1955-01-17

INCOME TAX


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short statement about the developments resulting from the imposition of a provincial income tax in the province of Quebec.
As all hon. members are aware, I had a meeting with the premier of Quebec, at his request, on October 5 last in Montreal. Mr. Duplessis indicated, at that time, that he was considering proposing certain amendments to the provincial income tax law which he hoped might make possible some temporary agreement which would give both governments a further opportunity to arrive at more satisfactory permanent arrangements. He undertook, at that time, to write to me indicating the nature of the changes it was proposed to make in the provincial income tax and to suggest a basis for a temporary agreement.
In a letter dated November 1, he indicated the changes he was prepared to make in order to reach an agreement for the deduction of the provincial tax from the federal tax.
Since the receipt of his letter, my colleagues and I have been giving the most careful consideration to the problem and during the course of that consideration it was arranged by the two governments that some of our officials would visit Quebec to secure certain factual information without which it was not possible to have a complete picture of what, I am sure all hon. members will agree, are some of the most difficult and complex problems we face in the practical working of our Canadian confederation, namely, the appropriate fiscal relationships between the federal and provincial governments.
The problem of finding any basis for a temporary agreement was complicated by the fact that the Quebec income tax act provided different exemptions and a different apportionment from the federal Income Tax Act. The more we studied the problem the clearer it became that if, as always has been our policy, the same treatment in respect of federal taxes was to be available to Canadian
taxpayers in whatever province they lived, we could not agree to the deduction from the federal tax of the tax imposed in one province unless in similar circumstances and without too seriously affecting federal revenues we could agree to the deduction of a similar tax imposed in any other province.
Mr. Duplessis had, however, indicated in his letter that the probable yield from the provincial tax was equal to about 10 per cent of the total of the federal income tax collected in the province of Quebec. This statement led us to consider whether, in some way which could be applied in any province, it would be possible to make room for the collection of a provincial tax which would yield 10 per cent of the federal tax in that province, without the necessity of any taxpayer in the province having to pay a higher tax that he would have to pay on the same income in any other province.
The estimated figures of tax yields in all the provinces for 1954 were carefully scrutinized and it appeared from these figures that it would be possible to reduce the federal tax by 10 per cent in any province which preferred not to have a tax rental agreement, and still safeguard the revenues necessary to meet our irreducible national responsibilities.
The estimates of the yields for 1954 and figures for previous years were carefully examined to see whether a greater reduction, which would have to be available to any province, would be possible. In the light of our responsibilities to the whole Canadian people we reached the conclusion that we could not, at this time, recommend any reduction greater than 10 per cent of the federal tax in a province which did not have a tax rental agreement.
At the present time a taxpayer having to pay a provincial income tax may claim a deduction up to 5 per cent of his federal tax. There are administrative difficulties and complications for taxpayers in deducting a portion of one tax from another, but what is even more serious, this method makes the real incidence of the provincial tax depend on the terms of the federal law and makes the total amount deducted from the federal tax depend on the terms of the provincial law. We feel that it would be more satisfactory to reduce the federal income tax by a fixed percentage in any province which imposes and collects a provincial tax and

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Relations thereby let both federal and provincial taxes stand on their own feet without either government having to provide for a deduction of one tax from the other.
I have, accordingly, advised the premiers of all the provinces that we propose, pending the results of a new federal-provincial conference, to ask parliament to amend the federal income tax law in order to make a reduction of 10 per cent for all taxpayers of any province where a provincial income tax is levied on income for the years 1955 and 1956. At the same time we will ask parliament to release from its present tax rental agreement any province which would prefer the new arrangement.
We also intend to propose that income tax payers who have actually paid a provincial income tax on their 1954 income be allowed a deduction up to 10 per cent of their federal tax. In practice, of course, this higher deduction for 1954 will be applicable only to taxpayers who have paid the Quebec income tax because no other province had a provincial income tax in operation in 1954.
In any case the figures already available make it clear that the rentals for the personal and corporation income tax fields in every province for 1954 will be greater than the amount the provincial governments could have raised from a 7 per cent tax on corporation incomes and a personal income tax equal to 10 per cent of the federal tax.
These proposed amendments are intended only as a stopgap arrangement pending the conclusion of any long term arrangements for the period following the expiry of the present tax rental agreements.
As hon. members know it had always been understood that it would be necessary to hold a federal-provincial conference before the end of 1955 to discuss fiscal arrangements for the years which will follow.
In the light of the recent developments, it may be the desire of the provincial governments to have this conference held at an earlier date. I have addressed letters to the premiers of all the provinces outlining the proposal I have just mentioned and inviting the nine provinces which have tax rental agreements to indicate whether they would prefer to take advantage of the proposed new arrangement. In these letters I have indicated that shortly after my return from the commonwealth prime ministers' meeting in London I shall communicate with them further with the view to working out arrangements for a conference at a time which will be satisfactory to all governments concerned.
I should like now to table the letters I have exchanged with the premier of Quebec and the letter I addressed to the premiers of the other nine provinces.


Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Acting Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have little comment to make on the report of the proposed action by the government given by the Prime Minister, with the accompanying letters, but I would hope that he might indicate to the house how soon this conference will be held. We on this side are very glad that a dominion-provincial conference is now in the offing.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, as I have just stated, as soon as I get back from the London conference I intend to communicate with the provincial premiers to arrange a date for the next federal-provincial conference which will be satisfactory to all governments.


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: Could the letters which the Prime Minister has tabled be printed as an appendix to Hansard for today by consent?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the unanimous wish of hon. members that this be done?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(For text of correspondence above referred to, see appendix, pages 277 to 282.)

PERSONNEL OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE	[DOT]


Mr. W. G. Weir (Parliamentary Assistant to the Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in compliance with the motion of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) on Friday last, I move:
That Messrs. Applewhaite, Benidickson, Boisvert, Brooks, Brown (Essex West), Churchill, Fleming, Fulton, Gauthier (Portneuf), Harris, ' Hellyer, Hunter, Knowles, Lapointe, Maclnnis, MaeNaught, Quelch, Stuart (Charlotte), Tucker and Weir constitute the special committee appointed January 14, 1955 to consider with Mr. Speaker the procedure of this house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 7, to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act (voluntary revocable check-off).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of hon. members that an explanation be given?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Apparently the house knows what this bill contains.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Noseworihy (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the minister received any communication from the Ontario federation of labour, Trades and Labour Congress, regarding the alleged lay-off of 1,100 workers by Avro Aircraft Limited and will the minister inform the house regarding the employment situation at that plant?


Hon. Milion F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I have received a communication from the president of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, Mr. Claude Jodoin, on his behalf and on behalf of officers of his affiliated organizations in Ontario asking to see the right hon. Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) and myself on the subject matter of this question, and we have agreed to see them next Thursday. After that meeting has been held, if there is any point in doing it I shall be glad to make a report to the house on the employment situation at the Avro plant.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Earl Rowe: I should like to ask the Prime Minister if it is the intention of the government to take up in the near future before the orders of the day notices of motions for the production of papers and routine questions as they are on the order paper.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The matter has not yet been considered, but I know that when the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne lasts many days it has been the practice in the past to arrange for an interruption for the purpose of having questions and notices of motions for the production of papers disposed of. I think the same arrangement can be made along those lines.
Inquiries of the Ministry CHEESE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Acting Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a further question to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). Has the government any available means of preventing further shipments of cheese into Canada?
Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade
and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, the duty on cheese is placed on that commodity in the same manner in which duties are placed on other commodities and that is the only government regulation affecting the import of cheese at the moment.
William Earl Rowe: In view of the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce the other day to the effect that we might assume that in perhaps six months there might be other shipments of cheese, has the government given any consideration to making the import of cheese into Canada subject to permit under the Export and Import Permits Act, which governs the import of butter?


Mr. Howe (Pori Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, the two situations are not parallel because cheese does not qualify under the legislation which governs the Export and Import Permits Act.



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister assure the house that no changes are contemplated in the Crowsnest pass freight rates on grain?


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: In reply, Mr. Speaker, I would say that no consideration is being given to changes in the Crowsnest pass rates.



PASSAMAQUODDY PROJECT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact, as reported by the Associated Press from Washington on January 16, that President Eisenhower's budget to congress will contain an item of $1 million for a survey to deter-



Inquiries of the Ministry mine ithe economic feasibility of the proposed Passamaquoddy bay tidal power project between Maine and New Brunswick, is it the intention of the Canadian government to join in this survey if it is undertaken?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his intention to ask this question, and also the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart), who indicated he was going to ask a similar question. Perhaps my answer will deal with his question also.
The proposed economic survey of the Passamaquoddy bay tidal power project is, of course, not a new proposal. It was indicated in the report to the international joint commission dated October 20, 1950, that a full scale survey of this nature will be necessary if the feasibility of this project was to be determined. A resolution requesting the international joint commission to undertake such an economic feasibility survey was passed in the United States Senate in 1954, but did not receive final approval before the adjournment of the eighty-third congress in Washington.
It has already been suggested to United States officials, and that information, I believe, was made available to the house last session, that if as a result of the passage of this resolution the United States government wishes to request the international joint commission to undertake this survey it would be appropriate for a joint reference to be made to the commission by both governments, and that we, the Canadian government, would be prepared to give sympathetic consideration to a proposal for such a joint reference.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Could the minister say whether any joint reference has been made to the international joint commission by the Canadian government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, because a joint reference has to be made by both governments; but if the United States government asked us to participate in such a joint reference we would be very glad to give sympathetic consideration to that proposal.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: They have not requested it so far?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No.



BRITISH COMMONWEALTH


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Would he consider

setting aside a day for the purpose of discussing some of the matters that might be presented before the commonwealth prime ministers' conference in London so as to enable hon. members to know in general what views the Prime Minister will express on behalf of the Dominion of Canada? I would also ask whether he will place before the house the agenda of that conference which apparently has been referred to in London and is not concealed there. I am sure hon. members would wish to know what views the Prime Minister intends to present on behalf of this country.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that I could say to the house what views I will be expressing in the course of the discussions that may take place in London, but I would, of course, be glad to hear views expressed in the house as to what would be the appropriate attitude to take there.
The conference has been called for the discussion of both political and economic problems, and I know there have been some indications of the general line the agenda is apt to follow. However, the agenda is usually settled at the opening meeting of the conference because it has always been the practice to recognize that those attending are, at least as far as status is concerned, of equal rank and that each would have the same right to indicate what he felt it would be proper to have the conference deal with. I think it would be advisable to see just what further course this debate on the address takes. It is understood that on Thursday, January 20, there will be an interruption of the debate, if not concluded by that time, in order to deal with external affairs, and we will see then what can be done to meet the suggestion made by the hon. member.


John George Diefenbaker: If I may ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question, in view of his statement that each of the component parts of the commonwealth makes its own submissions, would the Prime Minister say what particular matters Canada is taking a definite stand on and intends to have placed before the conference? Secondly, there was reference in the British press recently to the question of the admission of communist China to the United Nations and the suggestion was that that would be discussed at the conference. We would like to know what attitude the Prime Minister will take on a matter such as this.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I can assure the hon.
gentleman that the Prime Minister will not attempt to do more than ascertain what others may feel about the admission of the government of mainland China to the United Nations

at this time. The purpose of the conference is to endeavour to work together toward peace and not to stress, as I understand it, attitudes that might further complicate the very complicated international situation that already exists.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. He seemed to indicate that when the conference opens the agenda will come under consideration. I would ask him whether it is or is not a fact that communications, and I would hope very far-reaching communications, have already been exchanged between our own departments and the departments of the other members of the commonwealth preparatory to this conference?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: To my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, the only communications between this government and another government have been communications with the commonwealth relations office in London.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I
ask a further question of the Prime Minister? Have none of these communications touched on the matter of the agenda?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Our position is that we do not wish to publicize any documents that come to us marked "secret". That is the only limitation that we are up against. I should be only too happy to put before the house all these communications. It may be that some of them can be put before the house. I will look at them again, in the light of the desire expressed by members on the other side of the house to have them made public, and see what can be done without discourtesy to those from whom we have received them.


William Earl Rowe: I should like to ask a supplementary auestion. Are we to understand that it is not the intention of the government to reveal to the house any of their policies with regard to anything they think is going to come up for discussion in the conference, any more than he has already told us?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Oh, no, Mr. Speaker. It is the intention of the government to reveal to the house everything that can properly be revealed to the house. But this is to be a conference which, like the other conferences, is to be held in camera. We must fit our disclosures into what is generally acceptable to those who will attend the conference. That is the only reason I have not been in a position to state fully the contents of the communications we have received.
50433-1G
Inquiries of the Ministry


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I wish to ask one further supplementary question. One has always been told that in these international conferences-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: -success depends entirely upon preliminary work. I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether I am wrong in having taken from his answer the feeling that no intensive preliminary work has been done?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes, Mr. Speaker; the hon. member would be wrong in thinking that no intensive preparatory work has been done. I have been in constant contact with the Department of External Affairs with regard to the preparation of memoranda that might have a bearing on any of the subjects that have been suggested as possible subjects for discussion.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is he in a position to make a more definite statement than the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) was able to make on Friday with regard to the sale by the Canadian National Railways of certain publicly-owned hotels and resorts to private interests? My question on Friday was this: Was this sale approved by the government? Could the minister say whether, if any further such sales are contemplated, parliament will be advised in advance?


George Carlyle Marler: In reply to the first part of my hon. friend's question, with regard to whether the sale of the four Canadian National hotels was approved by the government, I might say that the government was aware that the management of the Canadian National were considering the sale of the four hotels, but the decision to dispose of them was the management's.
To answer the second part of his question, I do not think it is proposed that there should be any change made in the statute governing Canadian National Railways which permits them to dispose of properties of the railway in accordance with the statute.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question? Does the minister know whether the sale of any other hotels is being contemplated?
234	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


George Carlyle Marler: The answer to that question is no. I know of no other sales.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I wish to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Transport, although I am sure he will not need notice of it. Does he agree with the legal opinion of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) that the directors of the Canadian National Railways could sell the whole railway without consulting the government?


George Carlyle Marler: Despite the intelligence attributed to me by the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, I would not be able to answer that question without much notice.


George Carlyle Marler: I should like to reply to a question asked last Friday by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart). With regard to the sale of four Canadian National hotels as announced by the management, the hon. member asked if employment in other hotels would be available for the staffs. The management advises that representatives of the Canadian National and of the purchasers are commencing this week to hold personal interviews with all employees concerned with respect to future employment. Such employees as have seniority rights at other Canadian National hotels will have the opportunity of exercising those rights in conformity with the provisions of the union agreements under which such seniority was acquired and of assuming positions for which those seniority rights qualify them.



CIVIL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the withdrawal of financial support for civil defence by the Montreal city council and somewhat similar action by Victoria, British Columbia, about three months ago, has the minister any plans to prevent the disappearance of civil defence measures in those populous areas and the strong possibility of the same sort of thing happening in other cities following their example?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman did not give me any notice of his question, but I am able to deal with it. In the first place I may say to him that the city


council of Montreal has not made a decision to vacate the civil defence field. The executive committee of the governing body of the city of Montreal has made a recommendation to that effect, to become effective on May 1. As soon as I heard of this particular intention I had the civil defence co-ordinator, after consultation with the provincial authorities who are interested in the matter of civil defence, enter into negotiations with officials of the executive body to which I have made reference. Those negotiations are going on and, as a result of representations that are being made to that body indicating in particular that now for the first time funds are available from the federal government directly to the municipalities concerned, I have every hope that the governing body in that particular community will want to reverse its position. In any event, the decision is one that does not rest alone with that body but with the whole metropolitan area in the city of Montreal.
It is true that the city of Victoria made a similar decision but I am happy to say that, as a result of the negotiations carried on by the civil defence co-ordinator and the municipal government in Victoria, the latter reversed its position. I sincerely hope that will be the case in the city of Montreal.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure the house would want me to extend courtesy, particularly to a new member. When I made my reply to the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) I neglected to say that this question had been asked of me this morning by the new member in this house representing the riding of St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Richardson).


William Earl Rowe: At what session was that?



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimall-Saanich):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is it the policy of H.M.C. Dockyard, Esquimalt, B.C., to discharge all employees when they reach the age of 65 years, irrespective of their length of service or their ability to perform satisfactorily the services they have been performing in connection with the job they have been working upon?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: I must thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question. H.M.C. Dockyard, Esquimalt, follows the same policy with regard to retirement age

of its civilian employees as do other establishments operated by the Department of National Defence. The normal retirement age for civilian employees of the department is, of course, 65; but in suitable circumstances, after investigation, there are quite a number of cases where civilian employees are being retamed beyond the age of 65.


George Randolph Pearkes: I should like to ask one supplementary question. Is the minister aware of the fact that over 100 employees have recently received notice that their services will be terminated in the near future because they are reaching the age of 65, and that no other reason is given?


Ralph Osborne Campney: No, Mr. Speaker; I was not aware of the number.


George Randolph Pearkes: Will the minister be so kind as to look into the matter?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Yes.



COASTAL SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: May I ask the Minister of Transport when we can expect an announcement with regard to the appointment of the proposed royal commission on coastal shipping?


George Carlyle Marler: I hope it will be possible to make an announcement at an early date on the subject referred to by the hon. member.



WELCOME TO MEMBER FOR PICTOU ON HIS RETURN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: On a
question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, it gives us on this side of the house thrilling pleasure to welcome back the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. McCulloch). He was greatly missed. We welcome him back now in fine fettle to preside over one of the leading committees of the house.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: On Friday last the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Nickle) mentioned a reference in the Calgary Albertan to an official of my department, and asked whether this official was speaking on behalf 50433-16J
Inquiries of the Ministry of the government. The hon. member was kind enough, after the orders of the day, to arrange to let me see the clipping. I find that what it contains is what the reporter said some private citizen in Calgary said an official of my department said. I do not think there is any point in making any further inquiries because that is not the way we get people to speak on behalf of the government.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: In
the light of what the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has just said, possibly we can find out how the government does speak. I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether we have any officials representing Canada at the meeting beginning today of the western European nations who are meeting in connection with the pooling of resources, What is the attitude of Canada toward the suggestion that in so far as grants of arms from Canada or the United States are concerned they should be required to pass through any pooling organization that is set up?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the meeting in question is a meeting of the countries with membership in the proposed western European union. Canada is not one of those countries and would not, therefore, normally be invited or expect to be invited to this particular meeting. We have been kept informed of the subject matter, a very important one, which is to be discussed, namely the pooling of arms among the countries of the western European union. We do not expect to attend but we do expect to be kept informed of what goes on at the meeting. In so far as the question of policy is concerned, that may be one of the matters which we will have an opportunity to discuss in the debate commencing on Thursday of this week.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, January 14, consideration of the motion of Mr. Yves Leduc (Verdun) for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Rowe, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
236	HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Dufresne
(Translation):
Mr. J. Wilfrid Dufresne (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker I have been listening with attention and a great deal of interest to the important statement which the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has just made to the house with regard to fiscal relations between the federal government and the government of the province of Quebec. At this stage I have no comment to offer. I do reserve the right, however, to draw my own conclusions in due course.
When I had the advantage and privilege of rising in this house for the first time, in November 1953, I stated, as will be found in Hansard:
It is all good and well to praise and appreciate the highly social legislation on family allowances, which was adopted by the parliament of Canada, some years ago. It has contributed substantially in raising the standard of living of our large families, even if today, due to the constant rise in the cost of living and to overtaxation, it no longer achieves its original purpose.
Today, more than ever, family allowances are insufficient, since they represent hardly half the value they had when they were first initiated. I am not speaking for any political group in particular, but I defer willingly to the wishes and to the repeated requests of all the large families of my constituency, to whom I have promised my support. I therefore, on their behalf, request the government to raise these allowances appreciably in order to give these families the advantage of greater purchasing power, which is the only guarantee of economic prosperity. Up to what level should these allowances be raised? Here is a question, it seems to me, to which the answer is easily found.
If parliament, last year, deemed it advisable to double parliamentary indemnities, the government being of the opinion that the expenses of members had increased in that same proportion, I consider that such is the case with Canadian families, which must, the same as we, buy the necessities of life. I can anticipate the following question: Where can we get the money to bring a greater measure of welfare into our homes? Here again the answer is very simple. We can get the money from the savings that can be made in the different departments of the government and especially the Department of National Defence and the Department of Defence Production.
We want to ward off and curb unemployment. The means to that end do not seem very complicated to me. Let us start by reducing personal income taxes, thus putting

more buying power in the hands of the Canadian people. Let us reduce corporation taxes, and we shall have greater investments for the development of our great resources. On that score I endorse this statement of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce:
Taxes should never become excessive to the point of taking away from industry the stimulus of a reasonable profit and from the individual the possibility of saving some money. In a growing country over-taxation affects the system which makes possible our development and our progress in the field of social welfare. Any trend towards a reduction of profits through taxation is a trend towards instability in the field of business. Every enterprise should be allowed to keep enough of its profits to enable it to develop on a solid basis in an expanding economy and to face the hazards of competition.
(Text):
All members of the house will certainly agree, Mr. Speaker, that so far I have never been afraid to express my convictions, not only political but religious and patriotic as well. Personally I have great admiration for those who are not afraid to state in the house what they are and what they think. I have no hesitation at all in replying to the fiery and bitter statements directed against my province in this house by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier). In order to be understood by him and that small number who may share his opinions, I will speak in his own language. Will the member permit me to inform him that by his foolish speech he has earned for himself the unenviable honour of being the most narrow-minded Canadian I have ever met. The hon. member was not afraid to demonstrate his gift for fanaticism. In doing so he has endeavoured, in a few minutes, to do more to raise the race cry and to disunite the country than has been accomplished since confederation.


Mr. Dupuis:: That is good.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: That is the first time the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Dupuis) has agreed with the hon. member for Quebec West. In the few minutes he has spent in Quebec, which no doubt he was visiting for the first time, to his great astonishment he found that we were not like others; that our language and our faith were not that of the majority. Furthermore, he found out that our educational system was different from that of the other provinces. In other words he found that we rightly retained rights and characteristics which will not be given up, no matter how much the party to which he belongs would like to see them disappear. As his leader has not denounced these words, we take for granted that our way of life in Quebec, our liberties, our habits and our

attributes have always been and will always be an obstacle to the success of that party in our province.
The hon. member has spoken of Quebec as another nation. He has classified the valiant and distinguished premier as the master of this other nation. If by that term he intended to insult one who will go down in history as having been the greatest premier that province has ever known, and for whom we in Quebec have great admiration and respect, may I say, Mr. Speaker, that that sort of insult will never achieve what he has in mind. No doubt the hon. member forgets his history, and it may be well to remind him of it. The French-speaking Canadians are no strangers to Canadian soil. It was our ancestors who were the first pioneers in this land; they were also the first to contribute to make Canada what it is today. The contribution the people of our province have made to the development of Canada is an immense one, and more than once our English-speaking compatriots have paid tribute to this contribution.
We have generously put to the service of Canada our French culture. Does the hon. member reproach us for keeping intact our language, our faith, our habits and our attachment to our institutions, and to those who see to it that these things are maintained? We shall not abandon our prerogatives, first because we are faithfully and religiously attached to them, and secondly because the fathers of confederation, who possessed a much broader mind than that of the hon. member, have guaranteed those prerogatives to us by a contract. It is not merely a sheet of paper, and it is called the British North America Act. May God preserve us from ever having a socialist government. Under a socialist regime, with policies such as the hon. member advocates, we would see the end of our constitutional liberty. It would mean anarchy and disunity. In one word, we would be powerlessly watching the funeral of our democratic rights.
He said that for many years the people of Quebec did not get the old age pension benefits enjoyed by other provinces. We had to get rid of the Liberal government in our province, Mr. Speaker, in order that that social measure would be applied. We did get those benefits on the day the present premier took power in our province. How many battles did he conduct from his seat in the opposition on this very subject? Never in all its history has the province of Quebec known such expansion in its economy. Never have our immense resources been so generously used for the benefit of our people. Our
The Address-Mr. Dufresne thanks for this are due to the premier of the province, whom I am not afraid to name, the Hon. Maurice Duplessis.
So far as the amazing statement of the hon. member is concerned, that in Quebec we are ready for communism, he has shown his complete ignorance of our conditions and has made himself an object of ridicule. The hon. member need not worry. With the strength of our religious convictions, with the honour and respect we have for our clergy to whom we owe in great measure our survival as an ethnic group, and bearing in mind the glorious past of our ancestors, with the love we have for democracy, we are as solid as the fortifications of Quebec against that evil ideology. Even if the rest of the country ever fell into the hands of the masters of the Kremlin, which is absurd to contemplate, Canada would still have a bastion that would guard and keep the standard of liberty and democracy-Quebec.
Liberty in Quebec not being a synonym for either licence or abuse, I was happy to read in last week's press that according to our premier the law protecting against the spread of subversive ideas in our province, known as the padlock law, will never be revoked. Socialism being the twin brother of communism, the hon. member should not be surprised if in certain areas in Quebec the C.C.F. candidates do not receive more votes than those who would favour a totalitarian state in Canada.
To revert, however, to the subject of education-


Mr. Regier:: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member must admit that at no time during the course of my speech on Wednesday of last week did I refer either to the French racial origin, to the language of the people of Quebec, to the religious faith of the people of Quebec or-


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I will not allow the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, to make a speech during my speech on the address in reply to the speech from the throne.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker-


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: He had time enough to insult my province, and I will take time enough to answer.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member for Bur-naby-Coquitlam reads standing order No. 43 he will see that when the hon. member who is speaking has concluded his speech, he will be allowed to clarify a point which has been misunderstood by the member who is speaking. He may do so at the end of the hon. member's address. When the hon. member rose I believe the hon. member for

The Address-Mr. Dufresne Quebec West (Mr. Dufresne) thought he was going to ask him a question, and probably that is why he took his seat. Noticing the hon. member wanted to clarify a point he objected, I think strenuously, and I believe the hon. member can try to clarify his point when the hon. member for Quebec West has concluded his speech.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: If he does clarify it, I will have another opportunity to come back and tell him what I think.
To revert to the subject of education, Mr. Speaker, may I say that had the hon. member been given the opportunity to stay long enough in our province he would have found that nowhere in the world are the minorities better treated. Had he known this, as he should have, he would have cited our province in that respect and our compatriots from Maillardville would have greatly benefited from this gesture. Unfortunately they have to be represented in this house by someone who, as far as I am concerned, has never known the definition of national unity.
(Translation) :
In conclusion may I, Mr. Speaker, reassert here that my only wish, as member of parliament, is to do my humble share to protect first the best interests of the people I have the honour to represent, and, also, those of the Canadian community as a whole.
I am deeply convinced that I have expressed the feelings of all those who did me the honour of sending me here to speak on their behalf. In so doing, I play the role which has been assigned to me as a result of the last general election. May Providence keep me in good health and inspire me to work hard enough so that I may fulfil my mandate faithfully, thus helping Canada to become the outstanding nation of the free world.
(Text):


Erhart Regier: I should like to clarify a point, Mr. Speaker. I believe the hon. member who has just taken his seat-


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: On a point of order, I think the hon. member has taken all the time allowed him by the rules of the house to make a speech. I do not think the rules of the house permit him to make another speech in reply to me. He will have some other opportunity in the future.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I might clarify the position. Standing order 43 reads as follows:
(1) No member may speak twice to a question except in explanation oi a material part of his speech which may have been misquoted or misunderstood, but then he is not to introduce any new matter, and no debate shall be allowed upon such explanation.

I think the hon. member for Quebec West will agree with me that so far he has not heard enough of the hon. member's explanation to tell whether he is making another speech or merely giving an explanation, as provided for by standing order 43.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I have not yet.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we can hear the hon. member, and if he does go beyond the limits provided by this standing order, I am sure the hon. member for Quebec West and I will stop him.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, the point I wish to make is that the hon. member insinuated that on Wednesday last I had offended the religion, the language, the traditions and the culture of the people of Quebec. I believe that if he will carefully reread what I did say in this house he will find that I did no such thing in any way, shape or form. I have the highest regard for the things he mentioned, their religion, their language, their heritage and their culture.


Hector Dupuis: You insulted the whole province of Quebec.


Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have the opportunity to speak at this time. I came to the second session of the twenty-second parliament with a good deal of concern about the economic conditions in Canada, and indeed the financial position and economic conditions of many of our people. I am sorry that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) is not in his seat. I see that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is still in the house, and in the course of my remarks I shall make some reference to what he said with respect to the agricultural picture in Canada.
I first wish to say that my concern is over the fact that in this rich country of Canada we have upwards of half a million people unemployed. I do not think it is possible properly to assess the total number of people who are unemployed, but I am quite certain that hon. members will agree that there are well over half a million. When one considers that, and also the number of dependents who must look to the breadwinner for sustenance, then he can understand the serious plight of hundreds of thousands of our people in this rich country.


Mr. Sluder:: Who made it rich?


Edward George McCullough: I realize that when we come back and hear government spokesmen, such as the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture, we hear the same old story that we have heard from

1945 to the present time. Many of the conditions that existed then are still plaguing the Canadian economy. We have unemployment; we have farm people who are losing their equity in their farms. We have foreclosures and all the other things which do bring hardships to many of our people.
When I hear the expression "You have never had it better" I try to find out where the ministers and others from the government side of the house get such assurance that everything is all right. I come from an agricultural area where we have had the worst crop failure in the last ten years. One cannot but be concerned; but when he turns to some other parts of our economy he gets the reassurance that some people in Canada are in a very good financial position.
I went to the library and brought back the "Financial Post Survey of Industrials" in Canada for the year 1954. I quite agree with hon. members on the government side of the house and those who take a philosophical attitude toward conditions in Canada at the present time, I agree, indeed, that many of the bigger corporations are in a healthy financial position. I shall read a short paragraph indicating that some of these companies have a buoyant income. This survey states:
Based on an analysis by the Financial Post of the latest published annual reports, the combined net profit of 32S companies in 1953 was 3 per cent ahead of the 1952 level. Earnings before depreciation, interest and taxes were 2 per cent below the previous year.
The report goes on to say:
Percentage return on combined net assets continued in its downward trend of recent years,-
But this is the point; the profit return amounted to 10-04 per cent. So far as these 326 industrials in Canada are concerned, they are still in a buoyant financial position and are receiving very good returns. However, the picture is not so happy when one turns to the farming people of Canada. Before I go into that I wish to say that, according to the speech from the throne, we can look for a little alleviation of the hardships of some of our people. I welcome the fact that there is to be an increase in the war veterans allowance; but I say here and now that it is long overdue. The move should have been made long before this. The cost of living has gone up steadily since 1945, and nothing has been done to help these war veterans. When the government bring in the measure, I hope they will accept the suggestion of the Legion, who are asking that the allowance be raised to $60 for single veterans and $120 for married couples.
In addition, I welcome the disability pension that the government has seen fit
The Address-Mr. E. G. McCullough to enact. On looking over the proposals, it occurred to me that they are too rigid and too strict. There are far too many people who cannot earn a living and who are dependent upon others who will not be able to qualify. I hope the government will see fit to make the regulations less stringent. Also the government has brought in a meagre program of public works suggesting that Ripple Rock be removed and a few other public works projects. I want to say here and now I do not think that will meet the great need we have in Canada for a real public works program by which we can put our unemployed back to work. As I recall, last February the unemployment insurance benefits paid out of the public treasury to the unemployed was in excess of $28 million and so I say that in this rich country we should have a program which will meet the developments and the needs of our people.
Now I wish to discuss the farm picture and to discredit, I think, the remarks of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the right hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), and in this regard I want first to quote from an editorial which appeared in the Estevan, Saskatchewan, Mercury dated December 23, 1954. This paper is published in my own constituency and in respect to the farm income for the coming year it says, and I quote:
The growing threat of a world-wide economic recession has been removed by an upsurge in business conditions in most countries that are Canada's customers for wheat.
Before continuing I want to say that the editor must be misinformed because, as everyone knows, the reason there is a demand for Canadian wheat in these countries where we normally market our wheat is the fact that those countries have suffered crop failures this past year. More particularly I want to stress this, and again I quote:
In this regard the poor wheat crop in Canada has been a blessing in disguise.
As far as I am concerned that is nothing short of capitalist mental neurosis. I think that when we have in this country people who can produce for a hungry world and we have an editorial which says that the crop failure which we have suffered this year in western Canada is a blessing in disguise there is something wrong with the thinking of those people. I think it can be attributed to the capitalist psychology all the way down the line because the capitalist society has never been able to take care of abundance at any time. Perhaps hon. members on the other side of the house and the right hon. Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) will perhaps now be chuckling deep down in their

The Address

Mr. E. G. McCullough collars that once again nature has pulled us out of a task which cannot be accomplished in a capitalist set-up, such as we have today, in spite of the fact that we on this side of the house have pleaded with the government to undertake a program for agriculture under which when through the bounty of Providence we have in this country an abundance of wheat, we can store it for the lean years.
I need not repeat what I said in the past that this was done in Egypt over two thousand years ago. In the years of plenty they stored for the years of scarcity. There is no one single thing which could injure the western hemisphere more than a continued crop failure which could put the balance of negotiations and what have you on the side of the iron curtain. Yet in this country, where we have steel and concrete and where we could store our wheat for the years of scarcity which might come, there is no program. The only way that the government has got out from under it is by a widespread crop failure in western Canada.
What is the situation in respect to farm income in western Canada? Quite briefly we have had the most serious decline in the last twenty years. According to dominion bureau of statistics figures net farm income was as follows:
1951	$2,188,600,000
1952	 1,949,900,000
1953		 1,667,000,000
1954	(estimate)	 1,200,000,000
This represents a three-year decline of one-half of the 1951 net farm income. In Saskatchewan, the province whence I come, we will have a net income this year of $250 million less than in 1953, or a drop of approximately 46 per cent.
I want to carry the same argument through to show the condition of agriculture in Canada. Taking the period from 1935 to 1939 as the base period, according to the dominion bureau of statistics, from July 1951 to October 1953, manufactured goods in Canada declined 15-6 points. But farm products, that is, the wholesale price index of farm products, dropped 68-6, a difference of 53 points. There is a decline to 1954 and today western farmers are finding themselves in a definite price squeeze. Their costs are up and their income is going down.
What does this mean to the purchasing power of the farmer? According to the dominion bureau of statistics report again, we have the index of commodities and services used by farmers, taking again the base
[Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain) .1

period from 1935 to 1939, standing at 225- these are the things which are used by farmers in the production of the various farm commodities-an increase of 125 points since 1939.
What does this mean to the farmer in relation to the money with which he can purchase these commodities? As an example let us consider wheat. No. 1 is now $1.72 f.o.b. Fort William, and in terms of 19351939 purchasing power it is worth only 76 cents. That is the problem facing western Canada today and I think this government should take cognizance of that fact. This condition affects the whole economy. I am not here to plead for the farmers of western Canada particularly but for every last citizen who has to earn his bread and butter in Canada and maintain a home and provide for his children.
Concerning retail sales in Canada there was a drop of $214 million in the first nine months of 1954. According to the unemployment figures again there are 18,000 unemployed as of November 1954 in Winnipeg, 20,000 in Vancouver; and in Yorkton, Saskatchewan, a very small city, the registered unemployed figure has increased by 70 per cent from the previous year.
Again I have indicated that some of the companies in Canada are still making hay. I remember the story that was told in this house, I think by the premier of Saskatchewan, Mr. Thomas Douglas, when he was indicating that the fun which the big corporations have can perhaps be compared to the elephant who dances around in the chicken house. It is fine fun for the elephant but it is pretty tough on the chickens.
I am saying that the little enterprise, the small businessman, the small enterpriser is being driven to the wall in many cases. According to the dominion bureau of statistics figures commercial failures for the first nine months of 1954 rose to 1,684 from 1,127 in the preceding year.
I would like to turn to the statement made in this house on January 10 by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) when, in reply to the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Rowe), he stated, as reported at page 32 of Hansard:
The hon. gentleman has said that Canada has lost the United Kingdom market for the second time in his own period of political experience. There has been no loss of the United Kingdom market.
I think it is quite unnecessary for me to again put on record the figures I gave last year dealing with exports from this country

to the United Kingdom from 1939 to 1953, the latest date for which figures were then available. But I would like to give comparative figures for farming commodities exported to the United Kingdom, and as will be found in the dominion bureau of statistics return dated March 18, 1954. The figures are given in hundredweights. In 1945, of beef and veal Canada shipped 1,843,777 and in 1953 the amount fell to 64,501 cwt. In 1946 we shipped 103,243 cwt. of fresh lamb and mutton and in 1953 not a single pound. In 1943 we shipped 149,124 cwt. of fresh pork and in 1953 no shipments at all. In 1947 we shipped 120,988 cwt. of poultry and in 1953 again nothing. In 1944 we shipped 6,923,103 cwt. of bacon and hams to Britain and in 1953 nothing. In canned meats we shipped 338,378 cwt. in 1944 and in 1953 only 27. We shipped 142,300 cwt. of edible offal in 1944 and in 1953 not a single pound. As regards "other meats", we shipped 1,995 cwt. in 1946 and 10 cwt. in 1953.


Mr. Gardiner:: May I ask the hon. member a question? Will my hon. friend put on the record the amount of surplus we had in each of these products at that period and which we might have sent to Britain?


Edward George McCullough: That is a good question. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) comes out west and makes speeches and it seems to me he has one for every occasion. Now he is asking me to put the surplus figures on record. I do not know what these figures were, but I would say that it is directly due to the agricultural policy of this government that we were unable to maintain our production figures.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member is unable to put these figures on the record, I would like to suggest to him that the products were sold during that period and the only reason we did not send them to Britain was that we obtained higher prices elsewhere.


Edward George McCullough: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the minister that in this country we have never yet reached maximum production in any one of those commodities. I dislike introducing my own personal experience, but I would like to point out that in 1951, just before the $3 subsidy was removed from hogs, there was no guarantee, no market, and no assurance that the farmer would get a proper return.


James Garfield Gardiner: Everyone who got rid of his hogs lost money and everyone who kept them made more money than ever before.


Edward George McCullough: I have some good Liberal friends out west and they
The Address-Mr. E. G. McCullough always tell me, "When the Minister of Agriculture comes out with a policy I always do the opposite." Apparently they have been very successful. In any event, the minister has told the western farmers that if they wish to retain these markets they will have to maintain production. Is he now prepared to get up and say that the farmers failed to provide sufficient quantities in order to supply these markets?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have never made a statement of that kind. I keep hogs myself and I have made more on hogs since 1951 than I have ever made at any other time.


Edward George McCullough: I
would like to draw the minister's attention to something he said the other day, on his return from the United States, with respect to the support prices we have on some Canadian commodities. The minister seems quite satisfied with these support prices, particularly with reference to the poultry producers in this country. I do not know where he gets his information but I do know that a few of my acquaintances are not satisfied with the proposition. They feel they are not getting a fair deal, and that the support price is too high in relation to what they get. I had a conversation recently with a local storekeeper who takes eggs from the farms and ships them to the packing houses, and two years ago they were paying around 21 cents a dozen for mixed eggs. I asked the dealer how he came out, and where the principle of support price entered into the transaction. He showed me a return on 24 dozen crates of eggs and it proved that he had lost $4 on that quantity. I asked him whether he got any return from the packers, and he said, "No, that is all I get." What in effect was happening was that they were handling them as a service.
In this regard I would point out that despite that situation the minister indicated the other day that in Canada the support price for eggs and for poultry was working out satisfactorily.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, as a matter
of privilege, I said no such thing. I said that my hon. friends opposite were claiming the United States system was better than ours, and I pointed out to the house that we were getting more for our eggs and butter at present than the farmers were in the United States.


Edward George McCullough: What
the minister did say was rather ambiguous.
I have here the poultry products market report for December 31, 1954, and according to this report the price of eggs to the producer
242	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. E. G. McCullough as of December 28, 1954, was 30 cents. At the same time the price to the consumer in Winnipeg was 48 cents, or a difference of 18 cents. How can the minister claim that it is working out satisfactorily? There is obviously too great a spread between what the producer gets and the consumer pays. I see the minister shrugging his shoulders.


James Garfield Gardiner: You are switching your
ground. It was price to the producer and wholesale price I quoted.


Edward George McCullough: I do
not wish to encroach upon the time of other hon. members, and in the few minutes at my disposal I want to make five suggestions which might help us to combat the economic difficulties now facing the nation.
I believe the greatest challenge to the western democracies is that of putting their own house in order and providing the people with security and a decent standard of living. With regard to unemployment the federal government in 1945 committed itself to complete responsibility for all unemployed employables in Canada in lieu of the provinces giving up certain taxation rights. I want to say to the government that it is high time they took that responsibility and, if necessary, called another reconstruction conference and get down to business with the provinces. I do not think there is one single province that would hesitate to meet with the government. If it undertook its responsibility in respect of the unemployed in Canada, I think the provinces would do their part. I know my own province of Saskatchewan is quite ready to take on responsibility for the disabled and those who are unemployable. That is one thing. Coupled with that matter, we should have some vision in the matter of a public works project across Canada, worked out with the provinces and the municipalities, whereby we may have social projects which will benefit them and which will put our people to work on a work and wages basis.
As I say-and I referred to this matter in the earlier part of my speech-this government should look after those who are war veterans under the war veterans allowance and immediately increase that allowance as requested by the Legion up to $60 for a single person or $120 for married couples. This government should undertake immediately what this party has always asked, namely a health insurance program for every citizen in Canada. It is something which the government is going to have to give some thought to. Unless action is taken quickly, you will have to find new ground and new data which will make it possible that, when you make


up your mind-if and when you do so-you can undertake it with some success and assure that it will have the necessary personnel, the necessary hospitals and other things in order to put it into operation. I urge the government to bring in a national health program for the people. It is long overdue. We need it right now. This government should undertake now to start training girls in the nursing profession. They could undertake to help the provinces. Up to this time they have not done so. I realize that assistance is given for the construction of hospitals, but this government should take a real lead in having each of the provinces bring their hospitals up to the maximum necessary to give adequate hospitalization under a national hospitalization scheme because there will be many more people who will then have an opportunity to go to hospital but who now, through the hit or miss program of personal hospitalization, are not able to get the health care they need.
In conclusion I want to deal with the farm program. As I said before, this is not a selfish approach because I come from a predominantly agricultural province but rather because I think it would be for the welfare of all of Canada. First of all I think this government should do something seriously about its trade policies. I think the government should get these trade envoys, the people who are out trying to sell Canadian products, to get off their soft chairs and get out and do something about this matter so that Canadian markets will be extended so that we shall have a marked step in the direction of freer trade.
Then in respect of our domestically consumed farm products, may I say that I think the government should establish a national livestock marketing board; and under that board they should set prices for agricultural commodities-that is livestock products and dairy products-which will give the cost of production. In that formula there should be forward pricing by which the producer would know, for two or three years, the minimum amount he is going to get for his products. To date the Agricultural Prices Support Act has been used in some cases to support agricultural products, but to date only in the neighbourhood of $80 million has been used under this fund. The minister shakes his head. He can perhaps give the house other figures. That is my figure and I went and looked it up. The figure I have is $80 million whereas, on the other hand, we find that $60 million has been paid in subsidies to the gold mining industry. I am not trying to make an issue of that or any comparison; but surely the agricultural welfare of this

country is worth more than $80 million. I therefore say that through a national livestock marketing board we should have this guaranteed price which will give the cost of production to our farm people and tend to give equilibrium to all our economy because, as I have said before, when the farm economy is in the doldrums then you have your dependent industries such as the farm machinery industry and the others in a depressed condition.
Then again I have spoken about dairy products. They too should be under the same system of forward pricing, with guaranteed prices over a period of years. Another thing which could be done is the institution of a crop insurance program. Speaking the other day the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny) outlined something in that regard. I am not going to go into it other than to say this. Under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act there is not sufficient coverage and guarantee that the farmer who loses his crop, through drought, hail or flooding, can receive a proper income or any assistance under that act. There is therefore a great need there. In asking this I do not think that I am being unreasonable. Protection is given to every other industry in Canada. We are just asking that, for the sake of the welfare of the whole economy, something substantial be done in order to prevent the fluctuations which we find in the agricultural picture.
In conclusion I just want to say this. Unless this government is ready to come out of its hiding and do something for the Canadian people I think-and quite justly so-that there will be an aroused public and that the people of this country who are without jobs and the farmers who are losing their equity in their land and are having their farm machinery repossessed, are going to rise up in wrath which is quite justifiable.


Mr. G. W. McLeod (Okanagan-Revelsioke):: Mr. Speaker, I shall take only a few minutes in this debate. First, I should like you to know that I agree most heartily with the congratulations that have been extended to the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Leduc) and the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Car-rick) for their splendid contributions to this debate.
I listened closely to the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Rowe) when he set forth the policies of his party. I was hoping to hear some constructive suggestions as to what the government should do and what this once great party would do if they were sitting in the seats of government. I was glad to hear that the Acting Leader of the Opposition has committed his followers to a program of national contributory health
The Address-Mr. McLeod insurance in co-operation with the provinces. I was somewhat amused at the reaction of our socialist friends to this announcement. They have always tried to steal the limelight by laying claim to originating and forcing the government to take action in connection with all the matters of social welfare legislation that have been put on the statute books.
I think it would be well for us all to bear in mind the fact that the Canadian people are a humanitarian race and like to alleviate suffering and misery wherever it may be found. But I can assure you that they do not like to have it done under state control or under too much regimentation. I also noticed that part of the subamendment to the speech from the throne where the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) inserts the words "have deliberately returned to the policy of uncontrolled and unplanned private enterprise".
We in this corner of the house had begun to fear, as our leader, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), said the other day, that the Liberals were socialists in low gear. However, we are glad to learn now that they have returned to the fold of free enterprise. I make no apology for claiming that our group since its inception has continuously and unwaveringly supported the system of free enterprise. We have stood by this policy throughout the years and while we admit that limited controls may sometimes be necessary we will oppose any move by this or any other government to place the affairs of the Canadian people under state control or to regiment our way of life.
Since neither the amendment nor the subamendment offers anything concrete, we may as well consider the speech from the throne itself. We are glad to note that the international situation has improved. While the peace in Korea may be an uneasy one, the bloodshed has at least ceased. There is a possibility that affairs in Indo-China may be stabilized and I trust that the Canadian members of the commission that has been given the tremendous task of overseeing the carrying out of plans in that part of the world will, with the other members of the commission, work towards ultimate success, stabilize affairs in that country and bring about lasting peace.
In a few days we shall be debating in the house the London and Paris agreements. I think we should all remember the steadfast leadership of Sir Anthony Eden who is so greatly responsible for bringing these agreements out of what seemed total failure. I know that the problem of the admission of Germany to NATO causes much concern, but we trust

The Address-Mr. McLeod that it will be given very careful consideration in the house and throughout the country and that by our actions we will contribute something towards the removal of this stumbling block to world peace which exists in Europe today. All in all, international conditions are more settled than for some time. World leaders predict an era of peace. I wonder whether we are ready for it. That is a terrible question to ask but I am sincere. Are we ready for peace?
In our lifetime we have noticed that good times and bad times have coincided with war and peace. Under the stimulus and demands of war, either for industry or for the armed services, the energy of every one of our citizens is required, and so we have full employment. The resulting increase in wages and income places in the hands of our people a supply of purchasing power so that they can buy the goods and services required for daily living. Then we have good times. Good times, Mr. Speaker, but under the stress and worry of war we are not able to enjoy them.
After the demands of war are satisfied and we return to a peacetime economy we then find that the demands of industry for labour gradually taper off and we have lessened wages and income with lessened purchasing power in the hands of our people. Then we have bad times. I do not think I need elaborate further. We have all witnessed the cycle, good times and bad times, war and peace, boom and bust. The solution is sustained production, production that will supply the materials for roads, bridges, houses for our people, public buildings for educational and health services, land clearing, natural resources development. I could continue. These must replace wartime production. The program is unlimited but leadership must come from the government and the finances for the program must be supplied by the government on a non-interest bearing basis by the issuance of currency and credit through our own institution, the Bank of Canada.
I am not pessimistic about our economic problems, Mr. Speaker. I have wonderful faith in the resources of our country and in the ability of our people to work and to produce. We are now entering an era of peace and it is the duty of the government to give the necessary leadership to see that we are not entering an era of depression. We are finding it difficult to employ all our workers. We have surpluses of agricultural products. We have our warehouses filled with goods that our people and the peoples of the world need badly. We have idle factories. These are signs we must heed. These things create

problems that we must face instead of sitting back and hoping that something will happen to pull us out of the mess.
I am glad that such prompt action has been taken to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act to alleviate the condition of our unemployed, but this is only a stopgap. It is not a cure for unemployment. I note that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) will attend a conference of commonwealth prime ministers in London shortly. I trust that he will have constructive ideas to place before the conference for improving trade with these countries. I hope he is successful, for it is very essential that we have increased twoway trade within the commonwealth, especially with Great Britain. I trust that our trade emissaries trying to bolster GATT will meet with ultimate success.
I have heard the more or less humorous criticism of the cabinet that they are commercial travellers. I should like to commend the government for the leadership it is giving in trying to open outlets for our goods in the world markets. I think we are all agreed that in this era of highly competitive trade personal contact is the better way to sell goods. Not only are these travellers selling goods but we hope they are selling Canada. Even if the bill is $60 million it is not too much to pay for good will. A few days ago the phrase "peace and good will" was on everyone's lips. We are spending about $2 billion a year to promote and preserve peace. Surely $60 million is not too high a price for good will.
I should like to devote a few minutes now to local affairs. Last summer I was glad to have the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair), who is present in the house, and the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage) visit my riding. I say "riding", Mr. Speaker. I did not have the privilege of seeing them. I was glad to note that the Minister of Fisheries had set the minds of the people of Vernon at rest with regard to the new federal building in that city. I had advised them earlier that the Department of Public Works would proceed with the building in 1955 and it was nice to have this confirmed on the spot by a cabinet minister.
I should like to assure the Minister of Public Works that the need for more post office space and for centralized government offices is becoming more urgent in Vernon. This year we are suffering a recession in our two great industries, farming and lumbering, and government projects to provide extra jobs and extra purchasing power are badly needed. Some of you do not seem to realize that we have an agricultural industry in British Columbia. I do not blame you, for so many

members of the house would have you believe that agriculture starts at the Manitoba boundary and ends at the British Columbia line.
Despite the fact that we have a good agricultural industry, we have our troubles as well. I was glad to hear the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Murphy) champion the cause of New Brunswick farmers a few days ago. I was pleased also to hear him take the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) to task for some of the statements he had made following a brief visit to that province. In this case I believe we would do well to recall the old saying, "A man usually finds what he is looking for."
I should like the hon. member for Westmorland to know that I spent several days in his province last spring. I, too, was on a speaking tour, covering parts of Kings, Queens, Victoria and Carleton counties. I was delighted with the country and with the people. The only thing I could not understand was how they were able to drive such fine cars, to have such good homes, wear such good clothes and enjoy such good food-I did enjoy that sea food-on what we in British Columbia would call a very low income. However, they seem to be able to do it, and they deserve credit for it. I believe the people, though, are awakening to the fact that development is badly needed. I believe they feel the government should give and must give more active leadership and direction, so they can develop their wonderful resources and enjoy the benefit of all the good things that are there in such abundance.
I have digressed from my subject. I was going to tell you that in British Columbia we have a very important agricultural industry and, in my riding, we take a back seat to none. A rancher from the Oyama district took a few of his Herefords to the Toronto fair and came back with the championship for fat steers. The 4-H clubs from Armstrong sent contestants to the same fair and came back with the trophy for swine judging. Early in December the co-operative creamery in Vernon processed their millionth pound of butter during the past year. These facts, Mr. Speaker, will show we have a progressive group of farmers.
We have our troubles, too. I was pleased to hear our leader, the hon. member for Peace River, state in this debate a few days ago that we need a plan of flexible- I emphasize that word "flexible"-price supports for basic farm products. I am glad to see that the government is spending millions under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. I hope Saskatchewan gets its dam. You
The Address-Mr. McLeod know we have dam troubles in British Columbia too. I still maintain, though, that our province is being discriminated against in that the full provisions of the act are not applicable to us.
I support every vote for funds for the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, and yet I realize that many changes are necessary to make the assistance fair and equitable. I commend the government for their prompt action in giving financial assistance to the apple growers of Nova Scotia when they suffered such grievous losses last summer. At the same time I condemn the government for their failure to listen to the plea of the Okanagan fruit growers when their orchards and crops were so badly damaged by frost last spring.
I mentioned that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage) was in my riding. From all reports he was highly pleased with his reception in Revel-stoke, with the tourist attractions and with the possibility for development that exists there. I can assure the minister that he made a good impression there, too. I am hoping that his promises and proposals for expanding the Revelstoke and Glacier national parks, and improving the facilities for tourists, will be carried out. I think, though, the clear pure air of the district must have gone to his head, for he has since made fantastic proposals that concern us very much. These envision a tunnel to divert part of the water from the great Columbia river into the Fraser watershed.
We in the interior look upon the Columbia as our greatest asset. In fact, we understand that it ranks second to the St. Lawrence itself in power potential. We are anxious to see this great waterway developed. We especially urge that every effort should be made to speed work on the very important Mica creek project, with a progressive plan for other developments. We are suspicious of some of the proposals emanating from Ottawa in recent weeks. We regard this great waterway as a natural resource that belongs, first and last, to the people of the interior of British Columbia. We look upon this as ours, and we look with suspicion on any movement by the federal government to interfere politically with any development that we, the people of British Columbia, feel is in our own best interests.
We have heard much about provincial relations and provincial autonomy in this and the last session. The need for a federal-provincial conference is long overdue. I would urge that before this government takes any

The Address-Mr. McLeod action leading to further interference in provincial rights, the whole matter should be earnestly and quietly discussed around the conference table.
We have heard pleas for greater assistance to road construction. I made such a plea last session, but on this occasion I can do no better than to endorse the words used by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) in this house a few days ago. The trans-Canada highway is of great importance in my constituency and I am anxious to have it completed. I could also talk about assistance for railroads. Despite the fact that this government has turned down every plea for assistance to extend the Pacific Great Eastern Railway, I am glad to see that our provincial government has sufficient courage and initiative to proceed with this great artery into the inland empire of British Columbia and Alberta.
The story of 1954 in British Columbia has been a story of one great achievement after another. I am not narrow enough to place all the credit for this at the feet of the Victoria government, but I will say when encouragement and assistance were needed, and where leadership was required* that government was ready and willing to help out. In spite of the great expenditures for development, the welfare of the people is not being neglected.
When the unemployment problem became serious at the coast, a plea for help was made to Ottawa. I am sorry to say that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) politely told the premier of British Columbia that the province was financially able to look after its own unemployed. Perhaps that is right. We can take care of our own unemployed, but those who flock to the coastal areas, feeling that if they have to go hungry it is the nicest place in Canada in which to be hungry, create a problem that should not be left at the doorstep of charitable organizations or the British Columbia government. I was going to put on the record for this house the words written by the noted columnist the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) dealing with the problem. This was so ably done by my colleague the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) the other day that I shall not repeat it. I can only echo his wish that the hon. member for Vancouver South is able to sell his splendid ideas to his government colleagues.
I trust that this government will yet assume their just responsibility toward our unemployed and formulate some plan to remove the problem from our way of life. I would also repeat my plea that this government and the government of British


Columbia get together around the conference table and give the leadership that our people would like to have in developing our resources for the betterment of our province and for Canada as a whole.


Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: In rising to participate in this debate may I be permitted to join with previous speakers in congratulating the mover (Mr. Leduc) and the seconder (Mr. Carrick) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Both these newly elected members excelled in their difficult task and offer great promise for the future.
Unlike the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) I was pleased to be reminded in the speech from the throne of the opportunity which was given to the people of Canada of once more extending an affectionate welcome to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother. I was also pleased to hear mentioned the visit of the consort of our sovereign, the Duke of Edinburgh.
Notwithstanding the statements made by numerous speakers from the opposition side of the house, I feel that if one wishes carefully to scrutinize the contents of the speech from the throne he will find concrete evidence of the sound policies of the present government.
In listening to the arguments evolving from some opposition members one would be led to believe that it was the duty of the present government to provide a perpetual scheme of unemployment insurance which, if applied, could easily create a complete disruption in the labour forces of this country. The bill amending the Unemployment Insurance Act to provide for an increase in the duration and scale of winter supplementary benefits will be most welcomed by the labour classes of my constituency, where a large proportion of the employment is seasonal. We are given to understand that later on this session a further amendment will be considered, designed to make unemployment insurance a more effective instrument for providing financial support to unemployed workers.
Fishing operations in my constituency are purely of a seasonal nature. It is true that a number of fishermen are owners of their fishing vessels, and it may be a rather difficult problem to have them qualify for unemployment insurance benefits. A larger number, however, are either fishing on wages or are sharing in the gross revenue of their landings. These men are engaged in fishing when employment is available during the summer period. After November 15, or at the latest December 1, fishing operations are curtailed

by ice formations along our shores. At such a time .it is almost impossible for any of these fishermen to secure employment for the winter period. If we are to maintain a flourishing fishing industry, if we want to keep our younger generation interested in following the steps of their forefathers, it is essential that amendments designed to include those fishermen under unemployment benefits be considered at the earliest possible date.
Amendments to the National Housing Act, providing for loans for home improvements, will stimulate further the construction program. I say, Mr. Speaker, at this point that the opening of a Central Mortgage office in the town of Bathurst in my constituency in the spring of 1954 has been most beneficial. From this office alone loans amounting to well over $500,000 have been approved in the first six months of operation. This statement might be a revelation to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) who stated in this house, a few days ago, as reported at page 119 of Hansard:
When you see a new house in certain parts of New Brunswick you really lift up your head to lock because it is something new, whereas in other parts of Canada new houses are a thing of almost everyday occurrence.
If the hon. member visited New Brunswick with the same perception with which he glanced at Montreal and the province of Quebec, no wonder he is concerned with a possibility which could more readily apply to his own district. It is rather difficult for anyone to reconcile the garden of Eden described by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam with the plea for assistance to unemployment presented on the same day by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green).
The introduction of amendments to accelerate the elimination of level crossings will provide additional employment and create further safety measures for our fast growing population.
Legislation providing facilities for loans to fishermen similar to those provided to farmers by the Farm Improvement Loans Act will no doubt create further interest among our fishermen. This legislation, when approved, may not meet with the full approbation or satisfaction of all fishermen; nevertheless I am confident that its application will relieve hardship and provide to a large number a purchasing power which will result in increased efficiency and subsequently in additional earnings.
Reports from a recent fisheries research board annual meeting held in Ottawa indicated the discovery of substantial scallop
The Address-Mr. Robichaud beds in the gulf of St. Lawrence. Fishermen from my constituency have reported in the last few fishing seasons the appearance of scallops along the bay of Chaleur coast and in the proximity of Miscou island. The development of this type of fishery would mean additional revenue to our fishermen and I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that during the 1955 season every effort be undertaken by the fisheries research board to carry on investigations and surveys in the area just mentioned.
The oyster production in New Brunswick reached a record of 37,000 barrels in 1949. Since then this most important fishery has been gradually decreasing from year to year, and when the figures for 1954 are published, I am afraid they will show a further reduction of this variety of shellfish. Oysters are found in the sheltered waters of the southern part of the gulf of St. Lawrence, and only during half the year is the water warm enough for feeding, which causes a slow growth and a limited and uncertain reproduction. It is generally recognized that the natural production of oysters in Canadian waters is not sufficient to meet the demand. It is also an admitted fact that restrictions on the fishing season, on sizes and on the gear to be used do not provide adequate protection for this luxurious shellfish.
Gloucester county is one of the larger oyster producing areas in eastern Canada. Our Shippigan and Caraquet oysters have acquired a nation-wide reputation. It is most urgent that the fisheries research board of Canada, in co-operation with the Department of Fisheries, carry out further investigation to improve the position of this industry. Unless new methods of oyster culture are discovered and large scale trials of cultivation are applied without further delay, I am prepared to predict that within the next five or six years this industry will drop to a new record low, which is causing great concern among our interested oyster fishermen. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Fisheries order an immediate survey of the situation, and that steps be taken at once to expand and improve, if possible, the facilities offered in this connection by the fisheries research board.
Amendments to the veterans welfare legislation or to the War Veterans Allowance Act to raise the basic rates as well as the ceiling on permissible incomes of recipients of allowances will create satisfaction throughout this country.
Early in the year a fire destroyed completely the Keymet mine mill which was at the point of starting its operations. Without losing a single day the management ordered the immediate reconstruction of the destroyed

The Address-Mr. Robichaud structure, and within a few months the new ore concentrator at Keymet was in full operation.
The base metal discoveries of 1953 in the Bathurst area, which were mentioned by the Mining World as the discovery of the year, were further implemented by the remarkable find of American Metal in the adjoining area early in 1954. With the Keymet mine already producing and a second mine ready to resume operation at the site of Brunswick Mining and Smelting, Gloucester county is gradually being recognized as the birthplace of a gigantic new mining field of great significance to the general economy of New Brunswick.
Every effort should be made to see that a zinc smelter, which is urgently needed in eastern Canada, be erected in the logical site offered by Gloucester county. The possible additional secondary industries which may spring up as a result of these new mining discoveries could be equal in importance to the mining and smelting operations. We have to offer in the proximity of these mining sites year-round water shipping facilities unequalled by any base metal mines now operating on Canadian soil. Recent hydrographic surveys have shown that Gloucester county offers facilities for the establishment of a year-round port with sufficient water depth for ocean-going vessels. This factor must not be neglected when the normal development of these mines takes place.
Numerous advantages would be derived if these developments could be followed by the construction of the Chignecto canal. Mineral ores from Ungava could then be processed in Gloucester and follow through this canal the short route to United States outlets.
Unfortunately, at the present time New Brunswick is faced with the major problem of providing adequate cheap power to facilitate the growth and expansion of these newly discovered mines. We have heard recently of the Beechwood project on the Saint John river, and of the possibilities offered by oil shale in Albert county. The water flow of the Saint John river is limited, and even the realization of the Beechwood project will not answer the problem by offering the large block of cheap power needed for the establishment of a flourishing mining industry and the subsidiary or secondary industries which would follow.
I am often wondering if coal, which exists in large quantities in New Brunswick and the neighbouring province of Nova Scotia, has been investigated to its full potentiality as a steam-generating facility. What a boon for the maritime provinces if in the near
[Mr. Robichaud.1
future a method could be found whereby cheap power could be generated from steam. The matter is worth considering and should be studied further by the research council of Canada. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the possibility of the commercial use of atomic energy as a power-generating factor seems to be coming closer to reality. When the day comes when practical use of atomic energy can be applied commercially to generate cheap electric power, may the province of New Brunswick be favoured with the first pilot plant of this kind.
On Friday last I listened with interest to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) quoting suggestions made by some hon. members in connection with the construction of the South Saskatchewan river project. Mention has been made of the Canso causeway, of the St. Lawrence seaway, of the trans-Canada highway, of the removal of Ripple Rock and other projects. This reminds me of a most unfortunate situation which exists in the lower end of my constituency of Gloucester. At the northeastern end of the province, with the bay of Chaleur on the west and the gulf of St. Lawrence on the east, are located the islands of Shippigan and Miscou. On the island of Shippigan alone over 5,000 inhabitants are living who depend almost entirely on fishing for a livelihood. The distance from the island to the mainland is slightly over half a mile and transportation consists of a cable ferry. Unfortunately, during the winter months the operation of the ferry is prevented by heavy ice formations, and these island residents have to use the ice bridge to communicate with the mainland. During the freeze-up period in late fall, and during the moving of ice in the spring, these poor inhabitants are left for weeks at a time without communication with the mainland. Those who have decided to take risks on insecure ice blocks have taken chances which, in many instances, have resulted in loss of life.
The cost of construction of a bridge to the mainland is greatly increased on account of navigation which has to pass through this channel. The entire Gloucester county fishing fleet uses this passage on its way to and returning from the fishing banks. This necessitates an open span or a bridge with an overhead clearance of approximately 40 feet at high tide. In view of these being navigable waters, I would suggest that the federal government consider the possibility of contributing its share to assure the construction of a bridge between Shippigan island and the mainland, thus relieving this unfortunate population of hardship and unnecessary worry.

(Translation):
As one of the representatives of French Acadian origin in the house, may I be permitted, at the beginning of this memorable year 1955, to salute, in my mother tongue, my French Acadian compatriots who this year celebrate the second centenary of the deportation of 1755.
The celebration of the second centenary of the deportation of the Acadians will mark an epoch in Canadian history. Mr. Speaker, the members of the house may rest assured that it is not our intention to revive a certain resentment brought about by a sad and unfortunate period of our people's history, but rather to mark officially and solemnly the rebirth and the survival of a small group who, exactly two centuries ago, had been condemned to dispersal and to almost certain destruction.
History tells us that out of some 15,000 to
16,000	people who had been deported in 1755, fathers, mothers and children of all ages banished from their homes, 6,000 to 7,000 only survived the innumerable hardships and miseries that were to be their lot. Through a miracle that cannot be ascribed to any earthly power, those few thousand exiles, that martyred people of the past, multiplied and rose again with such a determination to survive that they succeeded in overcoming the numerous obstacles which threatened their miraculous survival.
The descendants of that small people, banished and dispersed as a result of the "great disturbance", number today, after two centuries, more than 1J million. Almost 300,000 Acadian descendants now live in the maritime provinces. Another 300,000 are scattered over the Gaspe peninsula and other parts of the province of Quebec. We find 100,000 of them and even more in the New England states and more than half a million have settled in Louisiana. In my own constituency, I am happy to be able to salute some 50,000 people of French Acadian origin who will take part with me, this year, in the celebration of our second centenary.
At the very moment when I am addressing this house, an impressive delegation of 135 members from Quebec province and the mari-times are being officially entertained at Alexandria, Lafayette, Baton Rouge and, more precisely today, at New Orleans. Nearly half a million descendants of these unfortunate exiles of 1755 now live in these Louisiana cities and towns. Those who, through destitution, difficulties, demoralization, perhaps,
The Address-Mr. Robichaud
were prevented from making their way back to the forsaken land of Acadia chose that corner of the North American continent, wherein they had been carried by wind and wave, to make for themselves a new country.
With faith in God and Providence, the Acadians have retained the customs and traditions of their ancestors, as well as that gentle tongue of which, even now, you may be able to notice some overtones. Our Acadian people live in complete understanding with Canadians of British and other origins. They are peaceful and brotherly people, proud of their revealing survival and of their long and arduous rise to a place in the sun. The Acadian has preserved his love for the evergreen forest and his attraction for the almost enchanting and hypnotic breath of the ocean which offers him also the sight of the sun rising and setting magnificently in its glorious waters. This love for the sea and for the forest perhaps explains the irresistible propensity of the Acadian to seek a place close to the ocean. These sons of the exiled have become fishermen unfearful of the offing and unmindful of the hardships of the climate and storms, and are admittedly unequalled when it comes to felling trees in virgin forests.
Years, generations, have passed. Acadia, which was deemed forever destroyed, carried on patiently her reconstruction in the background. By a seldom empty cradle, the Acadian mother continued, and still does, to hum the old French songs and keeps on teaching persistently faith in God and respect for the authority. The cradle of the Acadian family is perhaps the secret of this miraculous survival.
In the cultural and social fields, the awakening and the progress are perhaps more obvious still. In the maritimes, Acadia today has her colleges and her universities: Ste. Anne college, at Church Point, in Nova Scotia; St. Joseph University in Memramcook, with its extension in Moncton; Sacred Heart University in Bathurst and St. Louis College in Edmundston. Notre Dame d'Acadie College for girls and several convents provide our young generation with a solid education based on principles which safeguard our language and our faith.
Today Acadia has, in the religious sphere, its archbishop, its bishops and a goodly number of priests, brothers and nuns. In the political field we are proud that one of Acadia's sons became the premier of a province, while some others have represented us

The Address-Mr. Nowlan creditably in the federal cabinet. We have our own judges, our own lawyers, our own doctors and our own engineers; we have in every profession representatives of whom we can be proud. We have also, in Acadia, our own French radio station and our own mutual insurance association, the Assumption Society. In the industrial and commercial sphere, our own people have forged ahead and now hold the foremost place in many branches of that field.
In a few weeks, to commemorate the bicentenary, one of our colleagues in this house, the member for Bonaventure (Mr. Arsenault), who is descended from that race which would not die, will honour us with a book bearing a most appropriate title: h'Acadie des Ancetres. That book will throw more light on the genealogy of the early Acadian families. In simple and easy language, the author will strive to bring back to life, in these few pages, the names of the founders and pioneers of the Acadia of bygone days. We will see names like Arsenault, Boudreau, Boucher, Chiasson, Doucet, Dugas, LeBlanc, Landry, Leger, LeBouthillier, LeBreton, LeMenager, Melanson, Michaud, Poirier, Richard, Roy, Robichaud, Savoie, Veniot and many others whom it would take too long to mention.
Mr. Speaker, I conclude by saluting this definite revival of the Acadian people. May Acadia be ever prosperous and keep on progressing towards the achievement of her destinies on American soil.
Before resuming my seat, on behalf of my compatriots I tender an official invitation to the Canadian people at large to take part in the magnificent celebrations that will mark the second centenary next summer at Grand Pre, Moncton, Caraquet and many other centres of the maritimes and Quebec. We also hope that the Canadian government will take part, in a concrete manner, in the celebration of the second centenary of the deportation of 1755.
(Text):


Mr. G. C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, this debate on the address is, of course, one of the two parliamentary milestones; the mountains, you might say, we climb as the session progresses. The other one is the debate on the budget during which theoretically every citizen through the mouth of his member of parliament can present his or her grievances.
But this occasion, I am afraid, is looked upon by many as something of a bore. They forget the fact that the history behind this address in reply to the speech from the

throne goes back to the very foundation of our constitution. They also forget that men risked their freedom and indeed their lives to make sure the executive, which presents its demands in writing before parliament, is made to account for those demands, and that through this means members of parliament now have a right to present their own views before dealing with those of the executive.
It is true, I am prepared to admit, that this principle might sometimes be abused. We have perhaps seen examples of that abuse in this house on more than one occasion. On the other hand we also see examples, as we did last week, of how parliament can deal with important or emergency matters efficiently and within a few hours.
It is therefore much better that members of parliament be permitted to bring too many things before the house than that they be curtailed in any manner. We sometimes hear suggestions that discussion should be curtailed, but I for one would oppose any such curtailment with all the power I can command.
It is conventional on these occasions to congratulate the mover (Mr. Leduc) and seconder (Mr. Carrick) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I think perhaps, as they do in the United States congress, it would be more efficient if we took that as read and passed on to something else. Nevertheless, having gone through that experience myself in a different place, and knowing something of the trial it is to a new member, I wish to join with those who have gone before in extending my congratulations to the two hon. gentlemen who performed a very difficult task in a most exceptional manner.
If I may be permitted a personal word, I would also like to welcome into this house another new member, namely the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Richardson) . I would have preferred to see another member enter the house on the behalf of the Progressive Conservative party, but if there has to be another Liberal here I am very glad it is the hon. member I have mentioned because after all he is a Nova Scotian, a graduate of Acadia and of the Dalhousie law school. With that background I am quite sure he will overcome the handicap of belonging to the political party of which he is now a member and make a real contribution to the debates in this house.
I am also glad to welcome the new Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler). Most of us do not know him very well. If you go into the office of your bank manager you wonder when he stares at you just what kind of

glass eye he has, and whether you will succeed in arousing his sympathy. But the new Minister of Transport seems very human, and he sat for many years in another place similar to ours. He must have made requests to the government and had the feeling of being frustrated and denied. He will therefore have a good deal of sympathy for those who make requests from this side of the house, and I can assure him we will exercise our right to make such appeals.
Since he is now here-and I do not mean that he is not always in his place-I wish to bring to his attention one matter in the speech from the throne which bothers me a great deal. Before I do that, however, as I am going to indulge in a word or two of criticism, perhaps I had better for the time being maintain this atmosphere of kindliness and good will.
There is another matter to which I want to make reference and which is referred to in the speech from the throne, namely the damage done to Nova Scotia by "Hurricane Edna." In that connection I want to express my appreciation and that of the people whom I represent to this government for the sympathy and practical co-operation which they extended to the fruit growers of the Annapolis valley. It is a devastating and terrifying thing to see what happened in this valley, which survived the vicissitudes of the war and while not perhaps overcoming the exchange difficulties, nevertheless faced them and brought the orchards back again into production with the finest apple crop which has ever been produced down there; I do not mean the largest, but the finest.
With the prospect of the British market opening up, and with harvesting only a few days away, in a few short hours we saw 60, 70 or 80 per cent of the crop thrown to the ground, when everyone's credit was extended to the very limit in the effort to bring that industry back as it was being brought back.
That was the situation we faced. As I said before, I want to express my appreciation to the government and particularly to the minister from Nova Scotia and to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), with whom I dealt on various occasions during that time and who always showed the greatest interest in this matter. I know the people greatly appreciate what was done.
I should also like to pay a tribute to the efficiency of the officials of the Department of Agriculture who went down to that valley and handled a situation which was, to say the least, rather novel. Karl Conger and others went down from here and within a few short days they evolved a system which was
The Address-Mr. Nowlan hammered out by trial and error, but it was more trial and less error than one would expect; it worked exceptionally well. As a result, instead of a disaster which could have completely wiped out the fruit industry of Nova Scotia, at least we were able to survive and the people there can look to the future at least with courage, if not with too much optimism.
In that connection I think I should say also that although we suffered severely, two or three weeks afterwards when we read of the disaster which occurred in Ontario and of the terrible loss of life in and around Toronto, we realized how fortunate we had been in that our loss was entirely material and not both material and physical, such as that which was suffered elsewhere.
As I have already said, there is one matter in the speech from the throne that I want to bring to the attention of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler). Dealing with the ferry service, the speech from the throne reads as follows:
It is expected that, in the course of the coming season, the new ferry between North Sydney and Port aux Basques will be in operation and the ferry service between Yarmouth and Bar Harbor started.
Ordinarily one would pass by that paragraph without question. But having dealt with this matter for six years now and having followed the many statements with respect to this ferry during that period, I am wondering whether there is a play on words being made between "being in operation" and "started". This ferry, Mr. Speaker, has started and stopped more often than any other ship ever built, not excluding Noah's ark, and its history goes back almost as far. I went to the trouble of getting extracts from statements made by the minister-I am not going to weary the house by going into details; it was not the present minister, of course, but his predecessor and other ministers-dealing with the course of construction of this boat. The story of Alice in Wonderland has nothing whatsoever on this story. When the minister speaks I hope he will tell us what is the difference between being in operation and starting. We do not want this one to stop. We want it to start and not stop. It has been a matter of stopping and starting up until now.
Away back in 1949 the then minister read an official statement in which he said this boat would be completed in time for the 1951 tourist season. Let me just interject this remark with regard to tourists. I think perhaps too much emphasis is laid on the fact that this is supposed to be a ferry for the benefit of tourists and, therefore, of course,

The Address-Mr. Novolan for the benefit of our economy. It is true that we are tremendously interested in the tourist industry. It is true that we hope this ferry will accommodate hundreds and thousands of tourists coming into the maritime provinces. But there is much more to it than that, Mr. Speaker.
In Nova Scotia, particularly perhaps in my own constituency in the Annapolis valley, we grow large quantities of small fruits, such as strawberries, cherries, peaches and fruits of that kind. We need access to the United States market. We need access to Boston and New York. With that ferry in operation and operating on a proper schedule, we shall be able to put refrigerated trucks or even ordinary commercial trucks out of the valley and into the Boston market within a few hours.
This matter is therefore of importance to more than the tourist industry. It is important to the farmers. It is important to the fishermen. They are all getting fed up with the delays which have characterized this service. As I said before, we were promised it in 1951. Incidentally, I may say that we were then told that its cost would be $3 million, of which Nova Scotia would pay $1,500,000. The province drove a fairly good bargain and agreed to pay not more than $1,500,000 or 50 per cent, whichever was the lesser. I notice the figure is now over $5,100,000. The cost is certainly much greater than anticipated. From the standpoint of economy, I hope the minister will get this boat going fairly soon. Otherwise the cost may run up to $9 or $10 million.
As I said before, the whole thing has been a comedy of errors. After he said it would be ready in 1951, and then in 1952, we were told it could not be built because of the shortage of steel. Yet two days after the minister made that announcement that it could not be built because of the shortage of steel he went into his own constituency-as, of course, he had a right to do; he was the member for that constituency-and announced that the construction of the St. Lawrence waterway was to be commenced at once. It did not get commenced at once, I must say; but it did not add to the good feeling in the province of Nova Scotia to be told that a boat which would take a few hundred tons of steel could not be proceeded with because we did not have the steel, but that we were going to proceed at once with the construction of another public work which would take infinitely larger quantities of steel.
Finally we arrived at the stage where they were going to let the contract, Mr. Speaker. Apparently the contractor had some suspicion with regard to the plans. The ship was to


have a speed of 18J knots, I think. After the naval architect for the department had prepared the plans, the contractor said he was not satisfied, and that he wanted a model. A model was made, and it was then found that the ship could not attain the speed which had been ordered, and also that it did not have the required stability. I understand that is a euphemism for saying that it could not go ahead and that, if it did go ahead, it would upset. Let us remember that this boat was to traverse some of the roughest water in the world. So again there was delay. The matter has been delayed and delayed until finally it is actually coming under the aegis of the present minister, although of course he is not responsible for it.
We heard there was to be a launching. All the preparations were made for it. The government bought a bottle of champagne. They wrapped it up in fancy tissue paper; I have no doubt about that. A very charming lady was chosen to break the bottle of champagne over the bow. A silk cord was bought by means of which to swing the bottle to be smashed against the bow. Then somebody started to think perhaps they had better look into the ship in order to find out what was in it. When they did so, what do you think they found? They found they had forgotten to order the worm gears for the engine. Therefore there was no use in launching it, because if they launched it they would not be able to get it out of port. They checked up and found that the order had not gone to Great Britain for the worm gears; and that worm gears were supposed to have been ordered over a year ago. Worm gears, incidentally, are not little bits of things. They are what transfer the power from the engine to the shaft. So the matter has been delayed again. The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) looks at me incredulously but these, sir, are facts that can be established. The champagne will keep, of course.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Not in the province of Nova Scotia.


George Clyde Nowlan: The champagne is in Montreal, not Nova Scotia. I thought, without being uncharitable or unkind, is that not somewhat in keeping with Liberal promises and Liberal performance? They buy their champagne but they forget to buy the worm gears. I hate to disillusion so early a new minister coming into the house, but I want to assure him that if he has been reading the press clippings of his department or of his colleagues and has believed them he is in for sad disillusionment, so we might as well disillusion him right now.

Incidentally, we had an election in Nova Scotia in 1953, and part of the Liberal publicity at that time was a full-page advertisement showing this steamer cruising across the sheets of the Halifax Herald with a bone in her teeth. She must have been making 15 or 20 knots an hour. This was one of the performances of the government on the basis of which they asked for re-election.
When I look at the statement the minister made last year, which I did not read analytically until today, I find something that is rather mysterious. The contract was signed on December 31, 1953. What the contract was for I do not know, because the keel was laid on July 30, 1953 and the launching took place on November 8, 1953. It was launched about six months after the election, but still it was launched some considerable time before the contract was let. It is no wonder the contractor has had difficulties about the matter.
I think the minister will perhaps understand now why I am slightly concerned about what has happened. We down there in the east want some assurance about this matter, because I can tell the minister that the public are angry and frustrated with respect to it. To be fair in that connection, and I want to be fair, I should also add that so far as the construction of the Canso causeway is concerned, it has been proceeded with expeditiously and efficiently. I think a very good job was done which will be of service to the province and for which due congratulations should be given.
Since the minister is in the house, and because he has sat in opposition, and because I know he is a sympathetic man and will listen at least with patience to the pleas of the opposition, even if repeated, I can perhaps trespass on the good nature of the house to make one other plea which I have made before. I ask him to discuss with his departmental officials the inauguration of a coastguard service on the Atlantic coast. The other day the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) made this suggestion with respect to the great lakes. I have no doubt it was a sound and proper suggestion, but I can assure him it is even more justified in so far as the Atlantic coast is concerned. The minister's predecessor always listened sympathetically, shook his head and said it was not necessary and could not be done. He said the search and rescue squadron of the R.C.A.F. was now performing functions which obviated the necessity for a coastguard service.
I do not want to depreciate one little bit the services of the search and rescue squadron. It is based in my constituency, and I know what these men do; but aeroplanes cannot land on rough waters and high seas.
The Address-Mr. Nowlan The minister from the province knows full well, because he comes from a maritime constituency where men go down to the sea in ships, that every year boat after boat comes drifting ashore, boats that have been lost for days. The men are either dying or sometimes even dead, and the evidence is all too plain that they have died within the last few hours. If some kind of co-ordinated search could have been made their lives would have been saved.
I do not think it would amount to a tremendous expenditure. I do not know, of course, but there are many ships in the department. There are the fisheries inspection ships and so on. There is the search and rescue squadron. I think what is needed largely is co-ordination and direction. We are in the position down there that when we need help we have to appeal to the United States coastguard service. I must say that it, of course, is one of the most efficient coastguard services, I presume the most efficient in the world. It has rendered yeoman service, but one does not always want to be applying to the Americans for help, and it is very often difficult for them to render that help anyway. We are told that we have to go to the NATO pool for shipping and that we have to go to the United States for coastguard service. I doubt if that is fitting for a maritime nation such as our own. I hope the minister will take this request under consideration again, and see if something can be done to inaugurate a coastguard service. It is badly needed, will serve a most useful purpose and, as I said, I think without too much additional expense.
There is another minister who has changed places since we spoke last in the house. He has not sat in opposition, but I should like to renew to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) an appeal I have made on different occasions and which I am going to continue to make as long as the present situation exists. I am asking that the question of grants to universities be reviewed and reconsidered, and that the system be amended by the government. As far as the grants themselves are concerned, I believe we all commend the government for them. I think we recognize that today universities are playing a more and more important role in the life of the nation, and that to some extent at any rate they are a national responsibility.
Without universities our industrial and scientific production, even our civil service, would not be able to function. All one has to do is look at the advertisements appearing from day to day for men for the civil service to see the emphasis which is placed upon university graduation. Yet the universities are caught, as everyone else is, with higher
254	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Nowlan costs. Because of high taxation and succession duties the beneficent gifts of the old days, the large, substantial donations, have unfortunately decreased and in many cases virtually disappeared, leaving the universities with reduced funds.
The problem is an increasingly difficult one. Universities today are financed more and more on the tuition fees charged students. The problem has increased alarmingly in the last few years. It is a problem, of course, which I am sure the government will have to look at in a far wider field within the next five to ten years, because we are just on the verge of a new problem with respect to universities. Everyone realizes that between 1960 and 1965 we are going to commence to get the influx of students who were born at the time of the wartime prosperity increased birth rate. The physical plant of every university will be taxed to the limit. The faculties will be taxed. Facilities will have to be increased tremendously, but in the meantime they have not had the financial backing to maintain their present operation, let alone the expansion with which they will be confronted. I know that presents a national problem of far greater financial significance than the one I am mentioning at the moment.
To come back to the present, what is the situation? I think most hon. members are conversant with it. The dominion government makes available to the provinces 50 cents per head of population. Then the province distributes the money among its approved colleges. That at least is an advance over getting no assistance whatsoever. But how does it work out?
In the province of Nova Scotia we have a relatively small population for which we get 50 cents a head, and that money is made available to the universities. We have several universities in the province. Some will say that we have too many, but their roots are in the ground, they are established, they have rendered service to this country and are going to continue to render that service. We have no state university whatsoever in the province of Nova Scotia. None of the universities of the province get provincial grants at all, as is the case in most of the other provinces of Canada.
We do have professional schools in Halifax, and at Dalhousie we have law, medicine, dentistry and pharmacy which attract students from all over the maritime provinces and beyond. I know that in my son's class, the third year in law at Dalhousie, there are ten students from Ontario this year. The Nova Scotia technical college attracts engineering


students from Mount Allison and the University of New Brunswick as well as other places. They are all charged up against the per capita payment to Nova Scotia.
I am not going to deal with the situation in detail, Mr. Speaker, but I communicated with the Department of Finance today and in these figures I have given you illustrations of how the existing system operates. In Newfoundland the university gets $477 per student because that province has only one college, as I understand it, and the registration apparently is not too large. I believe they have 401 students. At 50 cents per head of population they get $191,500 or $477 per student in that college. Prince Edward Island gets $209 per student, and then these grants drop down. Those are the two highest. Ontario gets $144 per student, Alberta $158 per student, and then there are three, Mr. Speaker, below $125.
In Nova Scotia this year, according to the department, we are going to receive only $89 per student as compared with $477 in Newfoundland and $209 in Prince Edward Island. Manitoba will get $10 more, or $99 per student. British Columbia, which apparently has a tremendous student body of 5,616, will receive only $109 per student. You have, therefore, three provinces in Canada that will receive less than $125 per student.
I have made this suggestion before, Mr. Speaker, and I am urging it again. As I said, we have a new Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) who knows something of the experience of smaller universities. I know there are others in the government who have experience with universities. I am urging again that the government maintain the present system if that is their desire, but on the basis of a guaranteed payment of $125 per student as a minimum, or 50 cents a head. In that case the grants will be increased for only three provinces, Nova Scotia, British Columbia and Manitoba. The total involved will be relatively small, but it will make a substantial difference to the universities in those provinces.
I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, it will make a tremendous difference to the universities in Nova Scotia, where we now feel we are carrying a burden for all of eastern Canada. As a result we get the smallest grant of any province in Canada.
I am wandering somewhat afield on these matters, and I want to shift to another matter about which I have been intrigued during the last little while as the result of reading a series of articles which appeared in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald. There has been some discussion about this matter pre-

viously. I want to bring it before the house at this time, and I am not suggesting any solution. I do not know what the solutions are. I believe there is something here to which we should be paying attention. I refer to the problem of the British West Indies vis-a-vis the Dominion of Canada. At one time the British West Indies was one of our greatest markets. A man sitting within the sound of my voice at this moment said earlier in the day that ordinarily he shipped thousands of bushels of potatoes to the West Indies, but this year not a bushel is going down there. In 1947 our exports to the West Indies amounted to over $80 million. Then foreign exchange control was imposed by Britain and the dollars dried up. Their purchases have fallen off until they are now less than $40 million.
I suggest that is not a matter this government has anything to do with at all, but is a matter of foreign exchange control restrictions imposed by the British government. Last year I went to a board which is administered here by the Department of Trade and Commerce, for the sterling stabilization fund for the West Indies. I went on behalf of a constituent who wanted to ship
10,000	boxes of apples to the West Indies. Finally, after making many calls-that was not the fault of the officials-that board was able to provide enough dollars to enable us to ship 2,000 boxes down there. As I said, there was a market for 10,000 boxes.
I feel this example could be multiplied a dozen times. Perhaps I am interested in the problem because the West Indies market has always had a traditional significance for the maritimes. In the days of our old wooden ships we took our potatoes, lumber and fish to the West Indies and brought back fruit, molasses and spices.


An hon. Member:: And rum.


George Clyde Nowlan: Yes, we also brought back rum; there is no question about that. It was a very profitable trade, and I am told it was good rum. Before my day that trade dried up, so I cannot tell you about that. This trade was perhaps the background of the economic development of the maritime provinces; but as I said, it has almost entirely disappeared today. If something could be done to revive these markets it would be of direct assistance to the maritimes and Canada as a whole would benefit. I think there is a real problem there, Mr. Speaker.
Those of us who have been to the West Indies are somewhat shocked and appalled by the conditions which exist there. There is more food and yet probably more people verging on starvation there than any place
The Address-Mr. Nowlan in the world. You have people who are discontented, unhappy, poverty-stricken, living in hovels and in many cases under intolerable conditions. We are worrying about communism, and properly so. We have tried to assist in the Far East and in the Near East. We have our Colombo plan to which I give full support, and which I think should be extended even farther. I am wondering if we have not a problem right on our own doorstep which perhaps requires something of a Colombo plan. Something must be done because after all, without becoming an alarmist, every day we hear rumours. We know that only a little while ago there was trouble in different parts of the Caribbean.
You have a field there which is ripe for communism or anything else if something is not done in the relatively near future. The situation demands attention. I feel we should be giving some attention to that, and not merely because of the spread of communism. Whether it is in the form of a commercial union, whether it is in the form of financial assistance of some kind such as a miniature West Indies Colombo plan, or whatever the solution may be, there is a problem which is crying for attention. We are going to be forced to give it attention in the not too distant future, from the standpoint of national defence or any other way you want to look at it.
It is true that tourists go down there and create wealth; they bring money into the country. However, this also creates antagonism, especially when you see people flippantly throwing coins into the water for which the boys dive, and when they come back that is their penny for the day. This does not help create the good will which we are prone to boast about. I suggest some attention must be paid to this problem in the not distant future.
One could go over the problems which have been stressed by other members here. I do not propose to do that. We had a speech the other day by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) emphasizing the problem of the coal industry. I could echo everything he said, and at a later date I intend to deal with that problem, but not at this time. Then there is the problem of agriculture. It is trite to say that agriculture is depressed. It is proper to say that. Of course there are many examples, individual ones, that point to the contrary.
I am not going to subscribe to all the theories that have been advanced for the solution of agricultural problems, but I think increased production and efficiency will go a long way to meeting them if we have markets

The Address-Mr. Nowlan available for our products. Take our own fruit industry. One man with a power pruner attached to a power sprayer will prune more acres of orchard in a day than a dozen could do in a week a few years ago. In a day one power sprayer will spray more efficiently a larger acreage of orchard than formerly would be sprayed by four or five men in a week. Today the small unit, as in so many other branches of agriculture, is rapidly passing, from the standpoint of being an efficient producer. But unless you have markets, Mr. Speaker, the situation is really serious.
Although this government could be commended for things it has done

it could be commended for the extension of the war veterans' allowance, for the disabled pensions and a few things like that-I wonder whether the speech from the throne does show the vision, the imagination and the courage which are necessary to deal with the problems facing Canada today.
They talk about blasting Ripple Rock. I am sure that is of great importance to the people of British Columbia. It brings much satisfaction to my friend the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green). But I think it is the first time I can recall that constitutionally such language has been put in the mouth of the representative of His Majesty or Her Majesty-that a rock was to be blasted. When I read the speech it appeared to me that somebody had started optimistically with the first paragraph and the last paragraph, and had hoped to put something very important in between; but then something happened and they could not, so they just filled it in with this and that. Whether I am right in that I do not know. But Ripple Rock is there; the constitutional rock which threatened confederation was not mentioned. Perhaps that was obviated this afternoon. We shall see when we have an opportunity of reading the papers in connection with it.
I suggest kindly it is indicative of the approach which is being made by this government to the problems of today. There is nothing there which indicates the government is going to face the crisis confronting agricultural production and other problems.
I was intrigued by the C.C.F. amendment. It said that the government had gone back to uncontrolled and unrestricted free enterprise. When was there ever unrestricted and uncontrolled free enterprise in this country, Mr. Speaker? This nation historically has always been a nation of compromises. We were a small nation with a thin population strung north of the 49th parallel. From the beginning we had to compromise. We built the Canadian Pacific Railway with government assistance; then having built a so-called

private railway, we afterwards took over a public one and operated it in competition with the private railway. We have a privately owned radio industry and a national broadcasting system as well. In no country in the world has there been a greater degree of successful compromise evolved between private enterprise and the state. In that way we are evolving, perhaps slowly, certainly not colourfully, not dramatically, a distinct Canadian nation with a distinctly Canadian culture and background. It is certainly not one of unrestricted and uncontrolled free enterprise, I can assure you of that; but I do think that we are perhaps not facing up to other problems.
I am intrigued by my hon. friends on the left talking about raising the old age pension to $65 a month. One can have sympathy with a proposition such as that. One knows that it is made sincerely, but I wonder when in this country we are going to create an atmosphere in which there will not always be pie in the sky for someone. I was rather shocked a little while ago when I received a letter from a constituent who told me he had his gall bladder out, and he now wanted a gall bladder pension. I presume that other hon. members have had the same experience. I think the time has come when in this country we have to produce more, and realize that there is no pie in the sky for all.
I do believe that the speech from the throne does not face this situation at all. It was written in a sort of languorous attitude on a late summer afternoon with the shadows of the setting sun falling across the page of the speech that was being written. It was not written in the bright, crisp sunlight of the early morning, when inspiration and action would be demanded.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the subamendment. I do not want to indulge in any unnecessary verbosity and repeat the excellent arguments put forward by a number of speakers in this group in support of our criticisms and various proposals, but I wish to make a few comments this afternoon.
I must say I personally was very pleased indeed to learn that there are going to be improvements in the war veterans allowance, and I am sure we all await with great interest the introduction of the bill. The announcement of those improvements have'been very cheering words to many veterans and their dependents. We are also glad to note that the government is giving notice of the reestablishment of the veterans affairs committee. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a plea that this committee be made a permanent committee of this house.

It could be a clearing house lor veterans problems and administration problems generally, and it would offer advantages not only to the opposition but to the minister and the government.
I was also very pleased to see the amendment to the Blind Persons Act, to lower the age of eligibility and raise the income ceilings. I am sure that measure will be welcomed by all hon. members. I was also pleased to see the suggestion that there would be an amendment to the Railway Act to accelerate the elimination of level crossings. Many members have for years been advocating a more vigorous policy on the part of the government with respect to the removal of the dangerous railroad crossings in this country.
Then two other very interesting measures are amendments to the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act, and a measure to control works which will affect the normal flow of rivers across international boundaries. These measures are of great importance to Canadians as a whole. I am sure when they are under discussion they will create great national interest. They are of great importance to British Columbia, and of particular importance to the people whom I represent.
I intend to speak at some length when these bills are under discussion, but I wish now to make a few comments on certain remarks made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), when he spoke in the debate on Wednesday, January 12. At page 114 of Hansard, when referring to these measures, the hon. member had this to say:
Insofar as the plans of the government with regard to the Columbia river system are concerned, we approve of anything which means the use of Canadian resources by the Canadian people.
That is just what the government intends to provide for. The hon. member went on:
But I am afraid the story is not quite that simple.
I believe this proposal is also designed as a club with which to beat the government of the province of British Columbia.
Later, on the same page and in the same speech the hon. member said:
There must be co-operation between the two governments. I believe that both sides are sincere.
It seems to me a strictly illogical position to take to suggest that the government is using this legislation to beat the government of British Columbia over the head, and at the same time impute motives to that government which the hon. member considers to be sincere on this question.
I just want to say a word or two along this line because there has been some suggestion in the country that the government is acting unfairly, and I mention this because 50433-17
The Address-^-Mr. Herridge I am particularly anxious to see this question discussed on its merits. I am not a supporter of the government of British Columbia, and I am not a supporter of the government of Canada. However, I think this matter is so important that we should not have the whole situation fogged with the misunderstanding that it is purely a partisan and political matter.
United States interests have been very interested in the building of this dam since 1947. It has been discussed in congressional committees and by the Columbia basin committee of the United States; and it has been discussed by a good number of senators. In 1948 the United States Columbia basin commission passed the following resolution, which I quote to prove a point or two:
Resolved by the Columbia basin commission that it hereby requests the international joint commission to direct its international board of engineers to give priority to studies and report on the storage of water in Arrow lakes, British Columbia, so that the commission may decide the amount of storage it will approve there, and if such report be favourable, that the Bonneville power administration and the United States, and the proper governmental agency of British Columbia and Canada, then proceed to negotiate for an agreement.
My first point is that in their resolution the commission recognizes the chain of responsibility-the international joint commission, the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia. Then the resolution goes on to say:
-and be it further resolved, that the commission urge the state legislature, the members of congress from Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana, the governors of said states, and the President of the United States, to join in the above request to the American members of the international joint commission and the premier of British Columbia and the Prime Minister of Canada to join in the above request to the Canadian members of the international joint commission in the hope that the threatened electrical catastrophe to the Pacific northwest during the next five years may be averted, and that, instead, both the United States and Canada may have increased development and prosperity and a stronger national defence.
I quote that resolution to indicate that the chain of responsibility on this question is recognized by governmental authorities in the United States.
I remember discussing this matter in 1949 with the late Mr. J. Webster, a member of the Liberal party and the member for the constituency of Rossland-Trail, who strongly urged the coalition government of British Columbia to conduct an investigation as a result of this request of the United States for the building of a low level dam on the Arrow lakes for storage purposes.

The Address-Mr. Herridge
I am informed that the government of British Columbia did consider the matter, but after discussing it with other bodies and receiving technical advice and so on they decided not to proceed with it as they felt it was not in the best interests of British Columbia to proceed with the proposal. I mention this to indicate that the matter has been discussed before, and I am quite sure it is only fair to say that the attitude on the part of the government at this time in relation to this question is simply the continuation of an attitude that has existed throughout the years.
The attitude of the Canadian section of the international joint commission is indicated in a speech by General McNaughton to the Pacific northwest trade association, delivered at Spokane, Washington, on November 2, 1953, before these proposals ever came before the house. In connection with this suggested low level dam General McNaughton had this to say:
As regards the storage on the Arrow lakes which was mentioned this morning, the project is very much in the mind of our engineering board, but it ranks less in possibility of over-all benefit from a basin point of view and very much less in possible benefit to Canada and in consequence we are giving priority to the Mica project.
This matter was also under discussion in the external affairs committee last session, and the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) asked General McNaughton the following question which I find in the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the external affairs committee, No. 7, dated May 12, 1954 at page 175:
Q. The actual construction could not be done until you people have approved?
A. No, sir.
I just mention these facts because I for one am very interested in seeing that this whole question be discussed in a purely objective way, since the matters being decided concerning the Columbia river are of great importance to the people of British Columbia, and are of particular importance to the people I have the honour to represent. I would like to say further that many hon. members do not recognize the fact that if it had not been for the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) turning down the request to divert Yukon waters to Skagway for the production of power for the production of aluminum, British Columbia would not now be having the opportunity to consider the Frobisher proposals.
I think under the circumstances it is not fair to suggest that the legislation proposed in the speech from the throne with regard to the control of waters flowing across the

international boundary is designed as a club with which to beat the government of British Columbia.
Before leaving that argument I simply wish to say that as a result of the public interest in this question-and I intend to say quite a bit more on it at a later date-I hope there will be a meeting of minds, as General McNaughton put it on one occasion, between the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia, and that we can get together to develop the great Columbia river to our common and mutual advantage.


Mr. MacDougall:: Well said.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: 
Mr. Blackmore:: Six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member wish to conclude his remarks, or call it six o'clock?
CMr. Herridge.]


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I will call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, when we took recess for dinner I was bringing to the attention of the house and of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) the fact that while this government has a policy of trying to persuade private employers to employ as many older people as possible, some departments were not giving effect to that policy. I read a letter which had been written to me by the chairman of the civil service commission in which he pointed out that the second reason for difficulty in applying the policy was the willingness or unwillingness of departmental officials to accept for employment veterans whose term of employment would be relatively short.
I want to protest most emphatically about the unwillingness of departmental officers to give effect to a policy that the government and the Department of Labour are urging private employers to accept. I hope there may be some remedy to this situation, and that we shall not have this buck-passing from the civil service commission to the officers of the various departments and back to the Minister of Labour. It is a serious situation because it means there are a good number of capable older people who could be satisfactorily employed, particularly in the lighter civil service positions, who are being denied that opportunity actually against the announced policy of this government.
I have just a couple of items still to deal with, Mr. Speaker. I am making to some extent what Mr. Michael Barkway would call one of my parochial speeches, which deal with local matters, but they are of serious concern to my constituents.
* I understand that the government is giving consideration to the sale of certain veteran rental housing projects that have been established across Canada. One of these projects, namely the Sunningdale veterans housing project, is in my constituency. Of course, in giving consideration to the sale, they are giving consideration to the price. I have been informed by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation that the contract price for the construction of these houses was $5,200 for a two-bedroom house and $5,800 for a three-bedroom house. I have made inquiries, and I find that the city of Trail has

The Address-Mr. Mclvor
assessed the two-bedroom house at $1,900 and the three-bedroom house at $2,100. Those assessments are on the basis of 60 per cent of replacement value. Those assessments have been approved by the provincial equalization board of British Columbia as being in line with standard practice and values.
The government has had rent from those houses for some years. They have had certain maintenance and administrative costs. But in addition to that, the veteran purchasers of those homes spent, in the majority of cases, considerable sums in improving the grounds around the houses, making fills and doing landscaping, planting and so on. Some of them have made extensive repairs and improvements to these houses. I urge that the minister give consideration to all these facts, when the sale price is being considered.
I understand that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is not operated for profit. I make a strong appeal that these houses be sold to these veterans in Canada at the net cost to the government at the time of the sale. I am sure such a policy would receive the support of the majority of the members of this house. The government would not be losing a cent. They would simply be selling houses to these veterans at the net cost at the time of sale.
I mention this matter because some of these veterans are somewhat disturbed at the prices they hear they might be expected to pay. For the life of me I cannot see why Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation should expect to make a dollar out of projects such as these. I am sure the people of Canada would be well pleased if these men receive these houses at the cost to the government at the time of sale.
Before leaving this question of housing I want to say that I listened to the extremely interesting speech the other day by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll). He usually makes an interesting and constructive speech. He dealt at some length with the housing situation. I was rather intrigued with the novel proposal he made-and I say "novel" because it is new as far as the government or the members of this house are concerned -urging the government to establish some form of equity insurance for the down payment on homes. As I understood his remarks at the time-and since then I have read them carefully-his proposal would not cost this country one cent. It might mean certain careful administrative arrangements and some little extra work for the department concerned, but I completely agree with his analysis of the situation, with his proposals and with the benefit that would accrue to the home purchaser without any cost to
this country. I urge the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters), who is in charge of the housing act, to give serious consideration to this constructive and, in my opinion, forward-looking proposal.
I have come to the conclusion of my dealing with subjects that have been concerned with water and land. I now come to the air. For years I have been urging better facilities to improve radio reception in the northern half of my constituency, particularly. For years thousands of my constituents have not had the opportunity to listen to a Canadian radio station properly, and that situation exists at the present time. If they want to listen to a radio station satisfactorily, because of the mountainous terrain and unusual circumstances and the difficulties that prevail with regard to radio transmission they have had to satisfy themselves with listening to San Francisco, Seattle or some Central American station. Last year two low-power relay transmitters were established in my constituency, one at Castlegar, and one at Kaslo. I want to say that the people of the areas served by those low-power relay transmitters are delighted with their installation. For the first time in their experience as residents of Kootenay West they have had the opportunity to listen to the C.B.C. from seven o'clock in the morning until eleven o'clock at night, and they enjoy it greatly.
But their enjoyment has created a great deal of interest among those who are not now enjoying such radio reception. On December 20 last I addressed a meeting at which were present over 300 people from various points along the Arrow lakes, and they discussed this question. That meeting passed a resolution urging the government to take action to bring about the installation of low-power relay stations in Kootenay West sufficient to cover the balance of the district which is at present suffering from poor reception.
I urge the minister of the department concerned to give consideration to this appeal. While other people-and soon possibly the majority of the people in Canada-are enjoying television, I have thousands of residents in my constituency who have never had the opportunity, since radio was first instituted, to enjoy proper Canadian radio reception. I urge early action to correct this unnecessary and, in my opinion, most unfair situation.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity of again saying a word as the representative of one of the finest and most progressive ridings in Canada. That goes without question. Like other hon. members. I congratulate
262	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Mclvor and welcome the new members. I have personally congratulated the mover (Mr. Leduc) and the seconder (Mr. Carrick) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I should very much like to welcome the seven new members of the page staff. They are vital to the life of this house, and they are great boys.
There are some things that we miss on this side of the house. For one thing, we miss the clock. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) tells me that there is therefore no limit on the speakers on this side of the house; but I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I shall not go my 40 minutes unless something happens that has not happened previously. I say with a good deal of feeling that, as I look across at his empty seat, I miss the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew). I know the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Rowe) is doing a good job but, as I say, I miss the Leader of the Opposition. On former occasions he would sit through my speech for 30 minutes without batting an eye. Who would not appreciate that courtesy? We hope that soon, in answer to the quiet petitions of members of this house, the Leader of the Opposition will be restored to health and strength.
Having read and reread the speech from the throne, may I say that in my opinion it is the best that has been made in my short term in the house. I believe I have listened to 19 or 20 speeches from the throne. The present one deals with the general life of Canada better than any speech from the throne I have read. It is not in general but in particular language. After dealing first with certain outstanding questions it deals at the close of the speech with 15 pieces of legislation that will be dealt with by the house. Nobody speaking the truth dares to say that the speech from the throne is distinguished for what it does not say. It is distinguished for what it does say, and I think I can prove that.
The first thing in the speech from the throne that I appreciated was the fact that a committee of the house is to be set up to deal with the rules and procedure of the house. I do not think any man needs to speak for 40 minutes, because there are so many opportunities for members who wish to speak on the various questions that come before us. In the second place, if there is some matter that is burning our insides we can put a question about it and get the information. I think 40 minutes is too long. We will have to prepare more thoroughly. I know that those who speak loud and long and very intelligently may oppose cutting down the time, but I think their better judgment will lead them to see that this is a step in the right
IMr. Mclvor.]

direction. I am looking forward to the report of the committee with a great deal of interest.
The speech from the throne also indicates that the government is considering the needs of the blind. The age limit is to be cut to 18 years. However, when the matter comes before the house I am going to urge the house that the blind should get their pensions without a means test. Consider the man or woman who has to go through the world without sight. You cannot compensate them in any way. It is a terrible handicap.
The amendment of the Unemployment Insurance Act is most welcome because we believe it will do a good deal to help those who are not working. It tells me that the government is alive to the needs of the day, which are to keep men working or if they are not working to give them enough to live on so they will have the necessities of life and a little more.
In sport, Mr. Speaker, some athletes are honoured because they break records. It may be scoring a certain number of goals, it may be that a goalkeeper has so many shut-outs, it may be that a man has hit so many home runs or stolen so many bases. I think the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) has made a record in the House of Commons when he can bring in a money bill preceded by a resolution and in two days have it passed through the house and the other place. The bill to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act was introduced by way of resolution at 3 p.m. on Tuesday, January 11. The resolution was passed and the bill was given first reading on that day. Second reading of the bill was moved at 3.10 p.m. on Thursday, January 13. The bill received second reading, went through committee and by 5.15 p.m. was passed by the house. Before the day ended it was not only passed by the House of Commons but had been passed by the other place. All this was done in two days. We congratulate the minister on this record. It will be pretty hard for any other minister to beat it.
According to the speech from the throne the government is also going to deal with the needs of the veterans. Veterans allowances are going to be improved. For six years now I have been advocating that veterans of the first and second world wars, but particularly the first world war, should receive a pension at 60 years of age without a means test. I know some veterans in Fort William who are about 60 years old, and I can tell hon. members that they could not compete with me in athletic contests because they lost so much during those years of war. One man had four Christmas dinners in the trenches.
These men risked their lives. They left

everything that was near and dear. Some of them came back, and those who did not need no pension; they have heard their "well done". As long as I am here I am going to press for a pension at 60 without a means test for the veterans of these two wars.
We were also pleased to learn that the Colombo plan not only continues to be supported and kept going in the old way but is being strengthened by a grant of an additional million dollars. Some people believe this is not enough, but to me a million dollars is a lot of money. An additional million dollars will strengthen the Colombo plan.
We are also assured that pensions for the handicapped will be put into effect. This is what we expected. I know we fought for them for quite a while. I said in the house I would not support any other social legislation until pensions for the handicapped were granted. Now we can support other legislation along similar lines.
The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) congratulated the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) on the speech he made. I congratulate him too. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) knows the hon. member is right when he says that any man who invests $1,500 in a new house should not lose his investment because of adverse circumstances such as sickness or unemployment. I congratulate the hon. member for Spadina on his splendidly prepared speech and the clear and concise way in which he delivered it.
I know we too have a problem at Fort William in the form of unemployment. The local member of the legislature for Port Arthur, who is a Conservative but who speaks the truth because he is a sincere man and a real friend-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Hees:: All Conservatives are.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: -says that we have unemployment at the lakehead but we are going to handle it. That is my interpretation of his words. He says we have the greatest country on earth, and I will give you some reasons why his statement is true. I congratulate him on coming out in the open and making this statement. I should like to say, though, that if anybody can And a cure for seasonal unemployment at the lakehead he deserves the highest honour of this country.
Let us see what happens. When the lake freezes, boats cannot enter the harbour. The elevators close down and lay off their employees. The railways lay off employees. There are four dredges busy there in the summer, and they lay off about 40 employees apiece.
The Address-Mr. Mclvor
The only thing these workers can do is to go to the bush if they are able to do so. However, some men cannot go to the bush, because they are not fit in many ways and do not have the experience. So I say if anybody can find a cure for seasonal unemployment at the lakehead he will be a dandy.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) made a good speech. I like to hear him, because I believe he speaks sincerely. I do not say that no one else speaks sincerely, but I like to hear him. At the close of his speech he said that this government is very fond of admiring itself, or something like that. I would tell the hon. member that they have something to admire. We not only think that ourselves, but there are those outside of Canada who congratulate Canada on its government. I should like to say there are those to the south of us who think we are doing a very good job. This summer the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) was presented with the Guggenheim medal by the American Society of Engineers because of his aid to aviation. This is one of the highest tributes that could be paid to a minister.
When I think of Canada, there is music in the name. When I think of Canada from east to west, with all its provincial governments, its cities and its federal government, I am sure we have the best governments on earth. The opposition may talk as they like, but in their own hearts they know that we have good government. It is honest. I dare any man to stand up in this house or out of it and point a finger at a cabinet minister for taking one personal dollar of graft. After 20 years in office, Mr. Speaker, I feel that is a fine record. Where is there a provincial government that can match that record? I do not believe any other dominion government has equalled it.


George Harris Hees: What provincial government has not?


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I am not listening to interruptions. We have a great country. When I think of Fort William I think of what our city council is doing. As I have mentioned before, we are training our youth to become clean, Christian citizens. The city council is doing one job and our Sunday schools, churches and Y.M.C.A. are doing another. We have 29 hockey and skating rinks side by side. They are supervised by a superintendent who likes boys. There is a house at each rink. When I think of that, I admire our city council and its progress. The taxes in that city are no higher than in any other city. They are not even as high as in Ottawa.

The Address-Mr. Mclvor ' In the summertime we have our parks board manager, Mr. Art Widnall. He has high school pupils and others who supervise the children in the different parks during the summer, so the boys and girls are kept busy. One of the outstanding features is that we have so many hockey teams in these rinks it is difficult to get individuals to supervise them. I remember once asking a big fellow if he would come out and have a look at what we were doing. I announced there would be a practice for pee-wees, 12 years and under, on Thursday afternoon at 4.15. This was an open air rink, and it was 15 below with a wind blowing. This big fellow, Ted Grant, a city policeman, came along, but neither he nor anybody else was cold that afternoon. Today this big policeman is carrying on, and he will never have less than three teams to supervise. He supervises baseball during the summer, and the boys are not afraid of him. Of course, they will do what he says.
I heard the leader of the C.C.F. say that nothing had been done for the benefit of the workers from 1935 to 1938. I do not know what was done in Rosetown-Biggar, but I know what was done in Fort William and district. The then deputy minister of labour, and afterward the late Humphrey Mitchell, came out. The relief camps were closed and the men were put at emergency work for the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific railways. That was a month after our election, and I appreciated that very much.
I should like to say a word about strikes. I have been hoping that the brains of labour, which I believe are just as good as any others, would co-operate with management in finding a cure for strikes. I know that industries in Canada are growing. When we suggest co-operation between labour and management and a share in the profits for the worker as a cure for strikes, we know that will not work in companies like the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific. However, perhaps it could be worked out.
I am convinced that if you could give the worker his present salary plus a share in the profits that would work splendidly. Of course there are those who suggest that if you could get the golden rule put into practice it would cure strikes, and I am convinced that it would.
Fort William has some needs. In order to cure our unemployment we think we should have a breakwater in front of No. 2 and No. 1. It is needed for the storage of logs and the protection of industries. We know that the dominion government pays $33,000 for offices in Fort William, but we would like to have a federal building. We strongly advocate that dredging should be begun as


early as possible instead of at the beginning of July. We think dredging should be started early in the spring.
I was told by a friend that Canada's danger today is not communism and is not war. I said, "Well, what is it?" He said it .is the breaking of the ten commandments. I have thought a good deal about it. I have heard hon. members in this house debate the question of divorce, but I have not yet heard anyone give us a cure for divorce. The cause of divorce is the breaking of the seventh commandment; therefore my friend was right in saying the danger to Canada was the breaking of the ten commandments. The number of divorces is increasing every year. Why? Because of selfishness and the breaking of the seventh commandment.
I was in British Columbia this fall. I know that a man who visits another province and expects to assess the life in that province in a week is expecting a great deal. I could not do it. When I went to Vancouver I did find that there was a big ruction because certain individuals were putting out sweepstake tickets with promises of big rewards. A certain newspaper and the police checked up and found that no one had ever received a prize.
The cry all across Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific is, "Buy a sweepstake ticket and get something for nothing." What commandment does that break? The tenth commandment says "Thou shalt not covet." He is just trying to get something the other fellow has paid for. Therefore the danger to Canada today is in the breaking of the ten commandments.
What do we find today in respect to working conditions? In the past we struggled hard for one day in seven for the workingman. He got one day in seven; now he has two. Some think it should be cut down a little lower, but I do not. We have the eight-hour day and the five-day week, therefore there are eight hours for work, eight hours for play and eight hours for sleep, with a full day on Saturday. Yet you find those who want to steal Sunday from the Almighty and make it a day of commercial sport. That is unpopular, and it is an unpopular thing to advocate. It is as true as life that when you hold your commercial activities on the Sabbath day, you are breaking a moral law, "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy."
I am not going to push that any farther, but I should like to add that this friend pf mine says, "You have departments for war; why not have a department for peace?" With respect to the breaking of the Sabbath day,

I would advise cabinet ministers whose officials put on displays on the Sabbath, that many young men and maidens are leading children to Sunday school on the Sabbath day. I would ask them to refrain from putting on any exhibitions on the Sabbath day because you, Mr. Speaker, in leading us in prayer will recall that one petition in it is, "Lead us not into temptation." A big display by any department of government on the Sabbath day does lead children and older people away. Therefore I would say to them, "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy."
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your patience. There is one thing troubling me at the present time. The constituents of Fort William have treated me beyond any expectation I ever had. In fact I had a group call on me the other day. They do not think as I do, but they told me that I represented everybody in the constituency. I said, "No, I do not" and I knew whom I was talking to. I do not represent those who treat God as a myth or represent anything that that represents. I do not represent them and I do not claim to represent them, but of course I might try to change their minds. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, on several occasions it has been my privilege either to follow or precede the hon. member for Fort William, and I am happy to say that on many of these occasions we have been able to see eye to eye on a good many questions. Tonight, as I had the privilege of again listening to him, I could agree heartily with many of the things he said.
The hon. member for Fort William spent some time out in the area that I have the privilege of representing, the Brandon-Souris constituency, and he left his mark there so far as spiritual values are concerned. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member will pardon me if I cannot agree with him in all things he has said with respect to the government and government policies, and I crave his indulgence in that regard.
As is usual in the throne speech debate, hon. members supporting the government spend a great deal of time extolling the virtues of the present administration. However, during this debate I detect an almost forced attempt to support the policies of the government, as revealed by the speech from the throne. Indeed it is almost possible to conclude that "they protest too much".
The throne speech, as I analyse it, assumes a cautious tone for the first time during 50433-18
The Address-Mr. Dinsdale my short experience in the house. I remember the first throne speech it was my privilege to listen to back in 1951. It was almost as buoyant in its tone as the inflation it was attempting to deal with at that time. There is one conclusion we can reach thus far in the discussion, namely that Canada is passing through a period of transition at the present moment.
In his recent speech the president of the Bank of Montreal suggested that we were in a phase of economic development where it was impossible to conclude whether Canada was heading into a period of deflation or inflation. When I read that statement it occurred to me that it might account for the early retirement of the highly respected governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Graham Towers, who at a comparatively youthful age, in his early fifties, has decided to relinquish that important post. It may be that resting on the horns of this insoluble dilemma, trying to decide whether we are heading toward deflation or inflation, has necessitated this unfortunate early retirement, because nothing is more exhausting to the nervous as well as to the physical energy than to be faced with an insoluble dilemma of that kind.
I would like to say one other thing in a general way about the speech from the throne. I must say this much for it. At least it deals with the problems confronting Canada at the present time in the correct order of emphasis. It places international affairs first. It refers to the continuing threat of war in the atomic age, and it also has an optimistic reference to the continuing cold war. I am not going to deal further with that aspect of the throne speech at the moment; there will be an opportunity later this week. It also mentions the Colombo plan, and in passing I should like to express disappointment at the small increase that is to be forthcoming for that very important activity in the sphere of international affairs.
The next matter dealt with was internal welfare. I join with other hon. members in expressing pleasure at the adoption of the disability pension plan for Canada, a plan pioneered by the Ontario Conservative government. The same applies to the other welfare measures, the pension for the blind and the war veterans allowance. In passing I urge that attention be paid to the last section of the amendment of this group to the effect that a contributory health insurance program be implemented at the earliest possible moment. It is one of the great gaps in the system of social security in our dominion at the present time.
266	HOUSE OF
The Address

Mr. Dinsdale
Those remarks made in passing deal in a general way with the speech from the throne to which we listened just over a week ago. As I have already indicated, we can all agree -and the opinion has been expressed from all sides of the house-that Canada is passing through a period of rather uncertain economic transition.
I have before me many economic reviews from government departments and commercial and banking institutions, all of which point in this same direction. In fact there are so many statistics available today to the ordinary private member of this house that it is very difficult to gather any rhyme or reason from them. Speakers and documents, I sometimes feel, spout statistics like a demented quarterback, and it becomes very difficult for the ordinary member to make an adequate appraisal of the situation. I have here, however, a good summation which I found in a Bank of Montreal Review of June 24, 1954:
It is now clear that after climbing persistently and often rapidly since 1946 business activity reached a peak in the autumn of 1953 and entered upon a gentle downward slope, the contours of which are still being mapped.
I think that is a good summary of the economic situation facing us at the moment. As has already been indicated, supporters of the government would perhaps deny that appraisal and would tend to emphasize the rosier aspect of the picture. On the other hand supporters of the group to my left, the C.C.F., would see in this transition another case of heading for a major depression which has been an unfortunate peculiarity of our so-called capitalistic system, at least since the beginning of the industrial revolution.
Despite the fact that the government backbenchers try to present the rosier aspects, some of the measures presented by the government indicate at least a vague awareness of the problems. The fact that we suspended the debate on the speech from the throne in order to pass some amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act is indicative of this.
Considerable anxiety is also being expressed concerning the trade difficulties confronting Canada at the present time. Europe has recovered in a spectacular way during the past year. Whereas in previous years the economic summaries of the outstanding financial and economic journals have been pointing to the rapid upsurge in the Canadian economy, the picture now is different and we find the same journals pointing to the remarkable recovery of the European economy. Because of her dependence on export trade Canada is placed in a very embarrassing position as the result. This was


highlighted to me as I listened to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in his rebuttal to the speech of the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Rowe) on Monday last. During the course of that speech the Prime Minister picked upon what he thought was an indirect reference to protectionism, or what is very often referred to in this house as a policy of Tory protectionism.
Reference has also been made from time to time to a famous speech made back in the thirties when Canada was in the throes of a world-wide depression. The prime minister of that day in trying to cope with the very disastrous trade situation confronting Canada as a result of the world-wide depression indicated that he was going to blast his way into the markets of the world. I have been very intrigued and interested by the fact that almost invariably when we get on to the theme of trade in this house, some hon. member on the other side refers to that particular quotation.
I would like to say that a legitimate and enthusiastic attempt to restore Canada's trade position, or if you prefer to use the phrase "blast our way into the markets of the world", is much more effective than the blasting process referred to in the speech from the throne-the blasting of Ripple Rock. As far as I am concerned it has no connection at all with the trade situation confronting us.
We are all disturbed and distressed, particularly those of us from the prairies, the continental west, at the obstacles which are confronting GATT at the present time. As I understand it, when GATT was formulated it was the hope that it would lead inevitably to an international trade association, just as during those halcyon days it was the hope that the United Nations would lead the world into a period of blissful peace and contentment, ad infinitum.
I understand that at the time GATT was being negotiated all sides of the house were very strongly and enthusiastically in support of the trade policies represented therein. Unfortunately, the best laid plans of mice and men "gang aft agley". In our attempts to establish a system of international security we are faced with similar difficulties in the realm of trade as in the realm of military defence. Economic nationalism is just as difficult to deal with as is military nationalism, and economic warfare is just as real as is the other type of warfare that constantly threatens the world at the present time.
When we consider that the country closest to us, the country toward which we have
JANUARY 17, 1955 moved as a market for our exports, the United States, has been making threatening gestures in reference to certain of our agricultural products, I think it will be readily appreciated how much more difficult the problem is when we are dealing with countries that are not in the least friendly toward us.
I might go even further on this question of economic nationalism. We are at least able to negotiate with the U.S.S.R. in regard to international security, but we cannot even get into communication with them, it would seem, with reference to this economic warfare with which we are faced.
I think we can conclude that there is a vast difference between theory and practice as far as economic disarmament is concerned. It is just as difficult, or perhaps even more so, as is the achieving of military disarmament. The experience of this country has been such as to make that almost axiomatic.
So far as the west is concerned, this problem affects us very intimately indeed. It particularly affects the three prairie provinces, whose economy is still based on the wheat trade. Wheat is still the economic lodestar of the prairies. I believe that when Sir Wilfrid Laurier prophesied at the beginning of the century that the twentieth century would belong to Canada, he had in mind the rapid development of the wheat trade on the prairies. Wheat made possible the building of Canada's first transcontinental railway, and I sometimes think the construction of the C.P.R. was the last major effort on the part of this dominion government relative to the prairies. It was conceived early in the history of this country and carried out with a magnificent vision that has since been justified many times over, even though there were many pessimists at that time.
I think it is also necessary to emphasize that the present request for some relief on the Crowsnest pass rate should take into consideration the contribution the wheat industry has made to the development of the railway system throughout Canada. It was also the rapid development of our wheat economy that made possible the great waves of immigration in the early years of this century and opened up that part of Canada to popular settlement. Unfortunately that trend has not continued with the same degree of rapidity, for reasons I shall deal with before I conclude my remarks.
Important as the wheat trade undoubtedly is, it nevertheless leaves our prairie economy in a particularly vulnerable position because it means we are tied to a one-product
50433-18J
The Address-Mr. Dinsdale economy. When disturbances inevitably occur in world economy and are reflected in our internal economy, it is the agricultural industry that is first to suffer. You cannot have a healthy economic situation while you have an immature economy, and the prairie economy will always remain immature while it is dependent on one product. The wheat trade, regardless of changing prices and changing economic circumstances, except under extreme conditions such as those produced by world wars is subjected to comparatively inflexible conditions. This point was brought out by Professor Alfred Marshall in his "Industry and Trade" published in 1919, when he said:
An exceptional "principle" applies to staple grain: because a fall in prices cannot generally increase its consumption as human food; and when it becomes dear, people will still buy enough of it to keep alive so long as they have means of purchase; in modern phraseology the demand for it is exceptionally inelastic.
That increases the difficulty of our prairie economy, and we have been continually subjected to boom and bust cycles which in more recent years have led to demands for methods of marketing that will take some of the sting out of the fluctuating trade cycle.
In this regard I would like to add, Mr. Speaker, that the wheat board has been particularly effective in smoothing out extreme swings in the economic cycle. The only difficulty with the wheat board is that it has tended to become used as an instrument of political manipulation, and wheat policies have been adapted to the welfare of the party in power. This, I feel, occurred quite recently in connection with the by-election in the constituency of Selkirk. An important announcement concerning interim payments was made the Saturday before voting took place. Other examples of this kind could be given.
With the spectre of a wheat problem hovering over the world once more, drastic action has to be taken in order to preserve our agricultural industry. Admittedly we are much better off now than we were in the thirties when the wheat surplus of that period unfortunately coincided with the market crash of 1929, and the whole wheat economy collapsed completely not only on the prairies but throughout the world. However,
I believe there need be no repetition of this disastrous episode, because our appreciation of this problem is much keener now than hitherto.
Some claim that the party to which I belong is not too concerned with the attitude of the government toward these economic problems. For my own part I believe that
268	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Dinsdale government inactivity is in some cases almost as bad as too much government interference, and I believe there has not been a keen enough appreciation of the situation confronting the agricultural west at the present time.
Many hon. members who have already spoken in this debate have submitted ideas the acceptance and implementation of which might further stabilize the situation. For example, the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny) mentioned five points the other day. He suggested a 95 per cent parity forward pricing system; and that, of course, springs from the fact that agriculture is facing an increasing price squeeze at the present time. We have a support price system now, and the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) suggested that it be used much more vigorously than it has been hitherto. I agree with him on that score. I believe, however, that if we fixed parity at a 95 per cent level we would be aggravating rather than solving the problem, because it would introduce further rigidity into our economic system. When the United States are moving away from a high level parity I believe it would be unfortunate if we tried to occupy a position they are now abandoning.
The hon. member suggested marketing boards, and this also is being adopted in agricultural circles as a method whereby the boom-bust cycle to which I referred, and its inherent fluctuations, can be stabilized. I would add, though, that marketing boards do not necessarily increase the price to the producer. They merely iron out some of the wilder fluctuations. In the final analysis it is demand that determines price. Relative to any increase in the number of marketing boards, it should be emphasized that the producers should themselves organize and obtain control of such boards. Nothing would be worse than to have marketing boards used as political instruments in the hands of any particular party in power.
The two-price system was mentioned, which involves dumping our agricultural products on the external market and maintaining the domestic price at a higher level. In that regard I think it almost inevitable that we would be faced with a tariff war such as that which occurred in the 1930's. If we started dumping our agricultural products into the European market, or into any other market for that matter, they would retaliate with tariffs as they did in the 1930's. We must remember constantly that we have that problem of economic warfare, and that we are not all one big happy family in the world as yet.


I was reading in a review called "Crisis in Wheat, 1926-1954" some extremely interesting information concerning the tariff policy of certain European countries in the 1930's.
France began early to put duties on wheat imports. But as the wheat crisis deepened this process was speeded up and intensified as shown by the rates of duty prevailing in the following years. The rates are expressed in francs per quintal of grain.
The rates were as follows:	In 1921, 7
francs; in 1926, 18 francs; in 1929, 50 francs; and in 1936, 83 francs, equivalent to $1.50 a bushel. I was quite amazed too, to see the German reaction and the way they had pushed up the tariff. In 1930 the duty stood at 35 reichsmarks per quintal, which was about the equivalent of $3.84 a bushel. No wonder the prime minister of that time talked about blasting his way into the markets of the world, when he had to face tariff barriers of that kind. Even though we have moved along in our international thinking, I do not think we can expect the European market to acquiesce in a dumping policy on the part of the Canadian agriculture industry. Such a policy could only result in retaliatory tariffs.
The fifth point was the suggestion that we could investigate the price spread. This is a question that comes up repeatedly, and I have not time to harp on it at the moment. In the Virden Empire-Advance for February 10, 1954, I notice an article by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) who has the responsibility for combines investigation. He had apparently been subjected to some inquiries concerning this spread, particularly in reference to meat prices, between the price received by the producer and the price paid by the consumer. He had a long article trying to explain why this situation occurs. Then he said:
Let me say, as the minister responsible for the administration of the Combines Investigation Act. that all complaints of this nature regarding the suspected existence of any such combine are thoroughly investigated. So if you have any yourself or know of any friends who have complaints of this sort to make, do not hesitate to bring them to our attention.
I have accepted that invitation tonight, and I am agreeing with the hon. member for Dauphin that there might be an extremely fruitful field for investigation in this regard. I am sorry that time does not permit my further development of that question.
The hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) had some recommendations to make with regard to agriculture. He suggested that something be done about the cash situation among the farmers. The city of Brandon that I represent is most directly affected by the cash shortage because we are

largely a city serving the surrounding agricultural area. I made a survey in recent months among the retail merchants, and they are not at all happy about the situation. Something must be done in order to place cash into the hands of the grain farmers. During these periods of economic transition, unfortunately the credit facilities extended to other business activities in Canada do not apply top directly to the agricultural economy.
In the first instance the farmer is rather suspicious of debt, mainly because of his unfortunate experience during the 1930's and during the earlier periods of the boom-and-bust cycle. Then I came up against a special problem of this kind during the past summer when we had flooding on the Assiniboine river. That flooding has occurred twice in succession now, and there were groups of farmers who had had a complete crop failure for two years in succession. It is bad enough to take one crop failure, but it creates an almost hopeless economic situation to take two. There is no solution to their immediate financial problem. As is well known, the Prairie Farm Assistance Act does not cover that situation. There they were, left to sink or to swim according to their own ability. That is a situation that could well bear investigation by the government.
I agree heartily with the hon. member for Prince Albert that we could be more aggressive in our marketing policy. We have tended to become a bit slothful and soft in recent years because of the overwhelming demand from the foreign market. We might well do a little bit of "blasting", if I might use that word in quotation marks, in order to ease the present situation. Of course I most heartily agree with the extension of customs facilities at port Churchill, because we on the prairies believe that port Churchill has a great future as a port providing access to the European market.
To sum all this up, Mr. Speaker, agriculture is operating within a highly complex industrial society in which free enterprise is drastically modified by tariffs, fiscal policy, monopolies and so forth, largely because we are confronted with an unpredictable, uncontrolled external situation. I believe that there are some measures this government can take without resorting to tariffs-that nasty word -controls and so forth, which only tend to increase economic rigidity.
In the time remaining to me, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that what we should do is take into consideration the nature of Canada's present boom. We have been enjoying a boom since 1946 up until recent months. As I have already emphasized and now re-emphasize,
The Address-Mr. Dinsdale this boom is a boom without a bust. As to business cycles, the bugbear of our capitalistic system, it is felt by economic authorities that we have at last beaten this bugaboo, this bugbear, and that we are now in a position to handle or iron out the harsher aspects of the boom-bust cycle.
The present boom in Canada's economy, as I see it, has two prongs; first, that in the primary resources industry and second, that in manufacturing. This primary resources boom is something new to our Canadian economy; and it is this primary resources boom that is giving the little shot in the arm that we have in the west at the present time and also in the northern regions. In many aspects, as a result of the boom in primary resources the north is becoming what the west was to Canada some 80 years ago.
The discovery of these resources is not necessarily new. We have known of their existence for some time. It has only become possible during recent years, particularly during and since the war, for Canada to exploit these resources because of the efforts of geologists and bush pilots. This being so, I was amazed last year when the government refused to grant a charter to Canadian Pacific: Air Lines, which had requested the privilege of providing a cheap freight service in the northern part of Canada. I have before me a newspaper clipping which impresses me as being somewhat of an obituary in this regard. The heading of the article is "Canadian Pacific Air Lines Sells Two Giant Planes". It sold two DC-6A planes that it had purchased in anticipation that a forwardlooking government would welcome an increase in freight transportation facilities in the rapidly developing northland. It is hard for me to understand the negative policy of the government in this regard.
I have had some personal contact with the boom in resources, because right in the middle of my constituency is Virden, which has become the oil centre of Manitoba. Just out of curiosity I took a recent edition of the Virden Empire-Advance and clipped four different articles dealing with the oil boom in that part of the province. The first article is headed, "Manitoba on the March". The next article is headed, "Twenty-six New Oil Wells Spur November Production". The next one is "Manitoba Steps Into Ranks of Major Areas of Canadian Oil Development." Indeed, we have moved forward so rapidly that Manitoba hopes to be self-sufficient in oil in a very short time.
The Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) is aware of the fact that Virden is a boom town, because I think he has been besieged

The Address-Mr. Dinsdale recently by protests concerning the inadequacy of the post office facilities in that community. The town has grown so quickly and subscribers have increased so rapidly that the post office service has become somewhat outmoded. I believe the Postmaster General is wrestling with that difficulty at the moment; at least I trust that he is.
This is all well and good as far as primary resources are concerned, but it is in the area of manufacturing that the west is weakest. We lack secondary industry. The great boom in manufacturing has all been concentrated around Montreal and Toronto. In other words the geographic pattern of industrial and manufacturing activity still remains much the same as it has been during the whole long stretch of the first half of the twentieth century. The shift to the west so far as economic change is concerned is merely a movement of ideas and money rather than manufacturing production. The brains and capital required in the search for primary products are largely being found in the eastern part of the country. I must add that the men with those brains came from the west to be trained in the universities of the east, and are now finding their way back to the prairies again. One of our chief exports from the prairies has always been men of outstanding ability.
In addition to that concentration in eastern Canada, there is the same concentration in the United States. In fact it may be said that to a great extent Canada's boom is based on and spearheaded by the relative United States boom. We have played into their hands with reference to trade. As has been pointed out by many speakers, United States capital invested in Canada now amounts to $7,235 million, $3 billion of which represents investments in companies actually controlled in the United States. As a result there has been a relative dropping off in our exports to Britain.
I think it should be noted, too, that United States capital has largely developed the Lynn Lake area in Manitoba, the oil industry, and Kitimat in British Columbia. I do not decry that fact. It is necessary at the present stage of development. I am merely pointing out that it does not help solve the problem of the prairies. That problem can only be solved if together with the boom in resources expansion and development we have an equivalent development in the secondary or manufacturing industries. If that does not happen our second state is going to be worse than the first, because if we have a sudden vacuum created in the western region after the initial exploration is over, a vacuum that


has not been filled by secondary industrial activity, we are going to be badly off indeed.
I sometimes feel, Mr. Speaker, that the national policy that was so successfully pushed forward by the first administration of this country stopped short at the head of the lakes, and nothing has been done to develop a mature economy on the prairies. Because of all this and much more that I could say if time permitted, I subscribe heartily to the amendment moved by the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Rowe), particularly paragraph (e) thereof, which reads as follows:
to facilitate and encourage the processing of our natural resources in Canada, and thereby increase opportunities and employment for Canadians.


Mr. W. M. Johnson (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, words fail to adequately express my dissatisfaction with the government for failing to deal with a very important aspect of the Canadian economy in the speech from the throne. I noted that the speech mentioned the great disasters that had befallen Nova Scotia and Ontario, and I was pleased to note that certain measures were outlined offering some relief to those stricken areas. But, Mr. Speaker, no mention was made of the disaster that struck western Canada this year. Rust in western Canada wrought a havoc that was worse in many respects than the drought of 1937. Some areas had a lower yield than in the worst years of the drought period.
The speech from the throne also says that the relatively poor wheat crop is being reflected by a small decline in the total national income. The only concern the Liberal government of today has with the west is that the west was inconsiderate enough to have a bad crop which will be reflected in a decline in the total national income. No mention was made of offering some measure of relief by amending the Prairie Farm Assistance Act to bring it in line with the present cost of production. Under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act the maximum amount a farmer may receive is $500 if he lives in a township in which the average yield of wheat is not more than four bushels per acre. This legislation was passed many years ago when the cost of farm production was but a fraction of what it is today. It seems to me that the farmers are justified in demanding revision of the act to bring it up to date.
Tied in with that, Mr. Speaker, there is the almost forgotten paragraph in the Prairie Farm Assistance Act which states that if the average yield is between 8 and 12 bushels of wheat per acre, and if the average price of

The Address-Mr. W. M. Johnson
wheat should fall below a certain level, compensation will be paid. This is in paragraph (a) of subsection 2 of section 3. The only trouble is that it specifies that if the price of wheat should fall below 80 cents per bushel, then payment will be made. There again, Mr. Speaker, this price was set in 1939. When we consider the devaluation of our dollar, in effect the farmer who is producing feed wheat is receiving in the neighbourhood of 40 cents a bushel.
Yes, the Liberal government today is trying to get itself off the hook by saying it is the poor crop in western Canada that is creating these conditions. No, Mr. Speaker, it is the same factor that has created these conditions and that has brought about a marked increase in unemployment; it is not the poor crop but just plain, ordinary poor government.
The cash farm income for the first nine months of this year is less than half that of the previous year. There is a drop of $217 million, and the net income in Canada continues the decline it started three years ago. I feel we should give some consideration, not to whether this poor crop affects the national income but how this poor crop affects the livelihood of the farmers. It is not the poor crop that has given us these conditions in western Canada, because I do not know of a single farmer who has been unable to fill his quota. With only a poor crop he would not have had the grain to fill his quota, so there must be other factors to consider. The fact is that in the first five months of the crop year wheat deliveries from the farms in the prairie provinces were the lowest in the entire history of the present Canadian wheat board.
The estimates for the first five months of this year show that farmers have delivered 107 million bushels. The ten-year average is 211 million bushels, or 104 million bushels greater. Last year we thought things were bad enough when deliveries in this period were 228 million bushels. At the start of this year nearly three-quarters of the marketing points in western Canada were on a two-bushel quota. This meant that in this crop year the farmers were unable to deliver more than two bushels per specified acre.
The serious aspect of this, Mr. Speaker, was that in many of these marketing points the quota was not granted until the early part or middle of December. This meant that the farmer operated from the end of the last crop year up to the middle of December without receiving one cent in cash from that crop.	[DOT]
In western Canada there were two consequences of the rust. First of all it lowered
the yield, and secondly it raised havoc with the grades. It meant that the farmer who had low grade or feed wheat, for example, got 87-5 cents per bushel and was only able to market two bushels per acre. This will give you some idea of the money he has had to work with over the past few months.
In view of the conditions that existed, it certainly should not have taken a political event such as the Selkirk by-election to bring about the announcement of an interim payment of 10 cents a bushel. This announcement was made in October, and all cheques were to be in the mail by December 21. By December 21 the farmers had been able, in many instances, to deliver some grain. The interim payment should have been made when farmers really needed it, in September and early October. Further, there should be an immediate announcement of another interim payment of 10 cents a bushel, with the final payment on last year's crop being made in the spring.
While I am discussing an agricultural problem such as grain, I do not think I can completely cover it without some mention of this matter of box car allocation. Last year the agriculture and colonization committee thoroughly discussed the problem. It was proved to the satisfaction of many members of that committee that the farmers and farm organizations were 100 per cent behind some equitable system. We even received assurance from the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) that something was going to be done about it. When I returned this session, I was delighted to see on the order paper a resolution to amend the Canada Grain Act. I thought that finally the government was going to introduce some measure for the distribution of box cars that would enable the farmers to deliver their grain to the elevator for which they had a preference. I was pleased to think that the minister was carrying out the commitment he had made, and that something was going to be done about it.
Well, perhaps this is done as well as the Liberal government can do anything. Instead of amending the Canada Grain Act to provide for this system of box car allocation, what did they do? They provided for the appointment of four instead of three commissioners and raised the salary of the chief commissioner from $14,000 to $15,000 and that of the other two members from $12,000 to $13,500. Certainly that is a fine way to help this box car allocation.
I believe a lot of the blame in connection with this matter should rest with the government representatives from Saskatchewan. As a member of the agriculture and colonization

The Address-Mr. W. M. Johnson committee I was greatly disappointed to find that, although they represented western Canada, they were fighting vigorously against the interests of western Canada. I do not see how they could go back to meet the wheat pool organizations, attend the wheat pool annual meetings and farmers' meetings, knowing they had failed to fight for some amendment to the Canada Grain Act to make provision for this important matter.
Time is running out. The period of congestion is still with us. We have nearly 900 million bushels of wheat in storage, but we have had a very light crop in western Canada, estimated at 300 million bushels. This may mean that the problem of box car allocation may not be as important in the future as it has been in the past.
This government has failed to grant this concession to the farmers of western Canada. Perhaps it was not the failure of the government. Perhaps it is the only thing we can expect of a government that is dedicated to following the principles of capitalism and profit, to accede to the wishes of the large privately-owned grain companies.
This has dealt a blow to the co-operative grain handling movement that will be felt for many years to come. Just before I leave this subject of box car allocation, some claim that we should lay some blame on the shoulders of the top officials of the Saskatchewan wheat pool. I have heard some pool members say that these officials have not pursued this matter, which is of the utmost importance to the average member of the pool organization, with the same determination and vigour with which they fought some of the battles in the past. There may be hidden reasons for this action; there may be some reasons I may not be aware of, but it does seem to me that they are not putting up the battle on behalf of the membership of these great farm organizations that they did in past years.
Before leaving the matter of the Canada Grain Aot I should like to point out that the government promised to bring this matter before the standing committee on agriculture and colonization for review. This promise was made two years ago, and I should like to see the government fulfil one of its promises. Perhaps it, too, is like the national health insurance promise and the act will not be reviewed in my lifetime.
In his address the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny) dealt with another problem of the agricultural economy of Canada, namely the lack of consideration by the government in offering some measure of stabilization for farmers. No section of our economy is more subject to ups and downs

than those involved in agriculture. A man who raises cattle may spend a lot of money to get his herd built up and then find, when he gets into a position to recover something from his many years of work, that the bottom has dropped out of the market.
The same thing is true of the poultry and hog producers. I am always amazed when I hear the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) tell us that we have a floor price of 38 cents a dozen under eggs, implying that the farmers of Canada get 38 cents a dozen for their eggs. The floor price operates at the packer level, and the packing companies can pay just about any price they like to the farmers for their eggs, not only just the farmers of Saskatchewan but all the farmers of Canada.
So the sooner we can consolidate these problems and smooth out some of the difficulties that are facing this important segment of our economy, the sooner we can expect those other segments of the economy that are so dependent on agriculture to become completely healthy. When the farm economy suffers a decline, it is only a matter of a few years until the rest of the economy suffers a decline. We can see that by looking at past statistics. It is desirable, Mr. Speaker, before it is too late, that this government throw off some of its lethargy and start to give serious consideration to a pricing policy for agriculture-and I am speaking of all agriculture. I am speaking of the milk producers of Ontario and Quebec, the fruit growers of the east and the west, all segments of our agricultural economy, so that farmers' incomes can be levelled off and we shall get away from these ups and downs that the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dins-dale) was just discussing.
As long as we are operating under the system of so-called free enterprise which the Liberal government and the Tories and the socreds claim to be following, it is inevitable that we shall have these booms and busts. It is one of the characteristics of the so-called capitalistic system, where the individuals look after themselves and show no concern for others in the economy. It is only when we can incorporate some Christian principles into our economic socialism that we can give a degree of relief to all of the people of Canada. Only when we forget about this profit motive, which has been leading us down the garden path, and resort to a little bit of common-sense planning, the same sense we use in our households and our own businesses; only by following some of these examples shall we level out these horrible ups and downs in our economy. Then in time we shall make this country of

ours the best place on earth to live in, a place where we can be proud to look forward to the future and a peaceful heritage, where we shall be granted some return for the efforts we put forth.


Mr. J. H. Proudfoot (Ponliac-Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to reply to a speech made on January 12 by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier). Like the member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, it is not my intention to throw out any bouquets. When speaking in the house on Wednesday last, the hon. member said he wanted to offer some friendly advice to the government. He then said that his advice was designed deliberately to help the people of Canada get rid of a government that had been the most reactionary since 1935.
After reading the speech one wonders what are the qualifications of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam for him to give such advice to the people of Canada. While I must not make a personal attack on the hon. member, I am entitled to judge his fitness to give advice by the contents of his speech. I am quite sure that if the people of Canada read his speech they will never take his advice. Indeed, they will note what little information he has about Canada and how little understanding he has of his fellow human beings. He undertook to explain all about the conditions of the people of each province. The hon. member may believe that he is omniscient. I should, however, like to point out to him that arrogance of the mind is no substitute for knowledge, nor is it a substitute for an understanding of his fellow Canadians or of the problems that concern them.
I am one of those persons who believe that no one was given all the knowledge in the world, and I do not believe that I know it all. However, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam launched an attack on the province of Quebec.


Mr. Nicholson:: No, he did not.


John Hugh Proudfoot: An attack that was slanderous of the people of my province, and unfair to them.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member indicate what he is reading from at the moment?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: Straight from the heart.


John Hugh Proudfoot: He said he spent a fair amount of time in the province of Quebec. I wonder on what day it was that he spent the fair amount of time in the province of Quebec. He referred to that great province as a sore spot in the matter of Canadian unity.
The Address-Mr. Proudfoot Might I point out that much could be learned about unity in the rest of Canada by looking at Quebec and what is done there. It has been my privilege to represent the constituency of Pontiac-Timiskaming in this house since 1949. I am proud of that constituency; I am also proud of the province in which I was born. I am proud of that constituency where my father was born, the same constituency where my grandfather was born and where my great-grandfather lived for 40 years.
I want to point out that the minorities have been fairly treated in the province of Quebec. Most certainly that is so when compared with the treatment of minorities in some other provinces of Canada. I would say that in the constituency which I have the honour to represent, 75 per cent of the people are of a different religious faith from myself, and at least 65 per cent of the people in that constituency are of French-Canadian origin. In the last two general elections, the voters of my constituency were willing to and did support me, and I believe those who opposed me did so not because I was of a racial religious minority group but rather because I happened to be of a different political faith.
At this time I would ask, could a man or woman of French-Canadian origin and Roman Catholic faith be elected in the riding of Burnaby-Coquitlam where, unfortunately, the majority of electors appear to be supporters of the socialist party? Will the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, who prates so much about national unity and talks in such a disparaging manner of the province of Quebec, indicate to me where in British Columbia, or indeed in any of the provinces outside of Quebec, racial majorities give evidence of similar generosity?
Then he goes on with his attack on Quebec because we do not see fit to have divorce courts in our province. I might add that neither has the province of Newfoundland. The subject of divorce courts in our province is a difficult and a delicate one, but surely the situation is not helped by a socialist proposition that it is proper to ram down the throats of the people of Quebec the suggestion that they must establish divorce courts whether they want them or not. Surely national unity involves the right of a substantial minority to oppose a measure that is offensive to them. Surely having a strong emphasis on family life and an abhorrence of divorce is not something to be condemned.
The hon. member refers to Quebec as a sore spot in Canadian unity because of some difficulty in a tax situation, but when you analyse his remarks his real criticism of the people of Quebec and of this government

The Address-Mr. Proudfoot seems to be because of the fact that the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. St. Laurent) accepted a request of the premier of Quebec to meet in Montreal to discuss this difficult problem of taxation rights as between the province of Quebec and the federal government. Surely the socialist party did not think the Prime Minister of Canada should miss an opportunity of settling this important taxation difficulty merely because of false pride or some mistaken consideration of dignity. Did not Churchill come to Ottawa? Did not Truman come to Ottawa? Did not our Prime Minister visit many countries on the greatest good-will tour ever made by a Canadian prime minister?
The men and women of Canada will applaud the Prime Minister for being a big enough man to seize the opportunity of dealing with a difficult problem. His action in going to Montreal was the action of a statesman. It is what all Canadians would have their prime minister do in the circumstances. It does not warrant the socialist member's reference to the province of Quebec as a sore spot in the matter of Canadian unity. That the hon. member does hold it against the province of Quebec is indicated in the following statement of his, which I quote:
In the city of Montreal the communist party polled about as many votes as the C.C.F.
All this indicates is that the people of Quebec reject the soul-destroying doctrines of socialism, and that they have no confidence in either branch of the socialist party.
The hon. member goes on to say that the people of Quebec are suffering, and that they are not enjoying the facilities in the field of education which they would like to enjoy. Does the hon. member not know that the minority group in Quebec have been granted and allowed to freely exercise all the rights and privileges which they require or desire in order to bring up their children in the beliefs of their parents? I venture to assert that Quebec is the only province where the rights of minorities are so fully protected in the field of education.
Why does not the hon. member take time off to compare the rights of minority groups in his province of British Columbia with those in Quebec. At this time I have in mind a place called Maillardville, British Columbia, and if I am not wrong I think possibly Maillardville is in the constituency of Burnaby-Coquitlam. I would ask him to examine the school laws of his province before he launches an attack on my province, and before he presumes to give advice to the people of Canada.
The hon. member says that his socialist party is the only party which has arisen out

of the needs of the people of Canada; but an examination of his speech indicates that his socialist party is rather seeking to arise out of the stirring up of prejudice and hatred in this country. Let me assure the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, and let me assure the people of Canada, that political tactics of the kind exemplified in his speech will not work in Quebec. I assure you the people of the province of Quebec know better.


Mr. W. J. Henderson (Kingston):: The Address-Mr. Henderson labour-management problems are concerned. Indeed, labour in Kingston and district has demonstrated a sound and sensible approach in their dealings with management, and have always tempered their negotiations with co-operation. Kingston is open for industry.
I shall conclude my remarks by referring to one or two other items, with particular reference to the riot at Kingston penitentiary in the summer of 1954. I would like to take this opportunity to inform hon. members that in my opinion the warden and staff of the penitentiary are to be complimented on the excellent manner in which they carried out their duties during this difficult and trying period. I would also like to suggest to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson)-and I am sure this will meet with the approval of all hon. members-that segregation of prisoners should be carried out as soon as possible. The one hundred who caused the riot have, I believe, inadvertently set back the advancement of penal administration in Canada by their actions, and have made it more difficult for others who are serving sentences for lesser crimes and are not essentially criminal. I hope something will be done about that in the very near future.

I would also like to say a few words on our national sport, hockey. We all know that hockey occupies a great deal of time in the lives of both the young and the old in Canada. In this regard I hope the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris), the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage) and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) will give some consideration to helping those private persons who contributed some $70,000, and the National hockey league which contributed some $30,000, in order to construct in the city of Kingston a museum of hockey. I firmly believe that the construction of such a museum in Canada close to the United States border, which would be known as the hockey hall of fame, would be of considerable benefit to the entire area. I might also add that those in charge of bringing about this hockey hall of fame in Kingston have in storage many fine items which they are ready and willing to place in such a museum. These people deserve our heartfelt thanks for their contribution to the history of this great national sport.
On motion of Mr. Henderson the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Relations APPENDIX

[Stage Direction]
Copy
Translation
Office of the Premier Province of Quebec
Quebec, October 11, 1954. The Right Honourable Louis S. St-Laurent, P.C., Q.C.,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa.
My dear Prime Minister:
Since our pleasant meeting last Tuesday in Montreal, my colleagues and I, with particular attention and with the sincere desire of co-operating to the fullest reasonable extent in its solution, have studied the important fiscal problem which was the subject of our interview.
Our legislative assembly opens in a few weeks, on November 17. I need hardly mention the vast additional amount of work involved in its preparation. Moreover, I am leaving this week on a vacation of about ten days' duration, the first I have taken in over a year.
Under the circumstances, even with the best of intentions, it is physically impossible before my departure to obtain and study the statistics which form the basis of the subject. At the earliest possible moment I will write you again on my return.
Nevertheless, I wish to mention here that, if you decide to call a Canadian intergovernmental conference at Ottawa, we will be happy to attend and we will not hesitate to defer our parliamentary work should this conference take place during the session of our legislature.
With my sincere regards,
(Sgd.) M. L. DUPLESSIS
Copy
Translation
Office of the Prime Minister Canada
Ottawa, October 15, 1954.
The Honourable M. L. Duplessis,
Premier of the Province of Quebec, Parliament Buildings,
Quebec, Que.
My dear Premier:
I have received your letter of October 11 and I understand that, under the circumstances, it has not been possible for you to
send me the information which, at our meeting of October 5 concerning your suggested amendments to your income tax act, we had agreed you would forward to me.
I hope that, when you receive this letter on your return, you will have had a pleasant and restful vacation and that we will then be able to resume consideration of a temporary and acceptable solution of the matter which is a problem for all of us.
With kind regards,
Yours sincerely,
(Sgd.) LOUIS S. ST. LAURENT
Copy
Translation
Office of the Premier Province of Quebec
Quebec, November 1, 1954
The Right Honourable Louis S. St-Laurent, P.C., Q.C.,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Mr. Prime Minister:
Pursuant to our interview in Montreal on October 5th last and to the letter I sent you on the 11th of the same month, I am writing you on the subject of the provincial income tax in and for the province of Quebec.
We believe that we clearly defined the opinion arid the attitude of the government of the province of Quebec, in matters of the powers of taxation during the Canadian intergovernmental conferences which were held in Ottawa since 1945 and came to a close at Quebec in 1950, as well as in the correspondence we have had with federal authorities, particularly since 1949.
The agreement concluded between the preceding provincial government and the federal authorities, concerning important provincial powers of taxation, expired in 1947. Since then, the province of Quebec has not availed itself of its right to collect a provincial income tax in the province. This shows the earnest desire of the Quebec government to come to an agreement with Ottawa and, after all, the federal government has profited financially, to a large extent, by this situation which lasted approximately seven years.
The great progress and the tremendous developments, from which our immense province benefits, particularly large and
[Stage Direction]
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Relations numerous districts which were formerly less-favoured, necessitate numerous public services and many improvements in several important fields of provincial administration, especially in the vital fields of education and hospitalization.
Such tremendous progress and the brilliant prospects before the province require a more complete utilization of the sources of provincial revenue. It is unnecessary to emphasize that the progress and prosperity of the province of Quebec make a truly worthy contribution to the progress and prosperity of the country in general.
Therefore, the Quebec legislature decided to levy, within the province, a provincial tax on personal income. Unquestionably, as agreed by all, it is a tax that the Canadian constitution authorizes Quebec to impose. Actually, this tax represents only approximately 10 per cent of the federal tax on personal income collected in the province of Quebec, because, even though our provincial tax is apparently calculated to be 15 per cent of the federal tax, the exemptions provided by the provincial law materially reduce this proportion.
In short, the provincial tax represents approximately 10 per cent of the federal income tax collected from the taxpayers in the province of Quebec and, by deducting the provincial tax from the federal tax, Ottawa will in fact receive about 90 per cent of the tax on personal income collected in the province of Quebec.
The federal authorities assert that the province and the federal government have concurrent rights of taxing personal income. About 10 per cent to the province and about 90 per cent to Ottawa is an extraordinarily reasonable concurrence, you will no doubt agree. Furthermore, it should be recalled that our provincial income tax is used entirely for purposes of education and hospitalization, public health and social legislation among others, in and for the province.
Since the end of the last war-I merely mention facts without details or appraisal- some provinces have abandoned to the central authority certain important sources of provincial income in return for payment by Ottawa of federal subsidies to these provinces.
We have said on several occasions that the province of Quebec wishes to retain its powers of taxation and does not wish to exchange them for subsidies. We consider it our duty to maintain such an attitude.
We are ready to enter into a really temporary agreement which would grant to the parties concerned a further extension of time to arrive at a definite arrangement. The
federal authorities are of the opinion-and we respect their opinion without sharing it -that they have the right to impose taxes in one province to assist certain provincial projects in another province. The province of Quebec has always been and is still ready to co-operate reasonably and in a constitutional manner for the welfare and prosperity of the other provinces of the Canadian confederation.
It is beyond question that the revenue derived from taxes levied by Quebec, including the provincial tax on personal income, and which would be affected by the arrangements arrived at between Ottawa and the other provinces, it is beyond question, I say, that such revenue of the province of Quebec represents much smaller sums than the amount offered by Ottawa to the province of Quebec in its proposal to exchange important sources of provincial revenue for federal subsidies.
In short, the other provinces and the federal authorities, in our humble opinion, cannot reasonably object to the proposal we are making; first, because the amount collected by the province is financially less than the grant offered by the federal government and, secondly, because, as everyone agrees, the province is only exercising an indisputable right. It seems to us only elementary justice that the federal authorities should deduct from their tax on personal income paid to Ottawa by the taxpayers of Quebec, the amount of the provincial income tax which only after all represents a small fraction of the federal tax.
It is our profound conviction that the taxing powers which belong to the province of Quebec must be exercised by the province. These powers, which spring from dearly acquired rights and freedom, are indispensable to responsible government; they are also essential if the province is, freely and in accordance with its religious and national traditions, to exercise its rights and fulfil its obligations, amongst others, those pertaining to the vital fields of education and hospitalization.
In order to reach an agreement concerning the deduction of our provincial tax, we are ready to delete from our act authorizing a provincial tax on personal income the statements, in the preamble, to the effect that the province has a prior right in the matter of direct taxation.
Further, we shall give effect, by order in council, to the decision we have taken, a couple of months ago, with a view to making the tax payable to Quebec on undistributed income and dividends consistent with the federal act. In other words, by virtue of

such amendment, the province will only get 15 per cent of the rates authorized by the federal act in such cases.
Our provincial tax act on personal income is for a period of three years, that is to say, for each of the calendar years 1954, 1955 and 1956; we suggest that an agreement to be arrived at between Ottawa and Quebec should be for the same period.
The Quebec government wishes earnestly to reach an amicable settlement of this problem, and we express the hope that the above-mentioned provincial proposals will be favourably received by the federal authorities.
As I wrote you on October 11th, "if you decide to call a Canadian intergovernmental conference at Ottawa, we will be happy to attend and we will not hesitate to defer our parliamentary work should this conference take place during the session of our legislature".
Yours very truly,
(Sgd.) M. L. DUPLESSIS
Copy
Translation
Office of the Prime Minister Canada
Ottawa, November 5, 1954
The Honourable
Maurice L. Duplessis, Q.C., LL.D.,
Premier of the Province of Quebec, Parliament Buildings,
Quebec, Que.
Dear Mr. Duplessis:
Pursuant to our telephone conversation of Wednesday November 3 concerning your letter received the day before, I wish to inform you that I am having statistics compiled by our officials of the Department of Finance, with a view to determining what would result, as regards deductions, from the fact that, to establish the taxable income under the federal act and your own act, the amount of such taxable income would be, for all single taxpayers, $500.00 less under the Quebec act than the federal act and, for all married taxpayers, $1,000.00 less.
Possibly, your officers have already prepared compilations to that effect, and if such were the case, it might be a good thing if we were to agree to their contacting ours, so as to prevent the possibility of misunderstanding which would affect the governing rules to be applied in order to eliminate double taxation.
Yours very truly, (Sgd.) LOUIS S. ST. LAURENT
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Relations Copy
Translation
Office of the Premier Province of Quebec
Quebec, November 10, 1954 Right Honourable
Louis S. St. Laurent, P.C., Q.C., LL.D.,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Mr. St. Laurent:
I reply as soon as possible to your letter dated November 5 and which was delivered to my office the day before yesterday.
We would be pleased to supply the particulars mentioned in your letter with respect to the effect of the said deductions.
Our minister of finance, the Honourable Mr. Gagnon, is presently taking a few days' holiday. If the officers of the federal Department of Finance, who are compiling the statistical tables to which you refer in your letter, wish to get in touch with my executive assistant, Mr. Emile Tourigny, Q.C., and indicate to him the exact information they wish to obtain concerning the provincial exemptions, the reply will be forwarded with all possible dispatch.
Kindly accept, Mr. Prime Minister, my best regards.
(Sgd.) M. L. DUPLESSIS
Copy
Translation
Office of the Prime Minister Canada
Ottawa, November 12, 1954
The Honourable
Maurice L. Duplessis, Q.C., LL.D.,
Premier of the Province of Quebec, Parliament Buildings,
Quebec, Que.
Dear Mr. Duplessis:
I received this morning your letter of November 10th, which is in reply to mine of the 5th.
I am advising my colleague, the Minister of Finance, of the substance of your letter in order that the officers of his department may communicate with Mr. Tourigny, should the occasion arise.
With kind regards,
(Sgd.) LOUIS S. ST. LAURENT
[Stage Direction]
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Relations
Copy
Translation
Office of the Prime Minister Canada
Ottawa, January 14, 1955
The Honourable Maurice L. Duplessis, Q.C., Premier of the Province of Quebec, Parliament Buildings,
Quebec, Que.
My dear Premier:
Since receiving your letter of November 1, my colleagues and I have considered at length the problem raised by the Quebec income tax and by the fact that the taxpayers having to pay it remain subject also to the federal tax.
This is, of course, an inevitable consequence of two jurisdictions exercising their concurrent rights to tax the incomes of the same persons. The only way you suggested to avoid the effect of double taxation upon the taxpayers of Quebec is for us to deduct from the federal tax on the income of each individual an amount equivalent to the amount which he is required to pay as the provincial tax.
In your letter, you state that the provincial tax "represents only approximately 10 per cent of the federal tax on personal income collected in the province of Quebec because, even though our provincial tax is apparently calculated to be 15 per cent of the federal tax, the exemptions provided by the provincial law materially reduce this proportion". In this quotation from your letter, you refer to two different aspects of the provincial law. When you state that the Quebec tax represents approximately 10 per cent of the federal tax you compare the yield of the provincial tax to the amount produced by the federal tax in the province of Quebec.
When you say that your tax "is apparently calculated to be 15 per cent of the federal tax", you explain this percentage by referring to the scale of exemptions granted by your law. This scale is such that it does not subject to your tax all the Quebec taxpayers who are obliged to pay the federal tax. In order to obtain an amount corresponding to 10 per cent of the amount yielded by the federal tax, it has been necessary to fix, for those who have to pay your tax, a higher rate than if you had distributed the burden oyer all those we tax.
Provincial legislatures have, like the federal parliament, the right and the responsibility to distribute the burden of their taxes on their taxpayers in whatever way seems most
[Stage Direction]
appropriate to them. This is a right and a responsibility which is the same for all provinces, and none of them can be compelled to conform with the course of action followed elsewhere. Whatever differences there may be in the rules adopted by the different provinces, the federal law must be the same everywhere and it must be such as to leave the federal government with the revenues needed to fulfil its national responsibilities.
At present the federal law allows every Canadian taxpayer having to pay a provincial personal income tax to claim a deduction up to 5 per cent of his federal tax. This method of deduction raises certain administrative difficulties and, what is more serious, it makes the real incidence of the provincial tax depend on the terms of the federal law and makes the total amount deducted from the federal tax depend on the terms of the provincial law. Instead of deducting the provincial tax from the federal tax, we intend to propose to parliament a reduction of the federal tax for all taxpayers of a province having a provincial tax, whether or not they have to pay the provincial tax. Thus, the taxpayers of such a province will receive the benefit of the total amount of the reduction in the federal tax and the federal and provincial authorities will be able to determine, independently of one another, in what way and to what extent their taxpayers will be subjected to their respective taxes.
The 5 per cent deduction allowed at present by the federal law was fixed in 1946. Since that time, two changes have occurred. In the first place, the rates of the federal tax have been reduced with the result that there has been a corresponding reduction in the amount represented by the 5 per cent. In addition, the tax rentals paid by the federal government to the provinces under the tax agreements have been rising as a consequence of the increase in the population and in the national product.
Pending the results of a new federal-provincial conference, we propose therefore to ask parliament to amend the federal income tax law in order to grant a reduction of 10 per cent to all taxpayers of any province where a provincial income tax is levied whether or not all these taxpayers have to pay the provincial tax. We will recommend that this amendment apply to the years 1955 and 1956. At the same time, we will ask parliament to release from its present agreement any province which would prefer this new arrangement and I am immediately so informing the other premiers.
Moreover, we feel it would be reasonable to make the new percentage apply to taxpayers who have been in fact subjected to two

taxes on their 1954 income. We intend, therefore, to propose that the taxpayers who will have paid provincial income tax for 1954 be allowed a deduction up to 10 per cent of their federal tax.
We hope that this action on our part will encourage your government to act in the same spirit and that we will have, on both sides, helped to prepare the atmosphere for useful and fruitful work during the next federal-provincial conference.
In any event, we would have had to meet before the end of 1955 to discuss the fiscal relations of the years which will follow the expiry of the present tax rental agreements. We feel that it might be appropriate to begin the new conference at an earlier date, if that is possible. Upon my return from the commonwealth meeting in London, towards the middle of February, I intend to communicate with the premiers of all the provinces with a view to working out arrangements for a conference and fixing a date for it.
Yours sincerely,
(Sgd.) LOUIS S. ST. LAURENT
Copy
The following letter sent to all provincial premiers with the exception of the premier of Quebec:
Office of the Prime Minister Canada
Ottawa, January 14, 1955.
My dear Premier:
You will no doubt have learned from the press that I have been in communication with the premier of Quebec about the situation created for personal income taxpayers in that province resulting from the imposition of a provincial income tax applicable in the years 1954, 1955 and 1956.
Before this provincial tax was imposed, the situation in Quebec was that the income taxpayers of that province were paying federal taxes at the same rate as other Canadians although the people of Quebec were not receiving the financial advantage for their provincial services that the people of the other provinces were receiving through the tax rental agreements.
Since the imposition of the provincial tax many of the personal income taxpayers in Quebec are required to pay higher personal income taxes than other Canadians, and payments under the tax rental agreements are still unavailable to the people of that province, because the government of the province preferred, as was its right, not to conclude an agreement.
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Relations
At the time the provincial tax was imposed, the provincial authorities suggested publicly that the total amount of the tax paid to the province should, be allowed by the federal authorities as a tax credit against the federal income tax.
If the federal government had accepted this suggestion, we would have felt obliged to make the same concession to any other province, and this would have meant that the effective rate of federal taxation in each province would have been set by the provincial authorities and would have differed from one province to another. We felt that the federal law must be uniform in its application in all provinces.
We did indicate, however, that the federal government was not wedded to the principle of tax rental agreements to the exclusion of any better alternative arrangement if one could be found. At the same time, we made it clear that the present government had no intention of abandoning the objective of the tax rental agreements which is to make it financially possible for all the provinces, whatever their tax base, to perform their constitutional functions themselves and to provide a reasonable Canadian level of provincial services without an abnormal burden of taxation. That is the foundation of the policy of the federal government.
I had a meeting with the premier of Quebec at his request in October and he indicated,# at that time, that he was considering making certain amendments to the provincial tax law which he hoped might make some temporary arrangement possible. My colleagues and I felt it was our duty to make every effort to find some alternative to the tax rental agreements which would preserve the fundamental objective of those agreements which I have mentioned and at the same time be more acceptable to all provincial governments.
We are not yet in a position to propose an alternative to the tax rental agreements which we believe would be generally satisfactory and, as the agreements still have two years to run, we felt that, meanwhile, we should propose a stopgap arrangement which, without being unfair to the other provinces, would reduce the burden of double taxation placed on many of the income taxpayers in the province of Quebec.
I have already indicated that we could not meet the suggestion of the Quebec authorities and allow the whole of their provincial income tax to be deducted from the federal tax, unless we were prepared to accord a similar right to any other province.
It is our view that whatever differences there may be in the tax laws adopted by the
[Stage Direction]
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Relations different provinces, the federal laws must be the same everywhere and must be such as to leave the federal government with the revenues needed to fulfil its national responsibilities.
At present the federal law allows every Canadian taxpayer having to pay a provincial personal income tax to claim a deduction up to 5 per cent of his federal tax. This method of deduction raises certain administrative difficulties and, what is even more serious, it makes the real incidence of the provincial tax depend on the terms of the federal law and makes the. total amount deducted from the federal tax depend on the terms of the provincial law. Instead of deducting the provincial tax from the federal tax we intend to propose a reduction of the federal tax for all taxpayers of a province having a provincial tax, whether or not they have to pay the provincial tax. Thus, the taxpayers of such a province will receive the benefit of the total amount of the reduction in the federal tax and the federal and provincial authorities will be able to determine, independently of one another, in what way and to what extent their taxpayers will be subjected to their respective taxes.
The 5 per cent deduction allowed at present by the federal law was fixed in 1946. Since that time, two changes have occurred. In the first place, the rates of the federal tax have been reduced with the result that there has been a corresponding reduction in the amount represented by the 5 pef cent. In addition, the tax rentals paid by the federal government to the provinces under the tax agreements have been rising as a consequence of the increase in the population and in the national product.
Pending the results of a new federal-provincial conference, we propose, therefore, to ask parliament to amend the federal
[Stage Direction]
income tax law in order to grant a reduction of 10 per cent to all taxpayers of any province where a provincial income tax is levied whether or not all these taxpayers have to pay the provincial tax. We will recommend that this amendment apply to the years 1955 and 1956. At the same time, we will ask parliament to release from its present agreement any province which would prefer this new arrangement.
Moreover, we feel it would be reasonable to make the new percentage apply to taxpayers who have been in fact subjected to two taxes on their 1954 income. We intend, therefore, to propose that income taxpayers who will have paid a provincial tax for 1954 be allowed a deduction up to 10 per cent of their federal tax.
I shall be glad to know at your convenience whether your government would wish to be released from the tax rental agreement in order to take advantage of the proposed new arrangement for 1955 and 1956.
It had always been understood that it would be necessary to hold a federal-provincial conference before the end of 1955 to discuss fiscal arrangements for the years which will follow the present tax rental agreements. In the light of recent developments it might be the desire of the provincial governments to have this conference held at an earlier date.
I shall accordingly communicate with you again shortly after my return from the commonwealth prime ministers' meeting in London towards the middle of February with a view to working out arrangements for a conference at a time which will be satisfactory to all governments concerned.
Yours sincerely,
(Sgd.) LOUIS S. ST. LAURENT
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, January 18, 1955