1955-02-02

Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: In view of the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in this house on January 17 last following the exchange of correspondence which he had with the premier of Quebec, I think that both hon. members and residents of Quebec would appreciate receiving from me a statement regarding the filing of income tax returns in the coming few months.
Approximately eight million income tax forms have been made available in the province of Quebec through post offices and employers. These forms were printed last fall, and therefore indicate that the allowable tax credit in respect of the Quebec provincial income tax will be the amount paid to the province of Quebec or 5 per cent of the net federal tax, whichever is the lesser. As these forms are now in the hands of the public, it is not my intention to print and distribute new income tax forms amending the maximum credit from 5 per cent to 10 per cent. Residents of Quebec should use the forms already provided, but calculate their provincial tax credit as the lesser of the amount paid to Quebec or 10 per cent of the net federal tax.
As the taxation division must commence processing the 1954 income tax returns when they are received, the revised amount of tax credit will be allowed in the expectation that the house will retroactively enact legislation on this basis for the year 1954. Furthermore, with respect to the year 1955 I am recommending an immediate change in the income tax regulations to permit employers to reduce the amount to be deducted from the remuneration paid to employees working in the province of Quebec by 10 per cent.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: beg leave, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Mac-Innis), to move the adjournment of the house
under standing order 31 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the critical situation in Formosa, and the need for a clear statement by this House of Commons in support of the position taken by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) on January 25, 1955, when he declared that the final disposition of Formosa should be dealt with by international negotiation, and that pending such a decision consideration should be given to the neutralization of Formosa both in order to prevent any assault upon it by communist forces and also so that it will not be used as a base for invasion of the mainland.
Mr. Speaker, may 1 just add that the occasion for seeking leave to discuss this matter is that news from London today indicates that a position differing from that taken by our government on January 25 is being taken by our representatives at the commonwealth conference in London.


Hon. Paul Martin (Acting Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) I might be permitted to make just a brief comment on what my hon. friend has just said.


Major James William Coldwell: I have no objections to that -if I am allowed to proceed with the debate.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Mr. Speaker:: In order to help me make a proper decision, would the hon. member care to hear just as brief a comment from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) as that which was made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) when he explained why he was making his motion?


Major James William Coldwell: I am not going to object to that. But I do wish to make my own position clear, that if it is going to be debated I want to have the right to speak on my motion.


Mr. Marlin:: I do not think I would be fair to the hon. member if I indicated it was my intention at this time to debate the proposition, but rather to offer a suggestion or two which I believe, upon reflection, he might agree deserve consideration at this time, and that is that in view of the admittedly important current situation, this house would not want to engage at this time in a discussion
760	HOUSE OF
External Affairs-Formosa which, I am sure, would not help the situation. I am not saying this by way of criticizing my hon. friend's initiative in the matter, but just to impress upon him that I believe, from the opportunity I have had and the government has had of perusing dispatches which have come to us, that what I have just said is a fully responsible statement.
The hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) had given me notice of his intention to ask a question dealing with this matter. Perhaps I might anticipate his proposed question simply by saying that, in answer to what he was going to ask me about the situation, I was not going to be able to say very much more than to observe, as the house has already noted, that there have been important developments in the Formosan situation since the Secretary of State for External Affairs made his statement on January 25.
On Saturday last the President of the United States signed the joint resolution which hds been passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate by very large majorities, as the house knows.
The security council of the United Nations met on Monday to consider communications from New Zealand and the Soviet union both relating to the current situation in the Formosa strait. It was decided to take the New Zealand item first, and the security council decided to invite representatives of communist China to take part in the discussion on this item. The government is glad that this invitation has been extended, and hopes that the Chinese communists will agree to participate in security council attempts to arrange a cease-fire.
Since these suggestions were made to me in written form by permanent officers in the Department of External Affairs I have noted that on January 25 my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in answer to a question put by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, said, in part:
I think X can say that any move or proposal within the United Nations or through diplomatic channels which could serve to achieve the purpose as stated in the President's message "to improve the prospects of peace in the area" will be warmly welcomed by the parliament and by the people of this country.
My final observation is this. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar did make reference to the press reports of meetings that are now current in London. Those meetings are private. But I can say to my hon. friend that I am quite satisfied, as I am sure he would be, that in view of the discussions that are taking place in London, and also in view of the fact that the security council is currently in session on this very matter, I do not think


anything I could say, or, if I may say so with great respect, anything anyone else could say at this time, would help in the matter.
The subject as I said is now before the security council. Discussions are in progress there, and an attempt is being made to try to bring the parties together; I would therefore urge that this House of Commons cannot really and profitably add or do anything useful at this time.


Major James William Coldwell: May I just say that I wish to thank the minister for what he has said. But all these considerations were carefully thought of before I introduced this proposal. What I am afraid of is that we are doing exactly what we did in the years between the two wars, in not demanding that this House of Commons express its opinion on grave matters which may involve us in catastrophe later on.
My request is based entirely upon what was said by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in the house on January 25 and the fact that authoritative statements from London today indicate that there has been a change of attitude by our representatives there.


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: As the
minister has indicated, I had intended to ask a question. In view of what he has stated, we in this party do not want to do anything that will aggravate the tense situation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: While usually I assert the supremacy of parliament, in this case, in the interests of all of us, I adhere absolutely to what my hon. friend the minister has said, that at this time it might be dangerous to discuss the matters that are being considered both before the United Nations and also at the commonwealth prime ministers' meeting.


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, may I interject a word or two which may be more in the nature of a point of order. I appreciate what has been said, and also appreciate the attitude of the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs, when he suggests that the situation might be aggravated by discussion. But my point of order is that the matter is not now being debated.
As I listened to the minister it appeared to me that he was debating the issue. I would urge you, Mr. Speaker, to consider this matter, not on the basis of whether it will aggravate or alleviate the situation but purely on the basis of whether or not it is of urgent public importance.


Mr. Speaker:: I am grateful to hon. members who have taken part in the debate-one which obviously has taken place with unanimous

consent. In what they have said they have helped me to make up my mind.
Hon. members realize of course that this is a delicate duty for me to perform, when I am asked to decide whether a matter submitted in this way, by virtue of standing order 31, is of urgent public importance.
There is no question that the matter is one of importance, but as hon. members know- and several decisions have been rendered in the past by my predecessors and I have had the occasion to decide likewise myself in the course of the last session-what must be examined when we decide whether a matter is of urgent public importance is to see whether there is urgency of debate. Hon. members will agree with me that whenever a motion of this type is moved, when the debate on the speech from the throne is currently taking place, in the course of which they may talk about anything they wish-they have done so and perhaps will continue to do so today and tomorrow-full opportunity might be given to all hon. members to discuss the very matter that is mentioned in this motion.
I do not want to deliberate too long. Hon. members can very well see that my decision is against the motion being debated at the moment. I do not think there is urgency of debate such as that which is contemplated by standing order 31 and our practice with respect to it. I just want to add this comment to which I do not want hon. members to attach too much meaning, but perhaps give some thought to. In this instance the matter which is being brought forward is one which consists of asking a clear statement by the house on a certain problem. It strikes me when I read this that the definite matter of urgent public importance is said to be the critical situation in Formosa. Well, the papers inform us about the circumstances relating to that and we have had statements on that in this house. The second part of the motion strikes me as being unusual in motions of this kind. It refers to the need for a clear statement by this house in support of the position taken on a previous day by a minister in this house. I do not know really what could be achieved. Usually it is a matter which is defined. A certain set of circumstances are outlined and the order of reference is spelled out in a more detailed way. As it stands now, what is being asked for is another debate on external affairs. That is what we would have today, because there would be no way in which I could restrict the debate to the situation in Formosa. Hon. members may decide that whatever has taken place recently in respect to NATO has relation to the Pacific and the conditions under
Questions
which we live being what they are, the world being just one, we would have a general debate on external affairs.
Anyway, as I said, the question is certainly one of importance; but in view of the fact that a debate on the speech from the throne is currently taking place, hon. members will have ample opportunity to debate not only this question but any one that they feel is related to it. Therefore, with much regret, I must reject the request of the hon. member to move the adjournment of the house at this time.



QUESTIONS


Mr. Nicholson:: 1.	Has G. M. Ferrie, of Invermay, Saskatchewan, been employed by the Department of Agriculture?
2.	If so, what work has he been doing?
3.	What has been paid to him (a) as salary; (b) for expenses?


Mr. Gardiner:: 1.	Yes, since April 1, 1954.
2.	Agricultural supervisor, P.F.R.A.
3.	(a) $2,475.00, to December 31, 1954; (b) $1,081.74, to December 31, 1954.


DESTROYER ESCORTS
Mr. Winch:: With respect to destroyer escorts built in Canada since 1952:
1.	In what shipyard was each built?
2.	What was the total price paid for each vessel?
3.	What was the total labour cost in the price of each vessel?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	No destroyer escorts have been completed since 1952. Those under construction are; D.E. 205, Canadian Vickers Limited, Montreal, P.Q.; D.E. 206, Halifax Shipyards Limited, Halifax, N.S.; D.E. 207 Burrard Dry Dock Co. Ltd., North Vancouver, B.C.; D.E. 234, Marine Industries Limited, Sorel, P.Q.; D.E. 229, Canadian Vickers Limited, Montreal, P.Q.; D.E. 230, Halifax Shipyards Limited, Halifax, N.S.; D.E. 233, Yarrows Limited, Victoria, B.C.; D.E. 257, Canadian Vickers Limited, Montreal, P.Q.; D.E. 258, Burrard Dry Dock Co. Ltd., North Vancouver, B.C.; D.E. 236, Davie Shipbuilding Limited, Levis, P.Q.; D.E. 235, Halifax Shipyards Limited, Halifax, N.S.; D.E. 256, Marine Industries Limited, Sorel, P.Q.; D.E. 259, Victoria Machinery Depot Co. Ltd., Victoria, B.C.; D.E. 260, Burrard Dry Dock Co. Ltd., North Vancouver, B.C.
2.	Unknown-vessels not completed.
3.	Unknown-vessels not completed.

Questions



ONTARIO AND QUEBEC


Mr. Hodgson:: 1.	How much British Columbia lumber was delivered to Ontario and Quebec, by provinces, in 1954?
2.	How much oak, if any, was imported from the United States in 1954?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Shipments of lumber and sawn ties during January 1-November 30, 1954, reported to dominion bureau of statistics by British Columbia saw mills, totalled 3,276,584,000 feet board measure of which 144,798,000 feet went to Ontario and 27,609,000 feet to Quebec. In addition, shipments totalling 622,938,000 feet have been estimated for non-reporting British Columbia mills during the same period, destination of which cannot be determined. The
above figures refer to shipments to first destination only. Figures for December, 1954 are not yet available.
2.	Imports of oak from the United States during the period January 1 to November 30, 1954 amounted to 33,357 thousand feet. Figures for December 1954 are not yet available.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY

Mr. Hodgson:: 1.	How many miles of the trans-Canada highway were completed by December 31, 1954, by provinces?
2.	How many miles were built in 1954, by provinces?
3.	How many miles are under construction, by provinces?
4.	How many miles have been completed through the national parks?


Mr. Bourgei:: 1, 2, 3 and 4.



GRADING

[Stage Direction]
Province	Mileage Completed Dec. 31, 1954	Mileage Constructed Calendar Year 1954	Mileage Under Con- struction	Mileage Completed in National ParksNewfoundland	
173-2	35-1	112-3	Prince Edward Island	
54-7	16-6	0-3	-Nova Scotia	
6-8	6-8	6-7	-New Brunswick	
58-8	13-2	9 1	-Ontario	
373-1	67-3	20-9	-Manitoba	
117-3	14-1	19-7	-Saskatchewan	
317-1	53-4	35-4	-Alberta	
196-4	-	17-9	-Banff and Yoho parks	
13-0	0-8	13-2	13-0British Columbia	
161-0	43-3	20-5	1,471-4	250-6	256-0	13-0BASE COURSE AND PAVING	Newfoundland	Prince Edward Island	
45-8	12-6	2-4	-Nova Scotia	
2-7	2-7	6-8	-New Brunswick	
52-2	6-6	8-3	-Ontario	
313-7	65-4	24-2	-Manitoba	
130-1	34-5	5-6	-Saskatchewan	
230-4	64-8	36-0	-Alberta	
150-9	41-6	32-4	-Banff and Yoho parks	
5-8	-	5-5	5-8British Columbia	
138-8	39-3	27-6	-1,070-4	267-5	148-8	5-8

Mr. Fulton:: 1.	Does the Post Office Department own or lease any stamp vending machines?
2.	Does the department authorize the use of such machines in stores or similar locations for the sale of postage stamps to the public?
3.	Is it the policy of the department to discontinue over the counter sales of stamps in stores and substitute sales through vending machines? If not, what is the policy with respect to such machines?
4.	Does the public receive from such machines stamps of a face value fully equivalent to the

amount of money they have inserted in the machine? If not, what are the details of the rate of profit on such sales of stamps?
5.	How are such profits divided?
6.	What steps are taken to ensure that the public is made aware that they will not receive from the machine stamps of a face value equivalent to the amount of money they have inserted?


Mr. Kirk (Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare):: 1.	Yes-owns but does not lease.
2.	Machines owned by the department are located at post offices and airports only. The

department issues permits tor the sale of stamps through privately owned vending machines at approved locations.
3.	No-vending machines supplement sales over the counter.
4.	Machines owned and operated by the department vend stamps at tace value. Operators of privately owned machines may sell stamps at a profit of 1 cent on each 5 cent sale; 2 cents on each 10 cent sale, and 5 cents on each 25 cent sale. Some owners sell at a profit of only 1 cent on their 10 cent sales.
5.	Owners of machines purchase stamps from the department at face value, and financial details respecting division of profits are arranged between owners of machines and occupants of locations.
6.	Operators are required to indicate clearly above each slot the number and value of stamps which will be received for the coin inserted.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS

Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: 1.	How many farmers In Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, respectively, were eligible for prairie farm assistance payments for the crop years of 1953 and 1954?
2.	How many were in the various categories of payment?


Mr. Gardiner:: 1.	Crop year, 1953, Manitoba, 5,025 farmers; Saskatchewan, 5,733 farmers; Alberta, 5,547 farmers; total, 16,305 farmers.
Crop	year,	1954,	information	not	yet
available.
2.	Crop year, 1953, 0-4 category, Manitoba, 373 farmers; Saskatchewan, 369 farmers; Alberta, 1,011 farmers; total, 1,753 farmers.
Crop	year,	1954,	information	not	yet
available.
4-8 category, Manitoba, 4,652 farmers; Saskatchewan, 5,364 farmers; Alberta, 4,536 farmers; total, 14,552 farmers.
Crop	year,	1954,	information	not	yet
available.



BURNABY GENERAL HOSPITAL

Mr. Goode:: When the provincial government of British Columbia decides to approve an addition to Burnaby General hospital of 100 odd beds, will federal funds be available to aid in the capital cost of that addition?


Mr. Robertson:: If a formal submission of project is received from the province asking for assistance toward the construction of additional beds at the Burnaby General hospital, the submission will be considered within the terms of the federal hospital construction grant.
Questions



R. R. 2, OMEMEE, ONT.  TENDERS

Mr. Hodgson:: 1.	How many tenders were received by the Post Office Department in connection with the courier service, rural route No. 2, Omemee, Ontario?
2.	What were the names of those submitting tenders?
3.	What was the price of each tender?
4.	Who received the contract?
5.	Why was this mail route put up for tender?
6.	Is it departmental policy to put all mail routes up for tender at the expiry date?


Mr. Kirk (Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare):: 1.	Five.
2 and 3.
Per annum
Alfred Michael Dewan... $1,200.00
George Magee	 1,244.76
Hilliard Heasman	 1,300.00
Richard James Skuce ________ 1,800.00
Victor Williams	 2,000.00
4.	Alfred Michael Dewan.
5.	To obtain competitive rates.
6.	No.



CANSO CAUSEWAY

Mr. Brooks:: 1.	What is the total cost to the federal government of the Canso causeway uniting Cape Breton island with the mainland of Nova Scotia?
2.	How much of this was paid for (a) labour; (b) material; (c) miscellaneous expenses?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: 1.	Expenditure to December
31, 1954	 $10,725,425
Estimated expenditure January 1 to March 31, 1955.	4,819,815
Estimated expenditure fiscal
year 1955-56	 3,564,000
Estimated total cost:.... $19,109,240 Estimated share of federal
government	 14,400,000
Estimated share of province
of Nova Scotia	 4,700,000
2.	Construction contracts are on a unit price basis and no breakdown as between labour, material, and miscellaneous costs is available.



BURLINGTON BEACH BRIDGE

Mr. Houck:: 1.	How far are the plans finalized in connection with the bridge at Burlington Beach cut-off. connecting the Queen Elizabeth highway?
2.	When will construction work begin?
3.	What is the expected date of completion of this bridge?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: 1.	The plans for the new Burlington Beach bridge are being prepared by a consulting engineer working under instructions of the Ontario department of highways.
2 and 3. Information not available.

Questions



VANCOUVER GENERAL HOSPITAL

Mr. Goode:: 1.	What area in acres is occupied by the Vancouver General hospital?
2.	How many patients may be accommodated In the hospital?
3.	How many private pavilions are contained in the hospital proper, and containing how many beds?
4.	How many private and semi-private wards are contained in the main buildings?
5.	What is the total capital construction cost of the Vancouver General hospital?
6.	How much money has been spent by the federal government to aid in this construction cost, before 1949 and since January 1, 1949?
7.	Is federal money allocated on advice of the provincial government of British Columbia?


Frederick Greystock Robertson: 1	to 5. As this is a matter which comes within the jurisdiction of the provincial authorities it is suggested that the inquiry be directed to them.
6.	Before 1949-nil. January 1, 1949 to date-$494,090.62.
7.	Yes. Federal assistance is calculated and approved on the basis of information formally submitted by the provinces.



Mr. Goode:: 1.	How much in federal funds remains unspent on capital construction in connection with Vancouver General hospital?
2.	How many registered nurses work at the hospital?
3.	How many student nurses are training at the hospital?
4.	How many nurses live in?
5.	How many patients have been accommodated at the Vancouver General hospital in 1949, 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954?
6.	What is the federal expenditure in aid, allocated to this hospital since 1949 in surgical and research equipment?
7.	How many stretcher patients and patients entirely bed-ridden, on an average day, are accommodated in the Vancouver General hospital?


Mr. Robertson:: 1.	$62,000.
2	to 5. As this is a matter which comes within the jurisdiction of the provincial authorities it is suggested that the inquiry be directed to them.
6.	Nil.
7.	See answer to Nos. 2 to 5 above.



ANTIBIOTIC DRUGS

Mr. Huffman:: What have been the results in Canada of treatment of tuberculosis by the new antibiotic drugs?


Frederick Greystock Robertson: During the last few years, treatment with the new antimicrobial drugs, streptomycin, P.A.S. and isoniazid, has become

the basic treatment for pulmonary tuberculosis. The death rate from tuberculosis in Canada in 1953 was one-third the death rate in 1948; 1948, 37-3/100,000 population; 1953- 12-3/100,000 population.
Outstanding among the factors contributing to this striking decline is the fact that since 1948 the federal government has provided over $3,500,000 under the national health grants program for the free treatment of tuberculosis by these new drugs.
saint's rest rifle range


Mr. Bell:: 1.	Has the land known as the Saint's Rest rifle range in Lancaster, New Brunswick, been sold by the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation or the Department of National Defence?
2.	If so, when and at what price?
3.	Was this sale by tender?
4.	If so, was the highest tender accepted?
5.	What were the amounts of the other tenders?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Yes, by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation.
2.	On August 3, 1954, for $1,000-subject to covenants by the purchaser at his own expense to reclaim the land by the repair and replacement of a dike and sluiceway, and to indemnify the crown against all claims arising out of impairment of the said land or adjoining lands by reason of damage or destruction of the said dike and sluiceway.
3.	No. In order to meet the conditions outlined in No. 2 above, the sale was negotiated with a purchaser approved by the marshlands commission for the parish of Lancaster county.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	Answered by No. 3.



LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT

Mr. Lennard:: 1.	What has been spent to date on the restoration of the library of parliament?
2.	Is the restoration being done by contract?
3.	If so, what is the contract price?
4.	If not, what is the estimated complete cost?
5.	When will the restoration be completed?


Mr. Bourgei:: 1.	$702,554.95 as of December 1, 1954.
2.	Yes.
3.	The original contract was based on an estimated cost of approximately $1,000,000. As demolition progressed, it became clear that the work of rehabilitation would be considerably more extensive than was originally estimated with consequent greater cost. It is now estimated that the final cost will be $2,398,000.
4.	See answer to No. 3.
5.	It is estimated construction work will be completed by April 1956.



POST OFFICE BUILDING, SELKIRK, MAN.

Mr. Bryce:: 1.	What are the plans of the Post Office Department regarding a new post office at Selkirk, Manitoba?
2.	Has the site been purchased?
3.	If so, when will construction start?


Mr. Pinard:: 1.	The present accommodation at Selkirk is not considered adequate for the proper operation of this post office. Consequently the Post Office Department has recommended that the public works department give consideration to the erection of a new building.
2.	No.
3.	Answered by No. 2.



INFLUENZA

Mr. Carrick:: What, if anything, is being done by the federal government to develop methods of protection against influenza?


Mr. Roberlson:: The Department of National Health and Welfare has taken steps, under the national health grants program, toward developing and testing a vaccine which it is hoped will confer immunity to influenza.
With funds provided under the public health research grant influenza vaccine has been produced at the institute of microbiology, University of Montreal, and is being tested this year in 8,000 human volunteers in the province of Quebec, by the staff of the institute of microbiology, and members of the Department of National Health and Welfare. A special objective of this study is to compare the effects of aerosal-booster doses, with vaccinations given in the conventional manner.



PUBLIC BUILDING, NELSON, B.C.

Mr. Hansell:: 1.	What progress has been made to date in the erection of the public building at Nelson, British Columbia?
2.	What kind of heating equipment is being installed and what is the estimated cost of this equipment?
3.	If the equipment is coal burning equipment, what is the estimated yearly cost of this fuel?
4.	If the equipment is oil burning equipment, what is the estimated yearly cost?


Mr. Bourgei:: 1.	The contract for the construction of the building was awarded on September 27, 1954. About 20 per cent of the work has been completed.
2.	(a) Oil burning equipment; (b) approximately $1,550.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	Approximately $3,500.
Questions



ASSOCIATED AIRWAYS


Mr. Harkness:: 1.	Did the Associated Airways Limited apply for a licence to operate a scheduled freight service from Edmonton to various points in the Northwest Territories and/or the Yukon?
2.	If so, on what date or dates was this application heard by the air transport board?
3.	What was the decision of the board and what was the date on which this decision was made?
4.	If the decision was in the negative, what were the reasons for the refusal of this licence?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: 1.	Yes.
2.	July 19 and 20, 1954, at Edmonton, Alberta.
3.	The board denied the application on November 30, 1954.
4.	The reasons for the board's action can be found in the board's decision of November 30, 1954, which is a public document.



FARM PRODUCTS IN STORAGE

Mr. Thatcher:: 1.	As at January 1, 1955, what farm products did the government, including any branch, corporation or agency thereof, have in storage?
2.	What was the total original cost of each such product?


Mr. Gardiner:: 1.	Butter and eggs.
2.	Butter-$42,156,820.93; eggs-$925,297.20.
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 227 Mr. Knowles:
1.	When did the appellant company in income tax appeal board case No. 227, heard in November, 1954, actually purchase the property referred to in the judgment of the board concerning this case?
2.	Were any contracts awarded by the federal government, or any department or agency thereof, to the appellant company or to its subsidiary, as referred to in the said judgment, at any time prior to the purchase of the property in question?
3.	If so, what was the nature of such contracts?
4.	Are any contracts between the appellant company or its subsidiary and the federal government, or any department or agency thereof, now under consideration?
5.	Have any members of the federal government, or any officials or representatives of the federal government or any department or agency thereof, been entertained at the property referred to in the judgment, at any time?
6.	If so, who?


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, this question calls for an oral answer. The answer to the first part of the question is May 13, 1952.
With respect to the second part of the question, I would ask that the words "at any time" be clarified. That could go back to the beginning of time or to confederation. There should be some limit within which we would have to make an inquiry as to whether or not

Questions
there had been any contracts. If the hon. gentleman would signify a reasonable time we shall attempt to give an answer.


Mr. Knowles:: Would the minister go back to the time when the company was incorporated?


James Joseph McCann: Do you know that?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I take it that the minister does; he was the respondent in the case.


James Joseph McCann: No, I do not know when it was incorporated.


Mr. Fulton:: The minister can find it out quite easily.


Mr. Fleming:: The Secretary of State can tell him that quite easily.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps that part of the question can stand and the minister and the hon. member may get together in order to define what they mean by "at any time".


James Joseph McCann: The answer to the third part of the question depends upon the answer to the second part.
The answer to No. 4 is "no."
Then as to Nos. 5 and 6, we have made a great number of inquiries and so far have not been able to find anyone who has been entertained at this place.



NARCOTIC DRUG PROBLEM

Mr. Philpott:: 1.	What has happened with respect to the conference which the attorney general of British Columbia proposed to convene with the provinces of Ontario and Quebec and the federal government to discuss the narcotic drug problem?
2.	Has the federal government made any suggestion for consideration with the province of British Columbia respecting the establishment of a treatment centre for narcotic drug addicts?


Mr. Robertson:: 1. The attorney general of British Columbia wrote to the Minister of National Health and Welfare on November 18 enclosing a copy of a letter which he had sent to the attorneys general of Ontario and Quebec and to the Minister of Justice. In this communication he suggested a conference to be held in Toronto or in Ottawa prior to the end of 1954 to consider a joint study of the drug problem for the purpose of developing an approach to the treatment of narcotic addiction on what would be virtually a national scale.
On November 30, the Minister of National Health and Welfare advised the attorney general of British Columbia that he would be very glad to have representatives of the Department of National Health and Welfare attend any meeting he might arrange. The minister also took this opportunity to point

out that even though federal responsibility would seem to lie in the field of legal distribution and enforcement, the federal government had felt for some time that the solution of the drug problem was one that would not wholly be met by enforcement. The minister pointed out the steps that he had initiated some two years previously in which he raised with the ministers of health of all the provinces of Canada the desirability of some study of the narcotic problem with a view to the establishment of suitable treatment facilities and procedures.
2. On December 3, 1954, the Minister of National Health and Welfare again wrote to the attorney general of British Columbia suggesting that the federal government would be prepared to consider arrangements whereby the William Head quarantine station on Vancouver island could be made available to the province for operation by it as a treatment centre for drug addicts in the province of British Columbia. The minister also suggested that some financial assistance might be provided under the federal hospital construction grant to take care of part at least of any alterations that might be required in order to make the premises suitable to the province for the purpose of a treatment centre.
The minister has had no reply to either communication and is still waiting word from the attorney general of British Columbia with respect to the date and place of the conference suggested, as well as with respect to the proposal made respecting the William Head quarantine station.



SAINT JOHN, N.B.  TRANSFER OF FISHERIES SERVICES

Mr. Bell:: 1.	Has the Department of Fisheries transferred during the past year, and/or does it contemplate transferring any of its services or facilities from Saint John?
2.	If so, how many employees are involved?


Mr. MacNaughl:: 1.	No service or facility has been transferred from Saint John during the past year, nor is such action contemplated in the immediate future.
2.	Answered by No. 1.



POST OFFICE SITE, NORTH BATTLEFORD

Mr. Campbell:: 1.	Has the Department of Public Works acquired a site for a post office in North Battleford?
2.	If so, will the building be proceeded with this
year?


Mr. Bourgel:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.



IMPERIAL OIL COMPANY


Mr. Argue:: 1.	Is any federal government subsidy paid to the Imperial Oil company?
2.	If so, what is the amount and purpose of the subsidy?
3.	Is any part of the subsidy paid to the Imperial Oil company on its Norman Wells operations?
4.	If so, what is the amount and nature of such subsidy?


Mr. Pinard:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	No.
4.	Not applicable.



CONSTRUCTION CAMPS


Mr. Buchanan:: Is there any control by the federal government over sanitary conditions in construction camps on federal projects?


John Alexander Robertson: Yes. The public health engineering division of the Department of National Health and Welfare is responsible for administering the Public Works Health Act and regulations. All major construction camps of federal projects are examined frequently by the department's engineers to ensure that the requirements of the act and regulations are fully met.



POST OFFICE BUILDING, TEESWATER, ONT.

Mr. Robinson (Bruce):: 1.	Has the government purchased a site for a new post office in Teeswater, Ontario?
2.	If so, on what date was the purchase made?
3.	What was the purchase price?
4.	Has any work been done on the site purchased? If so, what type of work?
5.	Have plans yet been made for erecting a post office on the site purchased?
6.	If so, what size and type of building do such plans cover?
7.	When do such plans call for completion of the building?


Mr. Bourgel:: 1. Yes, two properties purchased.
2 and 3. One property purchased from Milby A. McDonald on March 4, 1953, for $2,000. One property purchased from the trustees of Teeswater Presbyterian church on February 24, 1953, for $800.
4.	No.
5.	No.
6 and 7. Answered by No. 5.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Goode:: 1. How many beds are available in hospitals from the eastern boundary of Vancouver to the city of Chilliwack, including the Fraser valley?
Orders for Returns
2.	What is the allocation of federal funds for these hospitals before 1949, since January 1, 1949?
3.	How many nurses are being trained in these hospitals?
4.	Is federal money allocated to these hospitals on advice of the provincial government of British Columbia?
5.	Has any provincial request for funds for these hospitals, for capital construction, been refused since 1949?


Mr. Pinard:: Return tabled.



RENTALS CHARGED, CHARLOTTETOWN

Mr. Maiheson:: What rentals were charged by the government to the various tenants on the federal building site at Charlottetown from the time possession of the buildings was gained until they were razed for the construction work on the new building which is underway at the present time?


Maurice Bourget: Return tabled.



TENDERS FOR PRINTING

Mr. Harkness:: 1.	When tenders for printing are asked for by the queen's printer, what means are taken to inform printers that tenders will be received?
2.	During the last six months how many invitations to tender have been sent to printers: (a) in the province of Ontario; (b) in the province of Quebec; (c) in the maritime provinces; (d) in the four western provinces?


Roch Pinard: Return tabled.



COST PLUS CONTRACTS

Mr. Thatcher:: 1.	Since March 31, 1954, how many contracts, if any, have been let by the Department of National Defence, the Department of Defence Production or the Department of Public Works, (a) on a basis of "cost plus a per cent"; (b) on a basis of cost plus a fixed fee?
2.	What was the dollar value of each such contract, and to what company was it given?



TELEVISION AND RADIO SETS-EXCISE TAX

Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):: 1.	What was the total number of television sets sold in Canada, during the last ten months of 1954?
2.	What	was	the	total	amount	of	excise	tax
collected on these sets, during the last ten months of 1954?
3.	What	was	the	total	amount	of	excise	tax
turned over to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on the sale of these sets, during the last ten months of 1954?
4.	What was the total number of radios sold in Canada, during the last ten months of 1954?
5.	What	was	the	total	amount	of	excise	tax
collected on radio sets, during the last ten months of 1954?
6.	What	was	the	total	amount	of	excise	tax
turned over to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on the sale of these sets, during the last ten months of 1954?
7.	What was the total sale value of television sets sold, during the last ten months of 1954?
8.	What was the total sale value of radio sets sold, during the last ten months of 1954?

Motions for Papers



SHELLFISH

Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: What protection is given the consumer in Canada of shellfish in respect of the sanitary quality of shellfish?


Roch Pinard: Return tabled.



NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Since January 1, 1954, how many organizations, if any, in briefs or submissions to the federal government, or to any minister or ministers thereof, have urged the enactment of national health insurance?
2.	What are the names of the organizations which have made such a request?
3.	What has been the government's reply to these requests?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


John George Diefenbaker: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents, since the 1st day of February, 1954, which have passed between any department of the provincial governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and any department of the federal government, relative to the pollution of the North Saskatchewan river, and any recommendations which have been determined upon to meet the situation on the said river or, in general, on interprovincial rivers.


Mr. Howe (Pori Arthur):: With the usual reservation.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion agreed to subject to the reservation made by the minister.



PURCHASE OF PROPERTY, SARNIA

Mr. Murphy (Lamblon West):: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Department of Transport and/or the Canadian National Railways and Messrs. W. C. Nelson and D. F. Stonehouse, since May 1, 1953 to date, with respect to property in Sarnia or Point Edward purchased by W. C. Nelson and D. F. Stonehouse.


Mr. Marler:: The files of the Department of Transport have been searched and no record can be found of any communication between the department and Messrs. W. C. Nelson and D. F. Stonehouse with respect to property in Sarnia or Point Edward purchased by W. C. Nelson and D. F. Stonehouse. With respect to the Canadian National Railways, in accordance with the established practice consistently approved by parliament the management take the position that they should not be called upon to make public correspondence or any other documents which relate to the internal management of the railway. In the circumstances, perhaps the hon. member would be agreeable to withdrawing his motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreeable?


Joseph Warner Murphy: Yes; we will get the information in another way.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion withdrawn.



TABER, ALTA., POST OFFICE BUILDING

Mr. Wylie:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents which have passed between any department of the federal government and any person or persons, from January 1, 1949, to date, in connection with the building and official opening of the Taber, Alberta, post office.



BRITISH COLUMBIA APPLES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of recent newspaper reports that one sad highland shopkeeper at Inverness, Scotland, has discovered a few damaged apples in a box of British Columbia apples, and in view of the minister's interest in the sale of Canadian apples in Great Britain, could the minister inform the house if he has had any investigation made into the handling of Canadian apples after they leave Canada? If so, can the minister give the house any information on this question?


Mr. Nowlan:: Buy Nova Scotia apples.


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: The first shipments arrived
early in December in good condition and brought premium prices at auction. Shipments arriving later in the month showed some evidence of bruising and, as a result, brought lower prices at auction.
On receipt of this information the shippers were contacted in an effort to trace the individual shipments, with a view to ascertaining if the bruising resulted from rough handling in transit. This investigation is still continuing.
It should be pointed out that this is not a government to government transaction, but a private sale between Canadian exporters and wholesalers in the United Kingdom. Both the Canadian apple packers and the British distributors are vitally concerned with finding an explanation.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence in connection with the investigation now going on

into the recent occurrence on H.M.C.S. Magnificent. I should like to ask him whether or not a report was made in 1949 following the Mainguy commission with reference to the use of intoxicating liquors by ratings and officers in the navy and whether, instead of punishment being given to the naval ratings in this case, consideration might be given to equalizing the regulations so those that now apply to ratings will be made equally applicable to officers.


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: I thank the hon. member for intimating something of the nature of the question he intended to ask. With reference to the first point, there was a recommendation in the Mainguy report that consideration of the terms under which the use of alcohol on shipboard would be permitted should be reviewed by the naval authorities in the light of present conditions. I understand that subsequently a naval board did review the conditions and the regulations and the members of the board indicated that they felt that the situation as it then existed was satisfactory and recommended that no change be made.
I may say that the regulations are of long standing. There are regulations governing the use of alcohol by ratings. There are other regulations governing the use of alcohol on shipboard by petty officers. There are still other regulations with respect to the use of alcohol by officers on shipboard. These regulations have been in effect for a long time and following the review by a naval board and the recommendation to which I have referred they have remained unchanged.
With respect to the second question as to the remission or otherwise of punishment, with all due respect to the hon. gentleman I think the question is premature because service tribunals will first have to deal with these matters if and when charges are laid. Their decisions must then be reviewed by naval authorities. It would be only after any punishment that might have been awarded had gone through this process that it would come before me. I do not think that I should commit myself or make any comment on a punishment that is so far from being a fact.
If I recollect the last question correctly, it had to do with amendments to the regulations in order to make the same regulations applicable to officers, petty officers and men.
I am told that these regulations were based on a careful appraisal of all the facts. One of the factors upon which the regulations dealing with the men were based was the '>0433-49
Inquiries of the Ministry difficulty of stowage and supervision of a certain amount of liquor on shipboard. Of course the men have their wet canteens ashore, so that what I have said only applies to ships.
The use of alcohol by officers on shipboard is most carefully supervised. As a matter of fact a record has to be kept of each officer and they are strictly under the captain's jurisdiction. I do not think it would be advisable to consider changes in the regulations in effect in view of the fact that they have been so long established and of the added fact that they have been reviewed comparatively recently.


John George Diefenbaker: How long have they been in effect?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I have not been able to get the exact date, but it is a great many generations.



CIVILIAN USE OF LONG BRANCH RIFLE RANGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roland Michener (Si. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether he can now give an answer to my question in regard to the use of the Long Branch rifle range.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend's question was brought to my attention just a short while ago and I will try to give an answer within the next day or two.



FREIGHT ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimall-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the corrections which he has made on pages 716 and 717 of Hansard, and in view of the further representations which have been received from the poultrymen of British Columbia, would he correct the statement he made on page 715 in view of the finality there given regarding the removal of freight assistance to feed grains going into British Columbia?


James Garfield Gardiner: Unfortunately for my hon.
friend, that is not subject to correction.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker,
I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture a question relating to the matter of feed grain assistance. He was asked yesterday if

Inquiries of the Ministry he would consider offering a reduction as it applies to British Columbia and he gave the answer that unfortunately that could not be done. I would like to ask him whether, in view of the shortage of feed grain which exists, particularly for the cattle industry in the interior, he would at least consider postponing the effective date of reduction in order that the cattle growers there can get their cattle through the winter without an increase in cost.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, as was said at the time the announcement was made, this is a matter which comes within the same category as announcements with regard to changes in tariffs, and there are too many opportunities for persons to take advantage of any delay in the matter of bringing it into effect. As a matter of fact, if it had not been for that we probably would not have taken action as of February 1, but because of the many ways in which people could take advantage of a decision which was only going to come into effect at a later date we found that impossible.



ALLEGED PURCHASE FROM PRODUCERS AT LESS THAN SUPPORT PRICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. W. Hodgson (Victoria, Ont.):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that the floor price on eggs now stands at 38 cents, is it permissible for egg dealers in central Ontario to buy eggs from the producers at 26 to 29 cents?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have information on which I could base some action before giving an answer to that question. I have been following the press very carefully, and I have not noticed that price for grade A large eggs listed in any particular area.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I have that information and I will see that the minister gets it.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour, notice of which I hope he has received. In view of the reported difficulty in securing unemployment insurance payments which is being experienced by many of the 500 miners laid off at Bell island before Christmas, can the minister

assure the house that an immediate investigation will be made into this situation and all possible assistance given to those in need?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, after I received the hon. member's question at noon today I asked the unemployment insurance commission to investigate the complaint and, if the situation is as stated, to correct it as soon as possible.



REGULATIONS APPLYING TO IMPORTATIONS FROM NEW ZEALAND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, on January 26 I asked the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. McCubbin) a question in regard to the effects of the importation of cheese. At that time I asked if cheese imported into Canada was subject to the same regulations as cheese for home consumption, and I was promised an answer. I wonder if the minister can give that answer now.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but
my assistant has been in hospital since the day that question was asked, but I shall look into the matter.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Thank you.



ISPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, February 1, 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.
Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Acting Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, when the house
rose last night, after I had been given the privilege of speaking for a few minutes, I was dealing with the uncertainty created in different branches of our primary and secondary industries throughout Canada by the unsound and unfair tax and tariff policies of the present government.
In fact, I do not know whether that is a proper description because I think earlier in my remarks I said they had no fixed policy in either regard. However, that adds to the uncertainty which no one doubts, who has an interest in the basic industries of this country.

It is not my intention to speak at any length today because the government seems to be in a hurry-the first hurry I have seen them in for a long time-and wish to get to the vote. I know they are anxious to get at least one vote over. In fact, I believe I observe that they would rather vote than listen to me.
There is no doubt that there are some very important matters deeply concerning the people of this country at this time. It seems to me that when a person does not know where he is going he usually asks directions from someone. Since this government has shown such a lack of direction in policy I have often wondered-


An hon. Member:: -why they did not ask you a long time ago.


William Earl Rowe: If they had listened to my
suggestions we might be in a better position now.


An hon. Member:: You might have volunteered.


William Earl Rowe: Evidently, in view of their
lack of action. It seems to me that in trade matters the government has just been blindflying. But, as I mentioned, if a person is doubtful of his way he usually asks someone the direction, and I wondered whom the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) or his twin commercial traveller, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), asked in our great agricultural industry before he reduced the tariff under New Zealand and Australian treaties from seven cents to one cent per pound on New Zealand cheese. I wonder whom he asked before he reduced the tariff of 35 per cent on meat to a tariff of half a cent on mutton and lamb, or allowed free entry from 35 per cent on canned pork, canned beef, canned poultry, and other meats not otherwise provided for.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I ask whether the hon. member is referring to the duty against New Zealand and Australia or the duty against the United States?


William Earl Rowe: The general tariff duty is what I am now referring to. I am not trying to give the Minister of Agriculture a lesson on tariffs. I only want to tell him that there is not a farmer or farmer's representative within the sound of my voice that does not shudder to think of what it will do to the agricultural industry of this dominion.


James Garfield Gardiner: If my hon. friend does not
understand, I might point out that the duty on lamb coming from Australia and New Zealand is half a cent per pound, and the duty on lamb coming from the United States is 7J, per cent.
The Address-Mr. Rowe


William Earl Rowe: I knew that and I am glad I obtained some information from the government. I do not know that the way tariffs have been juggled is in the interests of the farmers. For instance, can anyone in this house advise me whom it is going to help or how many consumers it is going to help? The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) in western Canada the other day stated that he did not believe that these friends of the government who are handling 2J million pounds of New Zealand cheese would lower the price of New Zealand cheese, that he thought they would keep it up, even though that very morning the same New Zealand producers were selling cheese in Britain for 10 cents a pound less than we were trying to get for our cheese in Canada. The price of 181 cents and 19-1 cents was quoted as the price in London, England, for the very same grade of cheese, from the very same country.
The Minister of Agriculture out west stated that the farmers need not worry too much or that the dairymen need not worry too much because there is only 2-| million pounds coming in and he did not think they would lower the price. If they are not going to. lower the price, it will not help any consumers; and if you are going to put 2J million pounds or 2\ million pounds of cheese on the market that now has more cheese to sell than they have ever had before-


James Garfield Gardiner: That is not correct.


William Earl Rowe: They are your own figures. You said there were 41 million pounds; there are 10 million pounds in the province of Ontario alone and we know that the cheese producers in Ontario-not your government but the cheese producers of Ontario-have put up $1 million of their own money to try to get rid of the surplus they now have. So you are not helping them very much. Judging by their remarks recently, I do not think they are very happy about your throwing 2J million more pounds on their market. You do not help the consumer. You do not help the cheese producer. Whom do you help? The single company that is handling it.


An hon. Member:: That is right.


William Earl Rowe: By 2J million pounds.


James Garfield Gardiner: To answer that, Mr. Speaker, may I say that it was not any company here that asked for the cheese to come into Canada. It was New Zealand.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, that is a very bright remark.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is a bright remark.

The Address-Mr. Rowe


William Earl Rowe: Yes; it is brighter than some you have made but still it is not very bright. But, Mr. Speaker, we know that the dairymen of Ontario did not ask you to do that. That is why I mention the point that when you do not know where you are going, why do you not ask somebody? Did the dairymen or the cheese producers ask you to do this?


James Garfield Gardiner: It was not Americans who asked us who want to ship cheese into the United States. We asked them for the right. We raised objection to the United States trying to keep it out and it was the New Zealanders who asked us for the right to send this cheese in here. If we had taken The same position with regard to them as the .Americans are accused of taking with regard to us, they would have made the same criticism of our actions as we make of the Americans.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, that is another interruption but it still does not add much :im the way of light, especially in view of the *fact that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) said they did not need to give them that right because he said they could send it in under the ordinary practice.


James Garfield Gardiner: No ordinary duties kept it out, but we ask them to keep out cheese.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Since my name has been brought into the discussion, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might make a statement. The duty on cheese was the duty fixed under the British Empire preferential trade agreement in the period when the Conservative party was in power. That has never been changed since. Any suspension of shipments was due to requests from us to New Zealand to help us over an emergency. The reasons that created the emergency had passed and we reverted to the tariff imposed by the Bennett government in 1932.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Trade and Commerce had better get his own customs indexes and books out and get them corrected because that is not the case with reference to the articles to which I have referred-mutton, lamb and meat products.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You were talking about cheese.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, the whole picture is an example of the uncertainty of the fiscal policy or an example of the lack of fiscal policy of this government.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You are dodging the question.


William Earl Rowe: That is why today we are left
in this position, where the dairymen have just as much uncertainty as ever as to where they are going next year in production, or whether they should get rid of their milk cows and export them to the United States or some place else, in many cases. As the minister said the other day, the only hope he could give, so far as surpluses were concerned, is that the grass might be shorter next year than it was this year. In other words, if we have a big crop of grass, and if the grass grows strong next summer, we might have surpluses again. Our wheat situation is more or less in the same position. If the weather is good and if we have a bumper crop of wheat, the government has not offered any new policy with regard to what they are going to do with it. Not only should consideration be given to the agricultural industry-and I think it is an important one. I think the Minister of Agriculture should take into account the fact that Australia and New Zealand have the cheapest production of livestock products of almost any country in the world. The fact that they have 167 million sheep-just about 80 times as many as we have in Canada-gives one some idea as to what a threat that can be to the livestock industry in this country; the fact that on your minister's own statement yesterday we have now imported, in just the year past, at least three times as much cheese as we did the year before from New Zealand and Australia.


James Garfield Gardiner: Three times as much lamb.


William Earl Rowe: Three times as much lamb; that is right. Yet the minister thought it was not going to make much difference to the farmers who produce lamb. The farmers who had lamb to sell last week noticed that the price went down about 20 per cent of the total price, while the minister and I were talking about it here in parliament.


James Garfield Gardiner: It was 22 cents yesterday and today.


William Earl Rowe: It was 19 cents yesterday morning and there is still more coming. We cannot find out how much is coming but the report is that there is a large shipment coming.
I think the uncertainty as to a fiscal policy has done little to encourage agricultural production or to encourage employment. The proposals which have recently been made do little to help the gold industry of this country, which is another basic industry. Employment generally throughout this country has not

been improved by the importation either of cheaply produced agricultural or industrial products.
If I have done nothing else, I hope that I have intimated that our party stands for the development of our own resources here in our own country. I know that we shall hear out on the hustings the rumblings from those who still cling to the old free trade doctrine that that policy means high tariffs. I know we shall hear these people, for the purpose of convenience, saying that we are against the export of raw products. Let me say this, Mr. Speaker. Any child in school who knows anything at all about the history of this dominion knows that we have large quantities of raw products such as iron ore, forest products, minerals and other resources that we must sell to the world. We all know very well that there are many articles we should buy.
I am not going to repeat what I said last evening about the uncertainty of tariffs that are kept in effect by the fiscal policy of this government. The record shows exactly where they stand. We have unnecessary tariffs against products that we do not produce in Canada at all. I would therefore hope that some of my free-trade friends some day, in the quiet of one of their caucuses, would urge upon their government

if they are so greatly concerned about the consumer-to take some of the tariffs off the articles that the consumers want to buy but that we do not produce in Canada at all rather than urge them to take off tariffs or lower duties in order to encourage the importation into Canada of products that we are trying to sell and whose production is giving employment. It is just as plain and as simple as if one said that you have a tariff against what you want and you have freedom to import foreign employment and leave unemployment in this country. I think it is just about as simple as that.
No matter how this government argues, they have not changed this situation. No matter how much they argue that their trade policy is so broad and free that nobody should even state it or no matter how they argue that they are the farmers' friends, we know that, so far as the dairy industry is concerned, never before in the history of this country have we had such a large importation of substitutes for dairy products. Never before have we had as large a surplus of dairy products as we had at the beginning of this year. These facts stand clearly before the dairymen of this country.
I know what the government believes. They have said they do not believe we are
The Address-Mr. Rowe going to have any more importations; they hope not. Perhaps there will not be any for a while, but we do not know whether or not there is a boatload or a carload of lamb coming in now. I have asked the government if they would not give consideration to holding those lamb shipments off the market until the months when it would affect our market the least. I hope they will take that into consideration.
I realize that today the government is trying to broaden the markets for our products. But when we find our unfavourable trade balance increasing, when we find that our favourable trade balance of a couple of years ago has disappeared, when we see what is happening to these basic industries, then I believe we might be pardoned for drawing the attention of the government to these factors. We should not be labelled as apostles of gloom if we do not pat this government on the back every time we speak.
I am not an alarmist, Mr. Speaker, but I am quite concerned when I think about what is happening under these policies. If our economy were not supported by the defence program which demands so much production for destruction rather than production for distribution, I wonder what would happen. This government has been fortunate in that regard in so far as trade is concerned. It is true they have been faced with many problems, and I am in full agreement with the government's attitude today, as has been so well expressed by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) when he said that we do not contribute anything by discussing certain matters at this critical moment.
It does often bother me, however, when after appeals have been made to the government to cut down some expenditures to ease the burden on industries and taxpayers generally, I see increases in civil expenditures. Then the government almost frightens us with talk about the terrible destruction with which we may be faced. We all share a common concern about that. Never have we in this house faced more critical days than we are facing now. In spite of that, we see that the largest reduction in expenditures lies in the area of defence expenditures. We have never at any time criticized defence expenditures as a general principle; in fact we have encouraged them. We have been in full agreement with the government about the necessity of being ready. It does seem strange that economy should be practised in our defence expenditures at a time when the situation is growing more tense and more

The Address-Mr. Rowe critical, while extravagance continues in civil expenditure which we have all been pleading with the government to reduce.
This great big government is today the silent partner of every enterprise in Canada. They take the first bite out of every bit of our people's profit; they take about 50 per cent of practically everything a corporation makes. They take a large percentage of every hour's endeavour in Canada. I believe it is highly desirable that they try to prepare for peace as well as build for war. In the meantime, if conditions continue as serious as they are, we must economize in our civil expenditures; economize everywhere we can, in order that we may have money to spend for our very survival. If we do not have to face that awful day, and we all pray that we will not have to do that, if we can avoid the heavy expenditure involved in a period of war, then we are going to have to have sound fiscal policies, sound taxation' policies as well as free enterprise, so that the people will be prepared to take the risk and build for peace and a higher standard of living. At that time we hope we can get back to normal, producing things for a good standard of living rather than implements of destruction.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that I have not been unfair to the government because I realize they have heavy responsibilities and I notice they are growing more weary as the time passes.


Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: fully realize that brevity is the soul of wit, Mr. Speaker. I am therefore very happy to say that I too shall try to be brief. I do not wish at this time to take up too much of the time of hon. members. However, I have one or two remarks that 1 think are of some importance. I certainly heard one observation the other day that was news to me, and that is that there is some timidity in the Liberal party. I found that in my good friend, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Mang), when he said that he was of a timid nature.
The other day the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) told us he was going to make some remarks which might make him unpopular, and then he went on to say something about the premier of British Columbia, who it appears was a pupil of the hon. member. I do not know why that should prove to be particularly unpopular with the people of British Columbia, because certainly the hon. member was an apt instructor. He was able to teach the premier that progress comes to those who search for a way to improve static or retrograde conditions. The premier of British Columbia took advantage of such excellent instruction and drifted away from that static or retrograde condition.
The hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Dupuis) has indicated that while he may know a great deal about the province of Quebec, apparently he knows very little about the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia. In order that the hon. member may learn more about these provinces I am going to send him a blue pamphlet published by the Social Credit League of Alberta entitled "Do you know?". This tells about Alberta. Also a publication entitled "Two Years of Progress by Social Credit in British Columbia". I am sure these will prove most enlightening to the hon. member and his colleagues if they will just take the time to study them. I notice the hon. member is not in his place, so I shall send these to his office.
I would be remiss in my duty if I did not congratulate the mover (Mr. Leduc) and the seconder (Mr. Carrick) of the address in
The Address-Mr. Hahn reply to the speech from the throne. They did an excellent and commendable job, and deserve to be congratulated.
I have other congratulations to offer. I want to congratulate the government upon the announcement which was made by Senator Reid that the breakwater at White Rock would be extended. You may be sure that announcement was enthusiastically received by the people of my area. I have another item here upon which I want to congratulate the government. The article dealing with this is short and I should like to read it, as I think it will prove interesting to some people. This article appeared in the British Columbian of December 7 and reads: Tenders in January on Federal Building
Tenders for New Westminster's big new federal building-post office will be called in January, Bill Mott, former Liberal MP, told the Columbian today.
The bids originally were to be called this month, but Mr. Mott said he was advised by R. O. Campney, minister of defence, that steel work plans, being drawn in Vancouver, have been delayed for a month.
I want to congratulate the government upon making that formal announcement, and more particularly for seeing to it that this was done with such expedition. Then there is another item about which I should like to congratulate the government, having to do with a mail carrier service at North Surrey. In this connection I want to say that I place no blame on any minister, on any member of the civil service or anyone else; I blame only those parties who are, let us say, embroiled in making this announcement. This particular announcement appeared in the British Columbian of December 8 and reads:
Carrier Delivery for North Surrey Okayed
Federal post office officials in Ottawa have approved carrier delivery service for 2,918 homes and businesses in the North Surrey area.
Former member of parliament Bill Mott said today he learned through the Hon. Ralph Campney of the approval.
We are only too happy to have such approval given to this and other projects. The government should be commended for seeing to it that these things are done, and I might say well done under the circumstances. I should like also to congratulate the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) upon the opening of the Cloverdale post office this year. This new post office is a credit to the community, and everyone is most appreciative. I might say that the senator opened it, and it was an auspicious opening. I thank the Minister of Public Works for asking me to attend, and I might add that I was there.
But the people of my area would be much happier if certain other things were done, apart from those covered by these particular announcements. I think I could lay down an
776	HOUSE OF
The Address

Mr. Hahn 11-point program which would make everybody in the community fairly happy. My first item concerns agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is aware of the representations he has received. If he were to reinstate the feed allowances as they were previous to yesterday he would make a lot of farmers in my community very happy.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) would make us very happy if he would announce that the government was going to move the penitentiary away from New Westminster. The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) would make many fishermen happy if he would only announce that fishing would continue as it was previously above the Pattullo bridge in New Westminster. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) could make the old age pensioners of British Columbia, as well as the provincial government, very happy by announcing that this government would assume a greater share of the expense of caring for our aged citizens.
The Minister of Public Works could help the thousands of people who are trying to add to their homes by revising the housing legislation so it would be possible for them to get assistance. The Minister of Public Works could make me doubly happy by inaugurating a new system of dredging in my area. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney) could make me particularly happy by arranging to erect a new armoury building in New Westminster. The present building is a ramshackle affair and everybody in the city would be very happy to have a new building.
The Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) could make the people in British Columbia very happy by announcing that this government would spend many more dollars in contracts in British Columbia than they are spending at the present time. The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage) could make us happy by adopting the suggestion I made last year that a national park or national monument be created in the region in and around Point Roberts. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) knows of the representations which have been made by myself and the airport officials at Langley and he could make us happy by carrying through the suggestions they make.
I shall be magnanimous. I think the important thing is to have things done. I believe that is necessary if Canada is to progress. I do not care who makes the announcements. I would even be quite happy if the 

announcement that these things were being done was made by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton).


An hon. Member:: Make it Kootenay East.


Frederick George Hahn: That is right. I have some
fault to find with the government; it is not all good. One fault I have to find is the government's policy toward provincial governments. A dominion-provincial conference is long past due. It should be realized that members of parliament are elected to manage national and international affairs, but it should not be forgotten that the people in the provinces elect the provincial governments as their representatives. They feel, and rightly so, that the provincial government should be held responsible to them, as the Liberal government has been held responsible to the people of all Canada in respect to dominion administration. They are answerable for their deeds in the same manner that we are. If British Columbia or Quebec, or any other province in Canada, passes legislation with which possibly we do not agree, then perhaps the reason is that it is just a bad egg from an old Liberal batch. There is only one way of curing it and I believe that is through a dominion-provincial conference.


An hon. Member:: In a hotel room?


Frederick George Hahn: The second fault I have to find with the government is not novel, I am sure, because it has to do with the question of high taxation. The Conservatives have told us taxes are too high. The socialists have told us the same. The Social Credit members and independents also claim they are too high. Even the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) has said they are too high and, if it will help any, I shall say also that they are too high. That pretty well makes us unanimous.
But the question is, "What makes them too high?" There are probably two particular reasons. One is that we are a social welfare state to a degree, and the other is defence expenditure. I cannot devote too much time to this question, but in the matter of the social welfare state I would say I do not believe there are many hon. members in this house who are opposed to the social welfare legislation now on the statute books. I think I am right in saying that most of our social welfare legislation was born of the depression years or during a period of conflict. In view of that fact I believe it is time we stopped and assessed the situation.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare has indicated on more than one

occasion that he would be only too happy to assist the aged and others in need if he could only find the ways and means. It is evidently agreed, then, that they need this assistance and the government is prepared to supply it but does not know exactly how it can be done. I would suggest it is time that a committee or some other such organization were set up to determine the means whereby we can correct our existing legislation so as to make it possible to assist those who are in need of help. Each party has different ideas in this regard, and it might be well to take that factor into consideration. It is not a case of being indifferent to the need for this legislation, but there may be a considerable difference of views among hon. members as to the amount required and the means of implementation.
One might take for example the discrepancy now existing, whereby we have wealthy people of 70 years of age and over who are receiving $40 per month, while at the same time we have those younger people who are very poor indeed and are not receiving the required assistance. Some of them are even denied the right to work. Our own civil service regulations do not permit some of them to take on particular types of jobs. In fact the only thing they can get is the air. That is pretty cheap, but there was a time when we had to pay for it, and I am referring to the old radio licence.
But seriously, Mr. Speaker, it is highly important to this nation that we see to it that there is no one in want, whether he be aged, blind, crippled, or in any other position that makes it impossible for him to live in the manner in which he is entitled to live. In saying that I do not mean that an individual should become a charge on the state. He should rather be one who has the privilege of doing something if he so wishes and thereby supplement his allowance if he is in need. However, that is just a thought as to a method of modification.
I believe the people who do most for the economy of this country are those who spend everything they earn. If we have senior citizens in this country or disabled or blind and they need more money in order to live, and through government assistance receive that money, they will do more for the economy of this country than any half dozen wealthy men who do not spend their money, because these people spend every penny they can earn and it is put back into circulation so that it becomes part of the bloodstream of the state.
I would therefore consider that it is most important for us as a parliament to urge this
The Address

Mr. Hahn government to meet these needs if it is at all possible, and in this regard I would again emphasize that it is time to reassess our social welfare legislation. I shall probably have more to say on these particular items as they come up in the estimates later.
I have quite deliberately neglected to include war veterans allowances in this group, largely because I was pleased to note that the question is dealt with in the speech from the throne. I hope the impending legislation in this regard will meet the requests made by the veterans last year when they submitted their brief with respect to the amount of the allowance and the permissible ceiling. In this regard I wish to congratulate the hon. members for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. MacDougall) and Hastings-Frontenac (Mr. White) for joining me this year in putting on the order paper a resolution similar to the one I submitted last year, asking for consideration of this matter. The reason I congratulate both these hon. members is that their action indicates there is some uniformity of view among hon. members in this house, and that many of us are anxious to see that the war veterans receive the consideration which is their due.
Before dealing with the question of fisheries I would like to congratulate the government for including the removal of Ripple Rock in the speech from the throne. This has caused us many worries in the past in British Columbia, and it has been of particular concern to the wives of fishermen and others employed on boats.
I would particularly draw to the attention of the Minister of Fisheries the remarks of the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Patterson). Speaking earlier in this debate the hon. member asked for an extension of fishing rights above the Pattullo bridge. I recall that last year the minister changed his ideas to a degree, and I was quite enthusiastic. However, the change was not sufficient. I applauded his action last year, and I would be very happy to continue that applause if he would only see fit to increase the period of time during which fishermen can fish above the Pattullo bridge.
In that regard, much has been said about the quality of the fish and the need for conservation. In this connection I should like to read some evidence taken from the Sloan report of 1940, pages 110 and 111, as given by Charles Lisson Smith, who was the production manager of Edmunds and Walker. I know the report is a few years old, but at the same time the fish are the same fish; they use the same river; the bridge is the same bridge, and I think the same situation

The Address-Mr. Hahn holds good today. At least the fishermen are convinced that it does. I read from the report:
Q. Will you repeat again what you were telling us as to what is the business of the company?
A. We buy all British Columbia fish for the purpose of freezing, selling fish, and curing.
Q. In that connection what variety of salmon do you buy?
A. Spring salmon mostly.
Q. And from whom are these purchases made?
A. From anyone offering; for instance in the river, we take them from any fisherman bringing them in, but mostly it is from collectors who buy the fish and resell to us.
Q. Do you buy gillnet caught fish?
A. Yes.
Q. And purse seine caught fish?
A. Not very much.
Q. Will you tell us why?
I want you to note this answer particularly.
A. Purse seine fish are not very suitable for our business.
Q. You are speaking only of spring salmon, aren't you?
A. Yes.
Q. Tell us why they are not very suitable?
A. They seem to be damaged in the process of fishing or in the collecting. In any case before they reach us they are of inferior quality to either the trolled or gillnetted fish.
Q. Damaged in what way? Can you give us that more particularly?
A. Presumably in the brailing.
Q. In what way is this damage apparent?
A. The fish are smashed, the scales are off and they are bruised, broken.
Q. And does that render the fish of an inferior quality or grade for the particular purpose you require these fish?
A. Most certainly.
Q. In what way does it affect them?
A. No one will buy a battered up fish if you want to sell them fresh. If you want to spend money and put them in cold storage or dress and process them in the way of curing, why naturally no one will take on an article that is all broken and battered; it is not a fine fish any more.
Q. Do you find the same condition where you purchase from the gillnet fishermen?
A. Sometimes, but not so much so. Up river the fishermen have been educated that way for some considerable time, at least the fishermen selling to us. We get a very good quality from the gill-netters up the river.
Q. Up the river from where?
A. From New Westminster bridge.
That is the Pattullo bridge. It indicates that the quality of fish is just as good as that of any that are caught by the seine vessels, or more so. In respect of conservation I would quote Major James A. Motherwell, chief supervisor of fisheries in British Columbia under the federal government from 1921 until at least 1940. At page 105 they were speaking about competition and he was asked this question:
Q. Is it-
"It" meaning competition.
-controlled from an economic standpoint or from a conservation standpoint?
A. Conservation is not affected because we can control any kind of fishing.

There we have a case not of quality but a case of conservation. We have the same fishermen, the same people, who are quite capable of looking after the fishing industry. The fishermen themselves can do the conserving. They are just as co-operative as they were at that time. Undoubtedly the only regulation that needs to be changed is to have the conservation of fish controlled in a progressive manner from the gulf right on up the Fraser past the Pattullo bridge and on into Mission and the area where they do their spawning.
From my studies I find that the prosperity of a nation can be traced to its basic industry; or I might put it this way. The prosperity of a nation is directly proportionate to the prosperity of the basic industry. Our prosperity therefore comes from our hinterland. This applies federally, provincially and, to a lesser degree, locally. When the returns from production do not equal the cost of consumption, then our enterprise begins to fail.
In this respect I find that the dairymen and poultrymen have long known their stock, and that it produces properly only when it consumes properly. They realize that in order to have a cow give sufficient milk, or as much as they think it should give, they must first feed that cow well. In other words it is what the cow consumes that makes the milk. The same thing applies to poultry or any other product.
Today we see certain signs of breakdown of this economy. We have the poultrymen, the dairy producers, the grain growers, the stock raisers, the potato growers, the fishermen and others who complain and have complained, not just this year but last year as well, of the conditions with which they are confronted. For instance, the price of eggs was discussed in this house. We were told that the price is too low, that we should have a higher floor price under them.
One of the causes behind this situation is the price of feed. As I mentioned earlier, the Minister of Agriculture could make us happier at the coast if he were to raise the contribution in respect of feed rates and give us back the $5 he deducted, and make it possible for poultrymen to buy their feed at a lower cost. Another question in respect of eggs is the price spread between the A quality and the B quality. That matter was also mentioned.
Then as to the turkey raisers, I had the privilege of indicating to this house last year that there was a problem. At that time some people in the business called it dumping. It was not dumping in the true sense of the

word because United States birds were selling for the same price in the United States as they were selling in Canada. However, the difference was this. The United States poultry raiser was the owner of a large feed plant and he was interested only in getting the price of his feed out of these birds, with the result that he made no profit on them. That put the Canadian producer in the awkward position of trying to compete with him.
As to the economic policy of this government-if there is such a thing as a policy in respect of some of these things, of which I am rather doubtful-let me say this. There has been much talk about butter and cheese and so on. It is a matter of argument as to whether or not there is a policy in respect of agriculture that is not just as loose as the minister's talk, when he says from time to time, "I did not mean that; I meant something else".
That is the essence of the whole thing. The only result of the increase in the price of feed is that the cost of production goes up, and with that increased cost of production we have, of necessity, an increase in the price to the ultimate consumer, whether it is eggs or whatever it may be. As to the wheat producers, they have their difficulties just as have the butter and cheese producers.
Therefore when you come to consider agriculture, what is the policy? Is the policy going to be that the government will pay for butter until it has a certain accumulation, then give it to hospitals? Is this to be a continuing policy? We should know these things. Certainly the merchants in this country are entitled to know something with regard to what they may expect.
The grain grower certainly has real cause for complaint. Here we have 19-5 per cent of the population receiving about 9 per cent of Canada's income. It is not enough that he is the backbone of the country but of necessity, because of our trade policy, he must be dependent only on the export market. This is true to a degree, but there is a domestic market over which we can have a certain measure of control. Because of this method of handling these things, he runs into difficulties. The same conditions apply to the hog producers. I know the Minister of Agriculture has received a telegram similar to the one I received concerning the effect of the feed situation on the hog raising business.
We all heard the excellent speeches by the hon. members for Queens (Mr. MacLean), and Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Montgomery) with regard to the potato growers. The same question was discussed last year in this house. I do not believe the solution lies so much in 50433-501
The Address-Mr. Poulin a tariff as in a change in the implementation of these regulations. It may be a matter that could be presented through our Minister of Finance. I would not be so ready to agree that we should increase the tariff. I am opposed to that in principle. I would rather see our tariff dates made more flexible, so they might come into operation at a time when they would be of much more assistance.
I realize that my time is getting short. I realize, as well, that the financial and economic policies of this government today are the same as they were when our good friend Adolf Schicklgruber, or Adolf Hitler as he was called, took us out of the last depression. I would, therefore, move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston), that the amendment be amended by adding thereto the following:
We further regret that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to take or to recommend the necessary fundamental economic and financial measures to place Canadian producers and workers on a sound and prosperous basis, and to ensure our economy against recurring recessions.
(Translation):


Mr. Raoul Poulin (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on a subject which is of special interest to the rural constituencies of eastern Canada and that of Beauce in particular, that is, the support price of butter. Every local of the Catholic farmers union-of which, I am glad to say, there is one in each parish of the constituency I represent-has expressed its views to the government on this problem, which is of great importance to these people.
Indeed, the dairy industry, being the main source of revenue for eastern farmers, constitutes the very basis of their economy. They may possibly-I am speaking here of the farmers of my own constituency-accept some lowering of the price of eggs, for instance, or beef or pork. Only a very few would be seriously affected by anything of this kind. However, at least in my constituency, I know very few who could withstand the shock of a sudden and prolonged drop in the price of butter.
The right hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) stated in this house on January 14, 1955, as reported on page 18G of Hansard, that the present support price for butter will be continued until May 1 and that he was not in the habit of making decisions for a more distant future. This is no doubt an excellent reply as far as the right hon. minister is concerned, but it is somewhat disturbing for the farmers.


to see what constitutes an asset for this country, he would have met other people than a small group of socialists, communists or harebrained people, as are found everywhere, but no more in Quebec than in British Columbia or in any other part of Canada. Such being the case a longer stay would have enabled him to discover that within this group which he calls "another nation" there are good farmers whose land was cleared 220 or even 300 years ago and which never fell into the hands of any other but the lineal descendants of the first occupants. He would also have seen thousands upon thousands of workers who are devoted to work well done and are in no way inferior to the skilled craftsman of other provinces. He would also have seen, built by members of this same group, large industries and businesses which contribute in no mean degree to the prosperity, not only of the province of Quebec but also of Canada as a whole. He would also have seen large hospitals or clinics of which some are unmatched in this country. He could have seen too three large universities, two or three smaller ones and a large number of colleges with an enrolment of 75,000, which annually confer degrees on those who have merited them in all branches of human endeavour.
Among these teaching institutions, he would have noted a great university and several colleges and schools directed by Anglo-Protestants enjoying the greatest freedom to teach according to the principles, beliefs and language of those directing and attending these institutions. He would have been greatly shocked, no doubt, to find out that in this part of the country in which, according to him, lives another nation, the taxpayers are never called upon to pay double tax for a double educational system, but instead choose freely to pay once only for the system they prefer. And his amazement would have reached a peak upon seeing that, moreover, of the money collected in taxes from a population, which is 82 per cent Catholic and French, a good part is turned over to Anglo-Protestant teaching institutions. His amazement would undoubtedly have been complete when he would have found out that the people of Quebec merely consider this a fair and normal situation.
The hon. member should then have been in a position to examine his conscience and ask himself whether the same thing

The Address-Mr. Boisvert
could not be done at Maillardville, in his own constituency, where Canadians, and I underline that word, Mr. Speaker, where Canadians are compelled to pay a double or triple tax when they want French or catechism taught to their young children. If the hon. member does not know it, he shall have to learn that Canadians of French descent are at home at Maillardville, in Burnaby-Coquitlam, and everywhere in British Columbia, just as Canadians of English origin are at home in the province of Quebec. It is on this condition only, on this essential condition that we may expect to achieve the national unity upon which he delights to expound.
The hon. member has stated that the people of Quebec are deprived or do not benefit in the fields of education and health of services they would like to get. I do not see the need of replying to that. It is quite obvious that we do not have in Quebec everything we would like to have, but the same applies everywhere else. However, I feel at least a little reassured when I find that in the last budget brought down at Quebec for the year 1955-56, $60 million are earmarked for health services, $46.5 million for education and $28 million for social welfare. I think that Quebec, for another year at least, will not need help from the province of British Columbia to settle her problems.
Those are a few of the remarks that came to my mind after the speech delivered by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam.
In spite of everything, I believe he is a gentleman, a man of good will who wants to increase his knowledge about his own country. Under the circumstances, I hope that my humble remarks will help him to understand better the group of Canadians who were the pioneers in Canada.
(Text):


Mr. Maurice Boisvert (Nicolei-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, it had not been my intention to take part in this debate. However, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Mac-Innis) having raised a question which is highly important, and I should add vitally important to national unity, I feel I should express my thoughts on the matter. I shall do so objectively, making no attempt to lay blame on any provincial legislature in particular. I think this is hardly the place to stir up resentment against any government which owes its existence to our constitution.
Here is the part of the speech which gives me serious concern. It was made in this house on January 27 by the hon. member, as reported at page 597 of Hansard:
May I tell the hon. member, and any other hon. member who does not know, that under our constitution in British Columbia we have a tree, non-sectarian public school system. No questions are asked of a child entering a British Columbia school as to whether he is Jew or Gentile, whether he is Roman Catholic or Protestant, whether he is Baptist or Witness of Jehovah. All that is necesary is that he be a resident of British Columbia and of school age.
Not only is our school system free and nonsectarian, it is also compulsory. If a child is living in an outlying district where no educational facilities are available he gets his education by correspondence. Children living in localities where there are schools must attend them. On occasion we have taken parents into court in British Columbia in order to force them to send their children to school. I have never known of a parent coming to courts in order to get a school to accept his children. This is something for those who would criticize the British Columbia school system to inform themselves about.
The hon. member went on to say:
If there are people in Maillardville or in any part of British Columbia who do not think the school system is good enough for them, who set up their own schools, then they are the people who are creating minorities; they are the people who are creating double taxation in British Columbia.
From these statements we infer that the school system of British Columbia is nondenominational in character. In other words, it is non-sectarian on the one hand and compulsory on the other. Therefore it takes no account of the race, religion, faith or language of the people. Before going more deeply into the problem which the statement made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Maclnnis) raises for each and every citizen in this country I should like to introduce into this debate other relevant utterances which have been made. On January 12, 1955, as reported on page 120 of Hansard, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) spoke as follows:
I also spent a fair amount of time In the province of Quebec. This province seems to be the sore spot in the matter of Canadian unity. I was raised in the west. For years the late Mackenzie King told us how he was building national unity, and for years most of us believed him. "Yes, that is the man to build national unity." How is it, Mr. Speaker, if the late Mackenzie King was really and truly building national unity that, after such a long premiership, almost the moment he ^ disappears from the scene we have less national unity than we have had in Canada for ages and ages?
Then on January 17, 1955, as reported at page 274 of Hansard, the hon. member for Pontiac-Timiskaming (Mr. Proudfoot) had this to say:
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?

The Address-Mr. Boisvert At this time I have in mind a place called Maillard-ville, British Columbia, and if I am not wrong X 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.
On January 26, 1955, as reported on page 556 of Hansard, the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Cannon) quoting excerpts from the Vancouver Province denounced a statement attributed to the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), who is alleged to have said on September 15, 1954:
Winch hits use of French language in the house.
The article quoted the hon. member as saying:
"I have yet to meet a French-Canadian MP who does not understand or speak English", he explained. "Yet this minority group insists on using French in the house. We have to wait 24 hours for a transcript to find out what they said."
The article continues:
It is their God-given right to use the French tongue but why do they insist on it when they know the majority of the members are Englishspeaking and can speak it themselves.
Coming back to the statements made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, he sought to answer the hon. member for Pontiac-Timiskaming. In so doing he went far beyond the bounds within which the debate should have remained. The statements made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam and the hon. member for Vancouver East would seem to be motivated by feelings far removed from what the fathers of confederation had in mind when together they drafted the imperial statute we know as the British North America Act. Whether that statute be a pact or a legislative provision enacted by the United Kingdom of Great Britain, it cannot be argued that it is not in any event the result of a compromise reached with difficulty and a great deal of apprehension at the Charlottetown conference, at the Quebec conference and during the debates in the provincial legislatures in 1865 and in England immediately prior to the adoption of the imperial statute. Here is the preamble of 30-31 Victoria, that is to say the preamble to the British North America Act:
Whereas the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have expressed their desire to be federally united into one dominion under the crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom:
And whereas such a union would conduce to the welfare of the provinces and promote the interests of the British Empire:
Then the last paragraph reads:
And whereas it is expedient that provision be made for the eventual admission into the union of other parts of British North America:

There was provision in that act to cover the entry of other parts of the country into confederation. In 1867 British Columbia was not yet a part of the Canadian confederation; it was only in 1871 it became such.
Those who worked toward the elaboration of the British North America Act found that the main stumbling block was the problem of the duality of origin, of language and of religion. For a great many years this proved to be the main obstacle to the expression of their good will. A formula had to be found, and this consisted of joining the three provinces of Canada in a confederation with certain powers being vested in the federal government and certain powers being vested in the provincial legislatures.
Those Canadians who were of French origin were desirous of retaining the rights that had been granted them in the instruments of capitulation, guaranteed by the treaty of Paris, and recognized by subsequent constitutions when Canada was a colony of the United Kingdom of Great Britain. Never from that day have they retreated from this stand and they never will. It seems to be forgotten in some quarters that the King of France by the treaty of Paris of 1763 ceded to His Britannic Majesty all the French possessions he held or claimed to hold in North America. Here is the relevant part of article 4 of that treaty:
His Most Christian Majesty renounces all pretensions which he has heretofore formed or might have formed to Nova Scotia or Acadie in all its parts and guaranties the whole to it, and with all its dependencies, to the King of Great Britain-Moreover, his Most Christian Majesty cedes and guaranties to his said Britannick Majesty, in full right, Canada, with all its dependencies, as well as the Island of Cape Breton and all the other islands and coasts in the gulph and river of St Lawrence, and. in general, everything that depends on the said countries, lands, islands and coasts, with the sovereignty, property, possession and all rights acquired by treaty or otherwise, which the Most Christian King and the Crown of France have had till now over the said countries ' lands islands, places, coasts and their inhabitants . . ' ... His Britannick Majesty on his side, agrees to grant the liberty of the Catholick religion to the inhabitants of Canada: he will in consequence give the most precise and most effectual orders that his new Roman Catholick subjects may profess the worship of their religion according to the rites of the Romish church, as far as the laws of Great Britain permit. His Britannick Majesty further agrees, that the French inhabitants or other who had been subjects of the Most Christian King in Canada, may retire with all safety and freedom whenever they shall think proper, and may sell their estates, provided it be to the subjects of His Britannick Majesty, and bring away their effects as well as their persons without being restrained in their emigration, under any pretence whatsoever, except that of debts or of criminal prosecutions.

According to this treaty, sovereignty over that territory which became the Canadian confederation has been transferred step by step since 1867 from the British crown to the government of Canada. The whole of the Canadian territory, from east to west and from north to south, became the common possession of all Canadians, that is of all those who, by birth or naturalization, are Canadian subjects. In other words they may come and go from one province to another, they may settle in any province, whether they be of French origin, Roman Catholic, of English origin, or Protestant.
This is an inalienable right by virtue of the very constitution under which we live. The boundaries between the provinces are imaginary, and are solely designed to limit to a given territory the jurisdiction granted provincial legislatures in certain matters set out in sections 92 and 93 of the British North America Act. These boundaries are by no means such as to prevent a Canadian citizen from exercising the right he has of settling down, earning his living, and bringing up his family in whatever province he may choose.
To that right of living in any province must be added the natural freedom that parents enjoy with regard to the education they wish to give their children. This natural right implies that they may, if they so wish, bring up their children in their own language and faith, that is the culture, language and faith they have themselves. Obviously every Canadian citizen must conform to the laws of that part of the country in which he lives, in any matter which, under sections 92 and 93 of the Canadian constitution, comes within the jurisdiction of the province. I am however of the opinion that any Canadian of French origin has the right and the duty, in whatever province he may be, to see to it that his children receive an education which subtracts nothing from their soul, unless he so desires. Liberty of choice does exist, and it is quite possible that a citizen may choose another language.
The problem of education in Canada, before the enactment of the British North America Act and ever since, has never ceased to be a really sore point with regard to national unity. Lord Carnarvon, in presenting the British North America bill to the House of Lords in 1867, had this to say with respect to section 93 of the bill:
Lastly, in the 93rd clause, which contains the exceptional provisions to which I referred Your Lordships will observe some rather complicated arrangements in reference to education. I need hardly say that that great question gives rise to nearly as much earnestness and division of opinion on that as on this side of the Atlantic. This clause has been framed after long and anxious controversy, in which all parties have been represented, and on conditions to which all have given
The Address-Mr. Boisvert
their consent. It is an understanding which, as it only concerns the local interests affected, is not one that parliament would be willing to disturb, even if in the opinion of parliament it were susceptible of amendment, but I am bound to add, as the expression of my own opinion, that the terms of the agreement appear to me to be equitable and judicious. For the object of the clause is to secure to the religious minority of one province the same rights, privileges, and protection which the religious minority of another province may enjoy. The Roman Catholic minority of Upper Canada, the Protestant minority of Lower Canada, and the Roman Catholic minority of the maritime provinces, will thus stand on a footing of entire equality.
With respect to Lower Canada, now the province of Quebec, Lord Carnarvon goes on to say:
Lower Canada, too, is jealous, as she is deservedly proud, of her ancestral customs and traditions: she is welded to her peculiar institution, and will enter this union only upon the distinct understanding that she retains them.
What is section 93 of the B.N.A.A.? It reads as follows:
93. In and for each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to education,, subject and according to the following provisions:
(1)	Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially affect any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools which any class of persons have by law in the province at the union:
(2)	All the powers, privileges, and duties at the union by law conferred and imposed in Upper Canada on the separate schools and school trustees of the Queen's Roman Catholic subjects shall be and the same are hereby extended to the dissentient schools of the Queen's Protestant and Roman Catholic subjects in Quebec.
It must be recognized that it is incumbent upon the provinces, which after 1867 were united under the confederation, to determine the school system which shall prevail. That is a right which could not be challenged, and I have no intention of denying the provinces their constitutional right to adopt the . school system they prefer. But I surely have the right to ask the racial majorities in provinces outside Quebec to achieve a compromise in order that Canadians of French descent and of the Roman Catholic creed in any province of Canada may give their children the education which they consider it their duty to give.
Why should it be impossible to find a compromise? Now that Canada has progressed toward greater unity, why not give the minorities the same rights, privileges, and advantages with regard to education of their children, in view of the fact that these minorities are made up of Canadian citizens who, anywhere they elect to live, have the right to bring with them and retain the treasure of their traditions, their religion, the language they cherish, and the culture which constitutes their background.
In the province of Quebec the majority, made up of Canadians of French descent, has

The Address-Mr. Boisvert its educational institutions at all levels, as have the minority, made up ol Canadians of English descent. The government of the provinces of Quebec gives grants to our colleges and our universities, regardless of the language and religion being taught in these institutions, which serve to educate the children of both the majority and the minority. This year English-speaking McGill University will receive a provincial grant of more than $1 million. No one in the province of Quebec complains about that. On the contrary, everyone is happy in the light of the fact that this situation is based on justice, freedom and natural right.
By finding a solution to the problem of education in Canada we would also settle for good and all the problem of national unity, and Canada would then set an example that other countries would follow. By virtue of the constitution, the majority may have the right to do one thing. Before the common conscience of a young nation, it could exercise this right so as to place all children on an equal footing, without discrimination as to their race, language and religion.
On January 7, 1955, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) gave notice of motion of the following resolution:
That, In the opinion of this house, consideration should be given to the taking of whatever steps are necessary to amend the British North America Act so as to include therein the following heading and sections:
"Human Rights
148. Notwithstanding anything in this act, it shall not be lawful for the parliament of Canada or the legislatures of any of the provinces to make laws:
(a)	Abridging freedom of speech and expression, or freedom of religion, or of the press or other means of communication or the right of lawful assembly, association or organization.
(b)	Depriving any person of life or liberty by arbitrary or abusive measures, or denying to^ any person the equal protection of the laws . . ."
I am in full agreement with the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar as regards the principles involved in that resolution. Among the liberties most precious to the individual are the ones concerning his tongue, his religion, his faith and his traditions. The school has been the first medium of transmission of human thought. Can it be claimed, as has been the case in this house, that Canadians of French origin living in British Columbia must suffer their lot because they constitute a minority? They might as well be told, "If you are not satisfied, move out. Take your belongings, your children and go wherever you want; it is no concern of ours". It amounts to denying them the fundamental right to live in their country and to live wherever they choose on our Canadian soil.
Canadians of French origin are stubborn but at the same time they are excellent

Canadian citizens. They love their country; they love the laws governing them; they love to live in society with their English-speaking compatriots. The best proof of this is that all of them are making efforts to learn the language of the majority in order to be able to entertain better relations with all their fellow Canadians.
It is being said that in British Columbia Canadians of French descent cannot legally have the same rights they would have, by virtue of the constitution, in some other provinces. That is no doubt the reason they have to build their own schools, pay for the cost of these schools and pay for the education they want for their children. They have, moreover, to contribute, by paying school taxes, to the education of Canadian children of other racial origins who are obliged to attend public school. It is contrary to human rights that there should exist somewhere in our country a system which forces children to receive an education which their parents cannot recognize and which destroys in their souls both appreciation of liberty and love of country.
All governments in the world must adopt wise laws. It is the enactment of these wise laws-laws respectful of natural rights- which makes just governments. A state is great in so far as it respects the rights of man. On May 6, 1954, in Montreal, Mr. Murray Ballantyne stated:
We must accept the fact that Canada is called by history to be basically bilingual and bicultural. Our national destiny is difficult but enriching. Canada is the French-Canadians' home, and they ought to be able to feel at home in it from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Together we French and English speaking Canadians can build a great nation. Apart, neither can succeed.
I therefore say to those who, in this house, have expressed opinions which to your humble servant are contrary to the spirit of confederation, that they should seek a formula which will cause provincial legislatures, where education is subjected to the weight of the majority, to put the minorities on an equal footing so that double taxation may disappear. Majorities by themselves have no rights. Rights are attached to the individual. True it is that in a democracy individuals, subjects by right, vest the state with the right to legislate. Law then becomes an obligation for all. If law becomes unfair to a group of citizens, it is then proper to revise it with a view to the disappearance of inequality before the law. It would only be fair that all should benefit by law on an equal basis. It would only make for a greater, finer country and Canada would see her already worldwide reputation further enhanced.
What I wish for with all my heart is that the principle of equality of rights in matters

of labour be accepted in the field of education. On May 14, 1954, we passed an act stating that no employer may discriminate against any person in regard to employment because of his race, colour, religion, or national origin, and no trade union may exclude anyone from membership or discriminate against anyone in regard to membership or employment on these grounds.
We have welcomed that legislation of nondiscrimination as a further step toward national unity. Let us promote the application of the same principle with respect to education, without infringing upon the rights of the provinces to determine their school laws, but by good will, good advice and good understanding. What succeeded in 1867 could surely be attained in 1955 if all wished together to pursue the same aim.
For our part we shall always persist in the way set for us. Our ancestors from France opened this North American continent to colonization, trade, agriculture and industry. After the treaty of Paris our ancestors demonstrated more than four times their love of Canada and their attachment to the British crown. After 1867 they co-operated with their English-speaking fellow citizens to the edification of the Canadian nation, and their descendants will continue to follow their destiny despite wars, times and crises. They want to see in the hearts of their children the blossoming of the love of Canada, and in their minds the development of a sense of and desire for her moral, political and economic greatness, so they may always breathe the incense of liberty and cultivate, as free men, the joy of living. Nothing shall alter their determination. Neither "Attleeism" nor atheism shall find room in the depths of their souls as Canadians.
It is often said that history repeats itself, but it must be repeated more often if we want it to be retained by men, who pass rapidly, history keeping only what is lasting: faith in God, faith in ourselves, faith in our country which makes men capable of building an imperishable progress.
Before closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate in French the mover (Mr. Leduc) and the seconder (Mr. Carrick) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, like all previous speakers, I would like to offer my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Leduc) and the seconder (Mr. Carrick) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. The complimentary remarks I would like to make would never be good enough for what they deserve. I shall therefore simply say "very well done" and "all honour to them."
The Address-Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Text):


Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: On the first occasion on which it is possible for me to do so this year, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) very much indeed for the shining, new and bright post office which was opened in our area of Notre Dame de Grace just a month or two ago. It shows the co-operation that exists between the Postmaster General and myself.
Those of us who come from Montreal, and who are Conservative, would be perhaps saying something hypocritical if we said we were happy to see the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) come into this house. We would have been happier had it been someone on this side. But if they had to choose from amongst the group of Liberals in Quebec to fill that post I believe they made a good choice, because he is a very fine man. I am sure, too, that the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Richardson), who has just come into this house, will make quite a contribution to our proceedings because in the Herald for Tuesday, November 9, he said:
My experience and background and ability show that I can speak for this riding far better than my three opponents combined.
This statement was made just after the election.
During the summer I was happy to see that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage) was spending his time travelling in Canada. I believe he is a little bit out of place with the other cabinet ministers, but it is a good thing that at least one of them is staying at home and examining that tremendously important territory for which he is responsible.
One of the advantages of this debate, Mr. Speaker, is that it allows us to put forward ideas or suggestions which may occur to us which we could not otherwise encompass in the course of the debates on the legislation which comes before this house. We in this house must concern ourselves with the problem of democratic government, purely as democratic government, to ascertain whether the government is continuing to fulfil its democratic responsibilities. There is little opportunity to discuss that in detail under any specific piece of legislation; therefore I should like to take a few minutes this afternoon to examine this particular aspect of our parliamentary and political life in Canada.
The other day the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) suggested that this whole question of our democratic operation is the most important problem of our free world, because it matters very little if we strike off the encircling chains of captivity from others if,

The Address-Mr. W. M. Hamilton in the process, we bind ourselves. We do not have to go to the hon. member for Oxford for that suggestion. We can go back almost a century to Abraham Lincoln, who put it quite succinctly when he said:
Must a government of necessity be too strong for the liberties of its people, or too weak to maintain its own existence?
This challenge to the ability of free men to develop a means of restricting certain of their activities in the interests of society while still remaining free has been met at different times in different ways. Essentially free governments everywhere are patterned after one or another of the three parliamentary democracies of Great Britain, France or the United States. Each of these systems has its strength and each its weakness. Sir Arthur Salter, whose record in the British house is known to most of us here, has made the following comment:
Each of these three systems has its distinctive merits and each of them has a distinctive inherent danger. The danger of the French system is instability. The danger of the American system is deadlock. The danger of the British system is cabinet tyranny.
Under the British system, which is the one we follow in Canada, such cabinet tyranny can be cloaked in many ways. It will depend largely on the cleverness of the party in power in dissimulating its intentions and misleading the public as to whether or not the people generally realize the dangerous course their government may be following. When you have a government that has the political morality of an alley cat and the lust for power of a Genghis Khan, it behooves those of us-and that includes all of us Conservatives on this side-who hold democracy precious to be on guard for all the people.
It is well to remember, Mr. Speaker, that the existence of the ballot itself and some form of free election is no indication of either political freedom or freedom of the individual. The Germany of the thirties had an elective parliament sitting concurrently with the Hitler regime; Russia today has an elective parliament which meets from time to time for the discussion of public affairs.
In our society in Canada, government is a living organism. It is a dynamic, not a static part of our existence. Its role, its responsibilities, its way of operation and, to some extent, its entire function must change from time to time to adapt itself to changing conditions. This I admit. But I do not admit that in this changing process we need to, or should, surrender those democratic privileges that men have fought and died for all down through the centuries.
There are those who do not agree with this thesis. These people are prone to argue

that the adaptation of government to our changing society must of necessity mean the invasion of our rights as free men and as free legislators. For example, in a speech on the role of government delivered by Monsieur Maurice Lamontagne, then of Laval University in Quebec, we find this statement:
The society of tomorrow will have to face the problem of bureaucracy. To solve it, it will be necessary to create new methods of democratic control and perhaps also to revise our concept of democracy.
Here is a clear-cut case of the sort of confused thinking to which I refer, the suggestion that to deal with the changing role of government in our society we must revise our concept of democracy. I noted with interest that the author of this suggestion, shortly after making it, moved from his university in Quebec to a senior post in our government bureaucracy at Ottawa. I predict a brilliant future for him. His pathway has been blazed by a number of other civil servants, including the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill), the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney), all of whom came into the cabinet from the civil service.
Amongst Canadians it is commonly assumed that the nature of our government, and the way in which the democratic process operates in our Canadian parliamentary system, has not changed in the period since 1935 when the Liberal party began its long tenure of office. This misconception is fostered by the fact th^t things are done very much as they used to be done. The Speaker still presides; resolutions and bills are still proposed, debated, and with almost complete uniformity passed. All the trappings of a parliamentary democracy are observed. But this does not necessarily mean that democracy and parliamentary control extend below the surface. Appearances can sometimes be deceiving, as they are in this case.
For those who would claim that this is not so, let me remind them of the evolution of the message we are today debating, the message of His Excellency the Governor General which we term more popularly the speech from the throne. There was a point in British parliamentary history when this message was just what it purports to be today, direction from the monarch to his parliament regarding legislation. Today, though couched in the same archaic language and using the same pronouns, even the schoolboy knows that the speech is conceived and written, exactly as delivered, by the cabinet of the day. Yet outwardly there is no change; and this simple example, plus many others from our procedure, proves to us beyond any

doubt that the realities can undergo great change while surface appearances remain constant.
The fact that these subsurface changes are taking place is generally admitted, and has been for many years, even among the stanchest adherents of the Liberal party. Senator Roebuck, the former Liberal member for Trinity, said in a debate in the other place in 1947:
The direction in which we are travelling is a regulated society in which the rights of the individual are set aside, purportedly for the good of the public, but the final result is next door to a controlled society or a police state in which the private individual and the business of the [DOT]country are bossed by a few civil servants.
Later in the same speech he remarked:
I know we are drifting towards the abolition of government by legislation and the substitution therefor of government by order in council.
The member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) made the following statement, first in an article in a national magazine and later before the national Liberal convention in 1948:
From the ideology of the C.C.F. we have lifted the worship of bureaucratic controls, leaving parliament-and the reference is to the present, not to wartime-little more than the role of a debating society, controlled from outside, not by the people who elect its members, but by minor czars and petty dictators.
We all know what happens to such free thinkers in the Liberal party and in this government, and the hon. member for Quebec South is an example; he got bounced from the cabinet by those who have "a new concept of democracy". These are not isolated quotations. They have been echoed time and time again by Liberals of every rank, and from every part of this country.
The judiciary of our country has warned time and time again against the increasing abuse of government powers. In 1948, for example, in reporting a judgment of Mr. Justice E. R. Angers of the exchequer court, the Canadian Press said:
A justice of the exchequer court warned today that uncurtailed use of discretionary powers placed in government officials could lead to a dictatorial government in Canada. There are, in my judgment, far too many encroachments by ministers, deputy ministers and functionaries in the judicial as well as the legislative field.
Said Mr. Justice Angers:
If they are not curtailed, the country may In a not too remote future be ruled by a dictatorial government.
Last year, in a case where the Department of National Revenue had refused to reveal certain information to a British Columbia court, Mr. Justice Rand of the supreme court said:
To eliminate the courts in a function with which the tradition of the common law has invested them
The Address-Mr. W. M. Hamilton and to hold them subject to any opinion formed, rational or irrational, by a member of the executive to the prejudice, it might be, of the lives of private individuals, is not in harmony with the basic conception of our policy.
And a few sentences later he said:
What is secured by attributing to the courts this preliminary determination of possible prejudice is protection against executive encroachment upon the administration of justice: and in the present trend of government little can be more essential to the maintenance of individual security.
Thus apparently two of Canada's top jurists distrust the present trend of government, and many similar judicial observations could be cited. The press of Canada has an acute awareness of the dangers facing us. The Winnipeg Tribune, in an editorial on March 6, 1954, said in part:
The decline of parliament's power, prestige and control is real and distressing. The encroachment of the executive on parliament's traditional functions has brought parliament to the status of a sounding board and a place in which grievances may be aired. The authority of parliament is rapidly disappearing.
What's more, there is considerable danger that the cabinet, which has done much to undermine parliament, is now in serious danger of itself becoming captive.
The cabinet is becoming more and more reliant on anonymous civil servant policy-makers, who are not responsible to parliament or the courts for their actions. The senior officials of government departments have acquired wider and wider powers of law making and law breaking.
Newspaper after newspaper across our country has pointed out these facts, in editorial after editorial.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in developing my argument to this point I have attempted to show three things: first, that under our British and Canadian type of parliamentary government the inherent danger to democratic processes is the chance of power passing from the legislative body to the cabinet or, beyond it, to the bureaucracy; second, that such a transition of power may well take place without any definable change in the parliamentary process and without the public becoming aware of the change; and, third, I have attempted to show that such a change is taking place in Canada, and that we have entered upon a period of cabinet tyranny and bureaucratic control.
Given these facts, we have to ask ourselves what can we do about it, or whether we propose to do anything about it. The situation reminds me of a story of two friends who were up in the gallery of the house when a cabinet minister was making a speech during the presentation of his estimates. Iri that speech he was extolling the virtues of his government, and also making a vigorous attack against suggestions put forward by the Conservative party. His attack became more vigorous by the moment, and one man
790	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. W. M. Hamilton turned to the other and asked, "Are the Conservatives going to take this lying down?" The friend replied, "No, that is what they have Hansard for." Well, we Conservatives are not going to take this change in democratic government principles lying down, either.
Earlier in this address I pointed out the fact that government is a living organism which must adjust itself to the needs of a dynamic society, but that in the process of such adaptation we should be constantly on guard against the surrender of any of our democratic rights, both as individuals and as a legislature. One of the ways in which we can lose these rights is to delegate certain of our powers and then, having delegated them, not keep continuous control of and inspection over those powers and over those to whom the powers have been delegated.
Lack of action such as that represents a very large part of the menace of delegated legislation. Years ago, when government was a comparatively simple matter, parliament could go at great length into all the details of its legislation and the implementation of that legislation. The rules under which it would be carried out could be brought before the house for discussion and debate. But the growth of government activities makes it no longer possible to do such detailed work in this house. In a great many cases all parliament can do is to set up the framework and basic principles by means of a bill, and then leave to the cabinet and to the bureaucracy the detailed working out of the provisions, which are then regularized and given the force of law by orders in council.
The theory behind this method of operation is that such actions, being available for inspection and study by individual members of this house, may be brought before the house in certain ways if it is considered they are not consistent with the desires of the house.
There are two weaknesses with such a procedure as it presently exists. First, the volume of such delegated legislation has grown to a point where its voluntary review by members of this house is almost an impossibility; and, second, no organized committee of members of this house has been set up for such review. For example, the last two volumes of the Canada Gazette, part II, one of which appeared on December 22, 1954 and the other on Wednesday, January 12, 1955, totalled 1,462 pages. That gives some idea of the volume of this work which should be subject to review by this house.
This government, in debates at the end of May, 1950, indicated its position, that it considers parliamentary review of such delegated legislation unnecessary. My position on


this attitude may be summed up in the words of Professor Mallory of McGill University who, in the Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science for November, 1953, says:
Evidently, in the Prime Minister's mind, careful ministerial consideration could be regarded as a substitute for parliamentary review. There are perhaps not many persons outside of ministerial and official circles who would agree with him.
In the field of the financial activities of the government there is provision for such a review, independent of the government of the day, with the report on the legality and correctness of these actions being made direct to parliament itself. I refer, of course, to the activities of the Auditor General. I think every member of this house looks forward with considerable interest to the arrival of the Auditor General's annual report-the opposition with anticipation and the government with trepidation.
If we accept, as we must, the fact that every action of this government is done in good faith and with every intention of complying with the wishes of this house and the laws of the land, the annual report of the Auditor General indicates quite clearly that none of us, whatever our intentions, is perfect. I do not know how hard the government tries to be perfect; I suspect sometimes not very hard. Each year we receive a report which points out numerous mistakes on the part of the bureaucracy. This year, for example, they ranged from highly questionable accounting procedures on the part of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation through highly questionable uses of public funds in a number of cases, to highly questionable rental arrangements for officials of the government at various points in Canada.
Such a review of government activities tends to act as a check on irregular activities, and to bring to the attention of this house much information which we otherwise would not receive. This information is supplementary and additional to all that which comes to us from our inspection of the estimates and the discussions we engage in during their examination. I think most of us, certainly on this side of the house and perhaps with the exception of the cabinet, would agree that the function of the Auditor General is highly important and one which is of tremendous value to us in our work of governing this country efficiently and well.
In the light of these remarks and this demonstrated tendency for delegated legislation and actions to be concentrated in the hands of a comparatively small and select group of people outside this house, I would like to put forward for the consideration of the house the thought that a similar office

to that of the Auditor General might be established to deal with activities of the government in the field of delegated legislation, with special reference to orders in council and rulings made by various departmental heads as the result of powers delegated by this house in its legislation.
Within this field such an officer should be on a status comparable with that of the Auditor General. He would be an officer of this house, reporting directly to this house in his own right, with the same protection against interference as that enjoyed by the Auditor General. In this respect he would differ greatly from the present departmental solicitors and Department of Justice; for while we must realize that activities in the field of delegated legislation are reviewed by these gentlemen, we must also realize that their responsibilities fall in the line of command of departmental organization, and it is logical to expect that their reasoning may be influenced to some extent by this fact.
The function of this officer of the house, as I have indicated, would be to review orders in council and departmental rulings with the force of law, to determine whether in his opinion they complied with the provisions of the bill authorizing them. As with the Auditor General, he would have the power to investigate and study subsidiary material and to enter governmental files in order to determine the circumstances surrounding a particular item of delegated legislation under study, because goodness knows they have great reservations about making adequate material available to us.
The report of this officer, made directly to this house, would be similar to that of the Auditor General. It would point out particular circumstances in which he felt that
The Address-Mr. W. M. Hamilton action on the part of the cabinet or its subsidiary officials transgressed the provisions of legislation of this house.
I do not propose to develop in any further detail the functions and responsibilities of this particular official, because I think I have gone far enough to show rather clearly the value of such an undertaking to hon. members. I make this statement very definitely; this is not a super-bureaucracy; it is not setting up a man to check on others which will grow and grow as many of those bureaucracies have done. It is a function parallel to that of the Auditor General, serving this house directly, and not a servant to the government.
However, I do suggest that this is the type of thinking which the government should have undertaken a long time ago. All of us are aware that both in the business field and in the governmental field conditions are vastly changed from those of a generation ago. We cannot set back the clock, nor would we wish to do so in some respects. Rather, we must work out ways and means of dealing with circumstances as we find them in the changing life which we are facing today.
One of these circumstances is the increased responsibility of government and the increased volume of work being handled by this house. I think it has been obvious since the advent of world war II that we had to find ways and means of keeping democratic control in this house and still delegating some of the details with which in the late 1800's and the early 1900's the house could deal.
On motion of Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace) the debate was adjourned.


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


Thursday, February 3, 1955