joseph Howe, another great Nova Scotian, is responsible for these famous words:
A wise nation preserves its records . . . gathers up its muniments . . . decorates the tombs of its illustrious dead . . . repairs its great public structures and fosters national pride and love of country by perpetual reference to the sacrifices and glories of the past.
iMr. Purdv.l
Surely this nation would wish to profit by these words and see that the name of Angus L. Macdonald is associated with this great undertaking and his memory brought forcibly to the minds of those who pass that way so that they may be reminded that in our humble way we all have a part to play in developing this great Canada of ours. Further, it would once again bring home to us that "lives of great men all remind us we can make our lives sublime, and, departing, leave behind us footprints on the sands of time".
This afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I listened with deep interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Murphy) and other hon. members from the maritimes dealing with matters of importance to those provinces down by the sea. As a representative of Truro, which is the railway centre in Nova Scotia comparable to that of Moncton in New Brunswick, I wish to commend the hon. member for the words he used on behalf of our railway people.
Coming now to the other project mentioned, namely the Chignecto canal, having been born and brought up within sight of one of the surveys carried out on that project, and having travelled the route of the old Chignecto marine railway which it was thought would take the place of the canal but unfortunately did not develop, I would like to associate myself with the hon. member's request that the Chignecto canal be considered as the maritime end of the St. Lawrence waterway and developed along with that great undertaking. Surely the maritime provinces are quite within their rights in asking for that.
I do not propose this evening, Mr. Speaker, to go into the great problem of maritime rights except to draw to the attention of some hon. members who have not been here over the past few years the fact that we in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island have a heritage in regard to things which we believe were promised to us at the time of confederation but which have not yet been carried out.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we all wish to hear the speech of the hon. member and I would ask him, through you, sir, to speak a little louder because it is impossible for us to hear him over here.


Gordon Timlin Purdy: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly like the hon. member to hear what I have to say because if he had paid a little more attention to what I am saying than he has done over the past few months it would be much better for Canada.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I still could not hear that remark.


Gordon Timlin Purdy: Read it in Hansard. Now, sir, as I was saying, at the time of confederation we in the maritime provinces, as other hon. members brought out this afternoon, believed we had received certain promises. We thought we would be enabled to market our natural products in the central provinces through means of the Intercolonial railway and through other means which would enable us to make up what we were losing in our north and south trade. Without wishing to take up the time of the house on this point I would like to illustrate how that situation has developed up to the present time.
Today, Mr. Speaker, it costs me $22 per thousand to send my lumber to Toronto. On the other hand, a friend of mine in Windsor, Nova Scotia, who is in the plaster business- and I would like to remind the house that these are both natural products

has a net return of $8.30 per ton on plaster shipped to the Toronto market compared with $16.50 a ton for a comparable industry in Ontario. In other words, our people in the maritime provinces are not able to enter the central Canadian markets, as we were promised at the time of confederation, because if we did our workmen would have to work for just one-half the amount received by those employed in industry in the central provinces.
However, Mr. Speaker, this is the place but certainly not the time to develop this point further. It may be Nova Scotia has not developed as we thought she would under confederation, but we still love her and we are very glad to return to our native province when we are through here.


Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I have not heard such good news for some time as that which was related to the house tonight by the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean (Mr. Bourque) when he listed for us the millions of dollars the labour unions were beginning to pile up. I think that is a very good omen and I would like to see the day that when there is some difficulty across the bargaining table the labour union representatives do not immediately have to think of those who may be hungry at home if they do not kow-tow to the wishes of the employer. I would emphasize again how happy I am to hear that some of the labour unions now have such assets that they are compelled to employ investment advisers.
However, the hon. member did not mention one matter which I read about in that connection within the last few days, and that was the case of where one of those wealthy labour unions-and it was, I believe, the teamsters union-had helped out in refinancing a plant and were thereby able to
The Budget-Mr. Regier ensure the continued solvency of that plant as well as the security of their own employment. In view of the large earnings of those labour unions we might well give some thought to the possibility of the unions investing these moneys and the workers thereby enabled to become part owners or at least have a much more real personal interest in the welfare of a particular enterprise than they had when they were merely wage earners.
At this time I cannot help but comment on a thought which occurred to me recently when I reread the speech from the throne. Like many other hon. members, Mr. Speaker, I am at this moment attempting to make a guess for my family as regards how long this session may last. I therefore reread the speech from the throne in order to determine what work had been outlined there and with which we had not yet dealt. I noticed two matters. The St. Lawrence seaway project and pensions for the handicapped, and I reflected "well, is it not typical of the Liberal government in Canada that those things that would mean so very much to people all over Canada are being left to the very last." I sincerely hope, and this is my only reason for mentioning it, that this house is not going to go home for a summer recess on the understanding that pensions for the handicapped may be a possibility next year. I believe that since we have announced these pensions as far back as last fall we should not allow these people to wait for legislative action over such a long period of time. I believe we would have been more considerate of these people if we had completed the negotiating which was necessary before we made any announcement. These people are very, very hard up and a great many of them have been waiting many, many months wondering whether their standard of living is going to enjoy any change and how long they will have to wait before things improve.
In looking over this business of the national economy I notice that the gross national production last year is listed at some $24 billion. Then I notice that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) confidently predicts that there is going to be available for reinvestment purposes in Canada this year the sum of $6 billion. Out of a gross national production of $24 billion, $6 billion means that out of every four dollars' worth of goods that were produced last year, one dollar has been laid aside and is available within the national economy for reinvestment purposes. At this time when our home market needs a boost, I think that percentage is out of all proportion to what it ought to be.
4140	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Regier
If you take into consideration the net national production, the situation is much worse. There is a great deal of money being made in Canada. I should also point out that the $6 billion is a great deal more even than this federal government-which on the whole renders a great many services to the people of the nation-receives from the people by way of taxation. When we hear of the criticism that the federal government is spending too much money, I think we should see the thing in its proper light and should remember that there is even more money available for reinvestment than is being used by all the activities of the federal government.
I think that the greatest evil or harm of this large amount available for reinvestment purposes, however, lies in the purposes for which this money is going to be used. We have in Canada surpluses of almost all the basic commodities that we produce. Yet the managers of this investment money are this year proposing to build still more mills and still more factories to turn out yet more goods that we already cannot sell. Therefore, as my leader has done once before this year, I would advocate that it is time a national investment board were set up. We have great need for investment in this new land of ours. However, our investment at this time should be in durable consumer goods such as highways, hospitals, schools, more modern penitentiaries and other like social measures. A national investment board would be able to give some direction to the flow of investment money that is available within the nation.
I should like to make just a few remarks also on a part of the budget address given by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). I notice that he went to great lengths to express his satisfaction at the fact that the soft-currency areas of the world were rapidly gaining that blissful state known as convertibility. I am sure we all look forward to the day when nations can buy and sell wherever they wish to sell in the world, and will have the money with which to complete the necessary transactions. However, we in the C.C.F. have always advocated that this business of convertibility should be handled by an international agency under the auspices of the United Nations. What has happened? Under an international agency all the "have" nations of the world would assume their share of the responsibility. The rest of the world is improving the value of their money in terms of the United States dollar merely by means of learning to get along without it. This does not affect the Americans nearly as much as it affects us. I understand that if the need arose they really have to rely on the export market for only some 2 per cent of


their national output whereas we, a country with only about one-tenth of the population of the United States and even greater natural resources, must export or die; and by "die", I mean suffer the pangs of the hungry thirties all over again.
Those who are operating the United States economy do not seem to be much concerned about what happens to the Canadian economy when convertibility is established in the soft-currency areas of the world. It does not hurt them but it certainly hurts the primary producer of our land. It is extremely hard for Canadians to sit idly by and accept the assurances coming from the Canadian cabinet that everything will be all right when we see the people of Australia ordering Russian salmon which they do not like as much as they like our salmon and paying for it more money than they would have to pay for our salmon only because they have not the United States dollars with which to buy our salmon. I think that is maybe putting the situation crudely, but it is putting it in language that the Canadian primary producer, especially the fisherman, is well able to understand. The same thing applies to the sales of Canadian wheat, Canadian lumber, Canadian apples and all the other basic primary commodities of Canada.
Each day I am in the house I spend much of my time looking at the front seats of the government and observing the reactions I can see there. I never saw them look more unhappy than they looked on the day they returned from the economic conference in Washington and the report that was given us told us exactly what we were afraid it would tell us. It told us that they had received a polite "no" over in Washington. I think it is time that we insisted to our good friends south of the border that, much as we like world-wide convertibility, we do not want it to come about at the expense of our markets.
I now come to my last major subject. The first plank in the platform of the British Columbia section of the C.C.F. calls for the establishment of a permanent dominion-provincial secretariat. We believe that there are plenty of dominion-provincial difficulties with which to occupy the full time of such a secretariat. We believe that the situation as to the federal government versus the Quebec government would never have arisen if there had been a permanent dominion-provincial secretariat in operation in the past ten or fifteen years; we do not think that such basic differences of outlook in the Canadian economy would have arisen. We believe that almost every department of government would be involved in such a secretariat. We have these meetings taking place all the

time. I understand that there is one taking place right now on a relatively minor matter, namely in regard to interprovincial trucking on the highways. We hear of these meetings every once in a while.
We think it would be much more satisfactory if some kind of permanent arrangement were made. I think that a dominion-provincial conference would also help to emphasize to the federal authority the needs of the lower levels of government. I doubt very much whether there is one provincial government in Canada now that has the resources in relation to its obligations available to it that the federal government has. Over and above the powers of taxation the federal government also has wide fiscal and monetary powers which it has used on past occasions and is able to use again. I do not think there is a municipality in the whole Dominion of Canada that has resources in relation to its obligations as adequate as those of the federal government.
I am thinking of the needs of possibly the smallest unit of local government, our public and high school boards. I am thinking of those in charge of looking after our educational needs. These needs are growing all the time but very little is done. It may be said that five-year agreements are made but in five years a great deal can happen so far as the needs of these lower levels of government are concerned. In five years a lot can happen to the value of money. I believe it was the Rowell-Sirois report which came out with the flat statement that if the upper levels of government would exercise the same measure of economy as was being exercised by the local municipal governments our nation would have nothing to worry about.
One does not have to be around here very long to realize the great disparity between the value of money here and the value of money to the volunteer municipal official back home whose obligations, I maintain, are just as important as those of this government. Yet even though he is sacrificing night after night of his time year after year in performing such work he is unable to satisfy himself that he is meeting these responsibilities. At the present time our municipalities have special local growing pains. I should like to advocate a policy of very low interest loans for self-liquidating municipal undertakings in order to help our rapidly growing municipalities to meet their needs. I should like to see the federal government assume full responsibility for all the main highways of the Dominion of Canada. I should like to see the provincial governments assume responsibility for all secondary highways and the municipal governments take over the local or market roads, as I believe we usually call them.
The Budget-Mr. Regier
This is one matter which could be ironed out by a permanent dominion-provincial secretariat, and I am sure that eventually agreement would be reached. I am certain of one thing, that we would not have the federal government agreeing to pay one-half the cost of a large section of the trans-Canada highway in one part of British Columbia when that highway, we are given to understand on good authority, is going to be flooded by a huge hydro development possibly even before it is fully completed.
With respect to the field of health services, if you look at the outlay by provincial governments for such services you will see that high costs are making it impossible for Ihe provincial governments to fulfil some of their other responsibilities. So far as housing is concerned, we heard numerous speakers emphasize during the housing debate that the housing act does provide for dominion-provincial-municipal agreements for low cost rental housing. The fact remains, however, that this provision has been on the statute books for a goodly number of years and the municipalities and provincial governments have not taken advantage of it. Some speakers have taken them severely to task for not taking advantage of the legislation.
I submit there is something wrong with the legislation. The municipal and provincial governments are as interested in low rental housing as the federal government but their resources are so limited that even though the terms offered to them for low rental housing may seem adequate when viewed from the federal sphere they do not seem adequate to those people who have to take the initiative in the matter.
In the field of education Canada faces a serious crisis. I know there are constitutional difficulties involved but I am going to stick my neck out, as it were, and offer an easy short-cut. I do not do so lightly. I have taken up the matter with a number of educational officials from time to time and they think the idea is at least worth putting forward. I think our teacher shortage might well be overcome if the federal government, in lieu of something else, would offer to pay directly to every teacher, certified as registered and engaged in teaching by a provincial government, a grant of $1,000 a year. I think that would meet with quite a favourable reception as an immediate measure that could be undertaken to eliminate the supervising of classrooms of thirty-five or forty youngsters by grade 9 or grade 10 students. That situation exists from one end of Canada to the other today and something has to be

The Budget-Mr. Regier done about it or those teachers who really are teachers are soon going to leave the field in even greater numbers.
I should like to emphasize again that this business of democracy that we talk so much about has its foundations in the lower levels of government and not in the federal government. Democracy is built from the bottom up and the people who build democracy in Canada today are our local parks board commissioners, our school board members, our municipal councillors, our mayors, our provincial governments, and to a certain extent also the federal government. But the most important part of democracy is to be found in the lower levels of government. Let us give them the tools and they will do the job.
We find that sometimes they are obliged to resort to very desperate measures. In British Columbia we have a 5 per cent retail sales tax. In the province of Saskatchewan there is a sales tax and also in the province of Quebec. There is a sales tax in some municipalities. Do we want to force all our municipalities to levy sales taxes? Some municipalities levy poll taxes. Some are forced to raise their licence fees, thereby hindering commercial development. Yes, these lower levels of government need more revenue and that revenue can be allotted to them without impinging upon their constitutional rights. It is being done and has been done for years and years. The federal government has rendered assistance to the lower levels of government. To my mind it has not been adequate but they have done so and I think it is time they did so more adequately and showed that they have some confidence in democracy.
However, we in the C.C.F. do not agree with the Conservative amendment which says that a dominion-provincial conference should be called for the purpose of bringing about a reallocation of taxing authority. I think, to be exact, the words are "reallocation of taxing powers". I do not believe any municipal government wants the right to levy a sales tax. I believe all provincial governments would very much like to abolish their sales taxes. I believe that the less taxing levels of government we have, the better we will be. However, they must have more revenue.
We agree with the Conservative amendment that some tax reduction is possible. We especially do not like the excise tax. We regret that concessions were made to luxury goods. I feel that a concession to the automotive industry would have been much wiser than a concession to those buying fur coats, hunting equipment and the like. We believe there is a good deal of waste and no effort


is being made to conduct a proper efficiency survey on the operations of this $5 billion a year undertaking known as the federal government.
We agree with the Conservative amendment that this government is doing nothing towards helping to solve the unemployment problem, and that the inaction of this government has lost for us the major share of our overseas markets. However, we are unable to agree with the Conservatives when they say that a dominion-provincial conference should be called for the purpose of reallocating the powers of taxation.


Mr. Charles Yuill (Jasper-Edson):: In rising to take part in this debate, I should like to draw the attention of the house to a few of the things that would perhaps enhance the situation of the farm industry. Coming as I do from an agricultural constituency, I feel that it might be important to mention a few of the ways and means that this government could use to enhance the take-home pay of those who participate in this greatest industry in Canada.
Since agriculture is the major industry of the country, and since we have had three bumper wheat crops in a row, the equivalent of approximately five average crops, one might think that every one in the agricultural industry would be prosperous. A glance at the record does not indicate this to be so. The figures I am about to quote are taken from briefs submitted to the government of Canada by the interprovincial farm union council. We find that farm income has taken a drop of $137,270,000 in one year, that is from $2,811,949,000 in 1952 to $2,674,679,000 in 1953. At the same time, the farm debt in the three prairie provinces increased from $367 million in 1946 to $486 million in 1952 and chartered bank loans increased from $283 million in 1952 to $381 million in 1953.
Borrowings under the Farm Improvement Loans Act were increased from $85 million in 1952 to $98 million in 1953, and there has been an increase in applications for loans in 1953 of 33 per cent over the previous year. This does not indicate prosperity. There are many contributing factors to this unhappy situation. It is not a matter of overproduction but rather one of underconsumption, caused by lack of proper distribution, that aggravates the situation. Until this government is willing to put into circulation sufficient credit or currency to equate our ability to consume with our ability to produce within Canada, and to trade on a mutually advantageous basis with other trader nations by accepting the currency of those countries in

payment for our products, there is little hope for a prosperous industry in Canada, be it agriculture or anything else.
There are other things the government could do to stabilize the agricultural industry. They could keep an eye on the unfair practices and exorbitant price fixing of the farm implement manufacturers. They could investigate the alarming increase in the price of fertilizer as well as the unfair practices of the packing plants and their unreasonable spread between the price paid to the producer and the price charged to the consumer. There should also be closer observation of the methods of grading and mixing of coarse grains at the lakehead.
Returning to the price of farm machinery, may I say that since price controls were removed in 1946 the rate of increase in the price far exceeds the increase in production costs. While it is true that wage rates in the farm machinery manufacturing industry have increased it is also a fact that owing to the rapid mechanical and technological advances in the industry the average output per worker has increased to the extent that the labour cost per manufactured unit has been greatly lowered. In 1945 the average output per worker in dollars was $2,223, while in 1950 it was $4,218. On the other hand, wages and salaries in the industry constituted 42-4 per cent of the gross selling value in 1945, and this dropped until in 1950 the percentage was only 28-9.
Furthermore, the operation of the Farm Improvement Loans Act has greatly reduced the credit losses, collection costs and administration costs of farm machinery producers. With these facts in mind, it does seem advisable that an inquiry should be made into this situation.
Let us turn now to fertilizer. Today the use of fertilizer is almost a necessity. Year by year the use of artificial fertilizer has been increased. However, the cost has increased to the point where farmers cannot afford to buy this product. This will have a decided effect upon production and the farmers' income as well. One company, the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company of Canada, seems to have a monopoly on the manufacture of fertilizer in western Canada. The price of fertilizer has doubled in the last ten years, and seems to be still advancing. From 1940 to 1945, sulphate of ammonia, the chief source of nitrogen, was produced at a plant in Calgary owned by the federal government at an average cost of $19 per ton, while at Trail and Welland it cost $29 per ton. When the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company took over the government owned plant at Calgary in 1946, the price
The Budget-Mr. Yuill was raised to $40 per ton and is still going up. I am told that today it is about $118 per ton.
Let us see what has happened to our livestock industry. Taking the records of the three largest delivery points, Montreal, Toronto and Winnipeg, we find the average price paid for all grades of cattle in 1951, as compared with 1953, are as follows: In Montreal in 1951 a farmer received $24.82 per hundred, and in 1953, that price was reduced to $14.31 per hundred. In Toronto in 1951, the price received was $29.70, and in 1953 it was reduced to $17.34. In Winnipeg in 1951 the price for livestock was $27.40, while in 1953 it was $14.70. This shows a decrease of 43 per cent in two years.
Is it any wonder the producer is worried? I fail to see why cattle prices should have been reduced so drastically-certainly not because of our supply! We find, according to the September issue of "Current Review of Agricultural Conditions in Canada", issued by the Department of Agriculture, that we in Canada consume 95 per cent of all the cattle we raise. We find that the latest statistics show stocks of meat held by packers, abattoirs, and cold storage warehouses as of December 1, 1953, were 13 million pounds less than on December 1, 1952. This gives the lie to the supply-and-demand argument as the reason for declining prices.
Examining the long term trend of livestock numbers, as it is related to human population, we find that in 1900 Canada had 1,278 cattle per 1,000 population, while in 1953 we had only 784 cattle per 1,000 people. Considering Canada and the United States jointly, we had only 66 per cent as many cattle in 1953 as we had in 1900.
The latest figures compiled from national revenue taxation statistics for 1951 show the entire meat industry had, after taxation, a net profit of over seven and a half million dollars, the equivalent of 30 per cent of the share capital, while the producer had to settle for not much more than fifty cents on the dollar in the sale price of his cattle. This proves that the packing plants have been having a field day at the expense of the producers and consumers alike.
Since lifting of the controls that were in effect during the war the packing plants have been taking the public for all the traffic will bear. There was a time when you could see some evidence of compatibility between livestock prices and the wholesale prices of the finished products-but not any more! In many cases the quality of their products has deteriorated, and the wholesale prices do not reflect any relationship between the rail grade price and the wholesale price.

The Budget-Mr. Yuill
The packers never miss an opportunity to make some easy money. I know what I am talking about because I have over 43 years of experience in the retail trade and do not have to go out of my own shop to prove what I say. I mentioned in my maiden speech an incident that occurred last Easter, a year ago. As many of you know, there is an extra demand for smoked hams at Easter. Just before the butchers had an opportunity to purchase their supply of Easter hams the packers went into a huddle and decided overnight to raise the price of smoked hams eight cents a pound, in spite of the fact that rail grade price of hogs had dropped 65 cents per hundredweight.
I have seen the price of cooked hams and bacon go up as much as ten cents per pound overnight, with little or no justification. When top rail grade prices for hogs range from 28j to 33 cents per pound, can anyone tell me why the wholesale price of cooked ham should be $1.02 to $1.06 per pound, or why sliced back bacon should be sold at 95 cents a pound wholesale? It will be hard to convince me that these prices are necessary to make a fair margin of profit.
There are many other indications that the producer is not getting his share. In the beef market the producer is again at the mercy of the packing plants, particularly if he has an off-type animal which, in spite of its grade, invariably finds its way well up the grade when offered for sale at wholesale. They try to justify their tactics by the old story of supply and demand. Assuming they are right, do you not think the producer should enjoy the fruits of his labour and share in this increase?
Another thing that has caused the farmer some concern is why he was not considered in the price support extended during the hoof-and-mouth epidemic? The farmer was told, by inference at least, that there was nothing to worry about, that he would still receive the basic floor price of around 23 J cents per pound, and that then all would be well.
You can imagine their surprise and disappointment when they sold their heavy hogs, into the raising of which they had put all their extra grain and a great deal of extra labour, for as low as 11 -J cents per pound, or only 50 per cent of the prices expected.
The government then turned around and paid the packers 60 cents per pound to process hogs for which, in some cases, they had only paid 11J cents. Surely the farmers should have received the subsidy. I suggest that the government take immediate steps to check and put a stop to these unfair practices,
[Mr. Yuill.1

for one can see how such practices affect the purchasing power of the consumer and jeopardize the interests of the producers as well.
I am sure that all the farmer wants is to be allowed to sell his produce on the open market at a reasonable profit and buy his machinery and other necessities on the same basis.


Mr. J. A. Charlton (Branl-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, I believe I would be voicing the opinion of many people throughout the country if I were to say that this has been the most disappointing budget we have had in a number of years. Of course there is very good reason for it: there is no election in the offing for at least the next year or so. We know that this year the government did not feel the budget had to be as attractive as it did last year.
The strange fact, however, is that while taxes were reduced on many luxuries, they were maintained on what we consider the necessities of life. For instance, I do not believe anyone would suggest that fishing rods, golf clubs and cameras are necessities. I am wondering why the government has taken this position. Could it be because this is the last budget the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) will bring down, and that he might have wanted to help out some of his friends who like to go on fishing and hunting trips?


Mr. Cardiff:: Probably the minister wants to go fishing.


John Alpheus Charlton: Yes, probably he goes fishing at times, too. It is true that the tax on tires and tubes was reduced by five per cent. But another strange fact is that there has been no reduction in the prices of new automobiles usually equipped with four or five new tires and tubes. Is the manufacturer absorbing this five per cent? Certainly it is not being passed on to the consumer.
The budget offers no relief for the unemployed; it offers no relief to industry or to the individual. I had intended to say a few words about agriculture, but I shall not speak at length on this subject because I shall have another opportunity to do so when the estimates of the Department of Agriculture are under consideration.
Many people in urban districts seem to feel that farmers are getting away without paying income tax. Some might be doing so-I am not prepared to say. But I can say, Mr. Speaker, that as a general rule farmers are not trying to get away with anything in connection with the filing of income tax returns. Some farmers have not made out income tax forms because they have felt they did not make enough to pay income tax. They did not feel they were making enough money to

bring themselves within the taxation brackets, and therefore they felt it was not necessary to complete the forms.
The policy now being followed by the income tax branch in demanding net worth statements from farmers who have not made out income tax forms is most unfair and unjust. Some of the inspectors-I will not say all of them-who have had nothing to do with farming during their lifetime are not very sympathetic. They seem to think the farmers are getting away with something. When they make out returns for a farmer they do not make any effort to consider his position favourably. I wonder how many members in the house would want to come into the house in the evening and make bookkeeping entries after working on a farm from six o'clock in the morning until six o'clock at night, out in the air all that time, and doing hard work.
It is not usual for farmers to do that sort of thing. Probably they keep a little notebook in their hip pockets and a short pencil, about two inches long, to do their bookkeeping; but when the inspectors come around to the farms and figure out an arbitrary assessment of a farmer's income the main thing they are looking for is what the farmer's living has cost him. I refer to that part of his living which he has taken off his farm. I have been told by many farmers that these inspectors wanted to charge them $2.50 for every chicken eaten in the farm home. I am sure that most hon. members would agree that that would be ridiculous. I have one case in my riding where an inspector insisted on charging $2.50 for every chicken that the farmer had eaten in his own home. Probably that is the retail price that the inspector would have to pay for a chicken if he bought it in the store, but that surely could not be any justification for charging the farmer at that rate.
I had a case a few years ago where inspectors wrote to various farmers in the district and advised them to meet the inspector some 30 odd miles from the farmers' homes, at nine o'clock in the morning in a hotel room. Although most farmers might make a special effort to get up a little earlier and to get through their chores by nine o'clock, certainly they could not very well drive 30 miles and be there at nine o'clock and take all their books with them. Then, if they missed one little item they probably would have to drive back 30 miles to pick it up while the inspector sat in the very comfortable hotel room waiting for the man to come to him. Those are some of the injustices carried out by some of the inspectors-I will not say all.
The Budget-Mr. Charlton
In view of the tax relief given by the government of the United States, it is reasonable to say that our manufacturers in this country are to be put to a further disadvantage in supplying both the domestic and the export market. I ask this question: Would anyone in this House of Commons expect a horse to go into a race with hobbles on him? That is exactly what this government is asking industry to do. It is hobbled with high taxation, and yet the government expects industry in this country to compete not only in the domestic market but in the export market as well, and I include agriculture.
Many of the manufacturers in foreign countries are working at much lower costs than we are, and even in many instances under controlled currencies at low levels which give them a further advantage over our industries here. The minister has admitted that some industries in the country are under distressed conditions. He has said, and I quote two small passages from his budget speech at page 3726 of Hansard:
Until quite recently our industries have been protected more by external shortages than by our traditional tariff structure. This special form of protection is now disappearing, and some of our industries are finding that they have not watched their costs as carefully as they should, that their break-even points are uncomfortably high, and that their costs and prices are out of line.
A little further on in the same speech he said:
The re-emergence of keen competition in trade means readjustment and reappraisal. It means a sharpening of pencils and a careful re-examination of managerial and labour efficiency. This is not an easy process, but it is a very necessary one, and the longer it is postponed the more difficult it becomes.
These words could be quite naturally directed right back at the government. Have they made any attempt to readjust their costs of government? Have they made any attempt at all to sharpen their pencils and to do a little soul-searching of their own efficiencies or inefficiencies in the administration of government? Not that we can see or find in this budget. I would suggest to the Minister of Finance that before he castigates industry and tells them to cut costs, this government should sharpen its pencils and do a little in that direction.
Take for instance the textile industry. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) made it quite plain that he was not ready to assist that industry in any way other than by the passage of Bill No. 29. He made that statement before the textile union when they interviewed him. Is the textile industry necessary in this country or is it not? If it is
4146	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Charlton necessary in time of war, then surely to goodness it is equally necessary to keep it alive in times of peace.


Mr. Wood:: How much bonus do they need?


John Alpheus Charlton: The hon. member will have his opportunity to make a speech after I am through, if he will choose to do so. The textile industry in this country, as the government well knows, is in very great difficulties. Many of the factories have closed down permanently. Many more are working a short week. There are four such industries in my riding all working on short time, and have been for quite some time, and yet the government refuses to do practically anything for them. In the event of another war, which heaven forbid, the textile industry would be one of the most important industries we have, because certainly in this country, or in any northern country, clothing has a very important part to play in any army.
The textile industry has employed over 100,000 people during the past few years. It is one of the largest employers of labour we have in Canada. I understand that today fewer than 80,000 people are employed in that industry, and even though 80,000 are apparently employed, many of them are working three days a week or less. Surely something more concrete can be done than has been done so far for this important industry.
Another industry that is under great stress is the agricultural implement industry, which is directly affected by the economic difficulties of the farmers across Canada. The government has spent much time making statements across the country about how valuable a large store of wheat is to Canada. That may be true; but, Mr. Speaker, if I had a dining-room full of gold bullion I could not buy anything with it until I sold it. The same is true of wheat. The wheat will buy nothing until it is turned into cash, and certainly the farmers in the west or in the east cannot buy the equipment of the agricultural equipment manufacturing concerns unless they have the cash to do so. I want to commend the labour organizations that brought the brief before the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) some time ago. The U.A.W.-C.I.O. of Brantford were among them. I want to commend them for realizing just how important farmers are to their livelihood.
Cheap food and employment do not and cannot go together. If farmers cannot get a reasonable amount for their produce then certainly the employers who are manufacturing farming equipment will not be able to employ the workers to make these implements whatever the cost may be because the farmers
[Mr. Charlton. 1

are not going to be in a position to buy them. It would therefore seem that labour is finally recognizing the buying power held by the farming community. Farmers today are not buying because they are afraid to let go of the dollars they now have for fear of future prices.
Another industry affected is the electrical industry, and, of course, agriculture, as I pointed out before. Dealing with one case alone with regard to the agricultural industry I would like to draw to the attention of the house the recent importation of onions. I read a piece in the newspaper a week ago which recounted that 243 carloads of onions have been brought in from the United States and sold in this country compared with 17 carloads of Canadian onions sold here. Many tons of Canadian onions are being dumped and used as fertilizer while American onions are being brought in to compete against our own product. The same thing can be said as regards the peach growers, potato growers, celery growers, strawberry growers, tomato growers, and last but not least the dairy-farmers of Canada.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there is just one other point I want to mention which has been brought out very well indeed by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt). This was in regard to resident mutual insurance corporations. This was dealt with in item 6 as reported at page 3736 of Hansard on April 6 during the budget speech and reads as follows:
For the taxation of a resident mutual insurance corporation, other than a life insurance corporation, as though the surplus arising from its insurance activities on and after January 1, 1954 were a profit from a business . . .
The remainder of the quotation has to do with non-resident mutual companies. As I have already pointed out, the hon. member for Oxford has set out the position in which these companies find themselves, and I fully concur with all he said regarding their difficulties. These companies were set up to help farmers who ordinarily could not obtain insurance from any other source for most of the bigger companies are in different fields and they do not wish to undertake farm risks. Again, these companies were set up more or less as co-operatives to help the farmers out, but in spite of the fact that they are trying to help themselves under difficult conditions it seems they will have to pay this huge income tax to keep from building up a surplus in their own companies.
I have had several telegrams and letters from such insurance companies in my own riding and in one case in particular the company's risks during the period 1941 until 1953

have risen nine times. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult for a company whose risks are increasing at that rate to build up the kind of surplus referred to by the hon. member for Oxford and which is necessary under an act of the Ontario government. In the case of a risk which is greater than $25 million they have to have a reserve of 60 cents for every $100 carried, and that increases to one dollar on a risk of $2 million, so that one can well understand how difficult it is for these smaller mutual insurance companies to carry on paying income tax on their earned surplus and at the same time be able to build up a surplus sufficient to comply with the Ontario government act.
I do not feel it is necessary for me to go over many of the points raised earlier, but I concur with the remarks made by the hon. member for Oxford and the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith) in this regard, and I believe the government should reconsider their position with regard to these mutual insurance companies. The supreme court passed a ruling last year and this budget apparently affects that ruling.
There is one other thing I wish to deal with for a moment and that is to commend the work carried on by the Grand valley conservation authority, and also the Grand river anti-pollution committee. In addition, I would like to commend the government for reducing the taxation on equipment being purchased by municipalities by 10 per cent, and I would like to suggest that they go a little further and aid the municipalities along the Grand river who are now dumping raw sewage into the river and creating extremely unhealthy conditions. It is entirely unfit for children to swim or bathe in the river. It is now getting to the point where fish being taken from the Grand river at its mouth are being refused by dealers in New York and Montreal because of their flavour. That means a great deal to fishermen who depend on these fishing grounds for their living. It meant as much as $1,500 in two weeks for one fisherman down there so one can readily see how great this problem is. It is difficult for these municipalities to carry the burden of this sewage disposal without some assistance. I know there have been many resolutions forwarded both to the provincial and the dominion governments, and I would ask this government to consider giving assistance in some way in conjunction with the provincial government so that they can develop sewage disposal plants in the cities and towns along the river where the pollution is so great at the present time.
As I pointed out before, the children are being deprived of their swimming and the
The Budget-Mr. Poulin odour is terrible along the river especially at the lower end. The town of Dunnville has to depend on the Grand river for its water supply in the same way as the city of Brantford and other towns. It will cost a tremendous amount of money for the cities to put in these sewage disposal plants and I would urge this government to co-operate with the provincial government in granting money to deal with this problem.
(Translation):


Mr. Raoul Poulin (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take the opportunity afforded me by this debate to make a few more brief comments on a matter I have already discussed on various occasions in this house, that is the production and sale of margarine in Canada.
I do not intend to pose as a prophet or as a Mr. I-told-you-so; nevertheless, even if it seemed utopic during some years to defend, on the floor of the house, the dairy producers against margarine producers, those who did so, and I was not alone in doing it, had at least a foreboding of what is taking place today. And what is happening now-official statistics are there to prove it-is that butter consumption has decreased in Canada since the introduction of margarine, that is since about 1948.
I wish to quote official figures from a pamphlet published by our national dairy council.
According to those statistics, 370 million pounds were consumed in Canada in 1948. In 1953, that is five years later, the consumption had declined to 328 million, or 42 million less, or a decrease of 11 per cent. On the other hand, the same statistics inform us that the butter consumption of our population was 28-7 pounds per capita, whereas it fell to 22-2 per capita in 1953, which is a decrease of 6 * 5 pounds per capita, or 23 per cent. This is a substantial decrease both in total and per capita consumption.
Moreover, we have today, in stock, at the beginning of the butter-producing season, the highest surplus we ever had. The quantities of butter now held by the government, thanks to its excellent butter-purchasing policy, amount to approximately 30 million pounds. If we add to this the quantity held by private individuals, we arrive at an approximate figure of 45 million pounds at present in stock in this country. And this at the very moment when the new production is arriving on the Canadian market.

The Budget-Mr. Poulin
I do not hesitate to say that this creates, to my way of thinking, a dangerous situation for the 445,000 dairy farmers of this country and also for the majority of Canadian workers. I will be asked, and quite rightly so, how it is that an overproduction of butter can constitute a threat to the workingman in this country.
The answer to this seems quite simple. Two million people in Canada live mainly from dairying. That means more than two million people who consume those things manufactured by the workers of our towns and villages. And these people, I must add, are no ordinary consumers. If we compare the amount devoted to the purchase of consumer goods in the case of the workingman on the one hand and in that of the farmer, on the other, we will find that in the latter case, this amount is enormously larger. As it happens, not only does the farmer consume personal goods such as clothes, food, household equipment, automobiles, etc., but he is also a large purchaser of articles for farm use: agricultural implements, chemical fertilizer, prepared feeds, drainage equipment, building materials, etc. It is therefore no exaggeration to state that the most important consumers in this country are the farmers.
We find there the economic explanation of the fact that every time the agricultural industry is having trouble in Canada, almost immediately we are faced with demoralizing unemployment among the labouring people of our cities. It has been so during the economic depression of 1929-1939; the same thing has happened again during the past few months, although on an evidently much reduced scale.
Farm incomes started to decrease in 1952 and they have fallen again in 1953 and, that same year, our country began to feel the impact of unemployment. I would like to quote here official statistics, which surely cannot be contested because they are taken from the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons, No. 85, of April 5, 1954. On



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall continue this debate. If it is concluded, we shall take the bill having to do with the Vocational Training Co-ordination Act, then the one in connection with the Research Council Act, then the one having to do with the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, and then the resolution standing in the name of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) with respect to crown corporations.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, April 27, 1954