1955-05-11

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to lay upon the table a report of the civil service commission respecting certain employees of the House of Commons.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 353, for the relief of Franga Beryl Harker Stinson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 354, for the relief of Enid Gertrude Brooks Bray.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 355, for the relief of Shirley Pollack Nadler.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 356, for the relief of Isidore Hoffman.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 357, for the relief of Ethel Dworkin Abrams.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 358, for the relief of Michael Moses Scullion.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 359, for the relief of Clifford Joseph Linehan.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 360, for the relief of Irene Furlong Walters.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 361, for the relief of Joyce Davies Javallas.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 362, for the relief of Freida Schec-ter Lupovitch.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 363, for the relief of Gertie Tryan-sky Katz.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 364, for the relief of Olive Gertrude Meredith Bateman.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 365, for the relief of David Sandler.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 366, for the relief of Marcel Des-lauriers.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 367, for the relief of Delmar Ross Andreis.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 368, for the relief of Elizabeth Blanche Nelson Mallozzi.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 369, for the relief of Glennice Maude Hunter Garayt.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 370, for the relief of Irene Jessie Hillson Towes.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 371, for the relief of Vivian Ruth Law Alarie.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 372, for the relief of Joseph Antonio Campeol.-Mr. Hunter.


Mr. Yuill:: What was the total amount of customs tariff collected In 1954, by the Department of National Revenue?


Mr. McCann:: Fiscal year 1953-54; Import duties, $441,581,409.68.


TELEPHONE LINES, QUEBEC  SUBSIDIES
Mr. Perron:: 1.	Since 1952 has the federal government granted any subsidies for the erection of telephone lines in the districts of St. Fabien and Ste. Lucie de Montmagny, in the province of Quebec?
2.	If so, what amounts were granted annually during those three years?
3.	Were the said telephone lines erected by the federal government? If so, what is the mileage thereof, and at what cost?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: 1.	No.
2.	See answer to No. 1.
3.	Telephone lines were erected in the districts of St. Fabien and Ste. Lucie de Montmagny by the federal government since 1952 at the following costs: 1952-53, nil; 1953-54, $19,926.84; 1954-55, $10,014.89.
During 1953-54 20 miles of poles and 48 miles of wire and in 1954-55 16 miles of poles were constructed.


HOSPITALS
Mr. Hellyer:: What action has the federal government taken in the province of Ontario toward preparing hospitals to operate under disaster conditions?


Mr. Robertson:: As the third in a current series of hospital disaster planning institutes being conducted regionally across Canada, under the sponsorship of the Department of National Health and Welfare in collaboration with the Canadian Hospital Association, an institute was held on December 2 and 3 at the Hamilton General hospital. The Hamilton General hospital and the Oakville Trafalgar Memorial hospital of Oakville, Ontario, presented detailed plans for study. The institute was attended by the administrators, chiefs of surgery and directors of nursing services of 35 hospitals in the west-central section of Ontario.
It is hoped to be able to arrange in the near future for two more similar institutes for the

Questions
benefit of the remaining areas of the province of Ontario. At their conclusion the chief officers of almost 100 hospitals will have received indoctrination and will be in a position not only to complete disaster plans for their institutions but to give assistance to other similar institutions in their vicinity.


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY  ENGINEERING SURVEYS
Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):: 1.	What are the names of individuals or firms engaged by the St. Lawrence seaway commission to make engineering surveys and investigations?
2.	What was the amount of the fee paid each individual or firm (a) in 1954; (b) the first five months of 1955?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: 1.	Dominion Bridge Company Limited, Montreal, P.Q.; J. T. Donald & Company, Montreal, P.Q.; Lalonde & Valois, Montreal, P.Q.; Dr. P. L. Pratley, Montreal, P.Q.; Dr. J. Rousseau, Montreal, P.Q.; Surveyer, Nen-niger & Chenevert, Montreal, P.Q.
2.
Dominion Bridge Com-	1954	1955pany Limited 	$	982.00	nilJ. T. Donald & Company	221.00	nilLalonde & Valois	nil	nilDr. P. L. Pratley	9,065.00	nilDr. J. Rousseau 	
Surveyer, Nenniger &	nil	nilChenevert 	
$16,988.22	$22,035.44


Mr. Argue:: 1.	Does the Department of Agriculture make butter available to institutions?
2.	If so, when was such practice commenced and how much has been made available since that date?
3.	How much was made available to each institution and at what price?
4.	By what amount, if any, is the selling price below the purchase price?
5.	What is the name of each institution, if any, having an unfilled butter purchase agreement with the department?
6.	How much butter is still to be delivered in each case?


Mr. McCubbin:: 1.	The agricultural prices support board has a special arrangement for sale of butter to approved Canadian institutions.
2.	February 1, 1955. 932,523-5 pounds were reported as sold up to May 6, 1955, under the arrangement.
3.	All requirements of Canada first grade butter purchased and used by each institution are being made available at a discount of 21 cents per pound from regular price.
4.	See answer to No. 3.
5.	See answer to No. 3.

6.	As long as the program is in effect each institution will receive the discount on all requirements purchased for use in the institution.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	Are any (a) ex-M.P.'s; (b) ex-M.L.A.'s, on the staffs of or employed by P.F.A.A. and P.F.R.A.? If so, how many?
2.	What are their names and their respective
duties and salaries?



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE EMPLOYEES

Mr. Castleden:: How many persons were employed in each province by the Department of Agriculture during each of the following years: 1951-52, 1952-53, 1953-54, 1954-55?



AIR TRANSPORTATION COSTS

Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	What was the total amount expended by the government of Canada for air transportation for: (a) civil servants; (b) commissioned officers in the armed forces; (c) officials and personnel of the Department of External Affairs, during each of the years 1953, 1954 and 1955 to date?
2.	Of such amounts, how much was paid to (a) T.C.A.; (b) B.O.A.C.; (c) other air transportation?


Mr. Pickersgill:: If the hon. gentleman
would consent to have this amended to cover fiscal years instead of calendar years, it could be made an order for return.


Mr. Speaker:: As amended, made an order for return.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT

Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: 1.	Have any thefts of money, postage stamps, or anything of value occurred in Canadian post offices since January 1, 1953?
2.	If so, for each such theft, (a) where did it take place; (b) what was the amount involved; (c) what was the date of the theft; (d) has court action been instituted against specific individuals; (e) what was the result of such action, if any?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Fulion:: For a copy of all reports of findings of dishonesty or malpractice in connection with the irregularities at No 11 works company, R.C.E., made prior to the investigations currently proceeding.
Pie said: May I ask leave of the house, Mr. Speaker, to withdraw this motion without prejudice to the right to replace it on

the order paper at a later date with a motion similar in effect but possibly subject to some rewording?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion withdrawn.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION ACCOUNTS

Edmund Davie Fulton: For a copy of all correspondence, memoranda, etc., exchanged between the office of the Auditor General and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and/or the Minister of National Revenue since January 1, 1950, relating to the accounts of the said corporation.


James Joseph McCann: I understand the hon. gentleman is allowing this motion to stand?


Edmund Davie Fulton: If the minister wishes, I will allow it to stand, yes.



ALLOCATION OF BOX CARS

Mr. Bryson:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, memoranda, and other documents exchanged between the Department of Trade and Commerce, or any other department of the government and all farm organizations, and between the Department of Trade and Commerce, or any other department of the government and any person or persons, pertaining to the allocation of box cars among elevator companies since October 1, 1953, to date.


Mr. Dickey:: The hon. member indicated his agreement to amend this motion, Mr. Speaker, to limit its effect to correspondence between the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the head offices of farm organizations. Subject to that amendment, I understand there is no objection to its being adopted.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion, as amended, carried.



POLIOMYELITIS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. To ensure that wealth will confer no privilege, is the government prepared to take over all supplies of Salk vaccine available in Canada for distribution amongst the provinces, thus granting equal treatment to all Canadian children?


Hon. Paul Marlin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I was engaged in discussing another matter with the hon. member for Dauphin, Mr. Speaker, and when one is
Inquiries of the Ministry confronted on both sides by members of the same party one has to think carefully. I have already indicated that as a result of action taken some months ago by the federal and provincial governments regarding the distribution of the Salk vaccine purchased from the Connaught laboratories at the University of Toronto, and later from the institute of microbiology at the University of Montreal, there is no disposition on the part of either the federal or the provincial governments to permit within their borders any situation that would deny to the children of this country an equal opportunity to share in the advantages of this important discovery.


Mr. Coldwell:: In view of the doubts that have been expressed about the vaccine produced by private companies in the United States, are any steps being taken to prevent Canadian children suffering ill effects from privately manufactured vaccine?


Paul Joseph James Martin: As I said yesterday, steps have been taken by the government to make sure that sources of the vaccine from commercial sources outside this country are carefully investigated. A small supply came in from one company about a month ago. There are some supplies in Canada now that are not at this moment being released. I have previously outlined the steps taken to check on production of the vaccine now under way in Canada.



NATURAL GAS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the government to convene a meeting here in Ottawa shortly with all parties who are interested in the supply of gas to eastern Canadian markets in Ontario and Quebec, in order to arrive at a decision on that question, which is of such importance to the gas producers of the western provinces.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that during the course of the preliminary meetings of the federal-provincial conference I had some conversation with the premier of Alberta who told me he was trying to organize a meeting that would take place here in Ottawa between himself and representatives of gas producers, and representatives of companies interested in providing a pipe line, to examine seriously the situation and try to determine what should be done.

Inquiries of the Ministry
I told him that I would be very glad to participate, but that I would prefer if possible that it would not be before the return to this country of Mr. Howe. He told me that it would not in any event have been convenient to have one before Mr. Howe's expected return, but that shortly after his return he would communicate with me and tell me what progress he had made toward organizing that kind of meeting.


John George Diefenbaker: Is that meeting going to be convened to determine the question once and for all?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, I cannot say that a meeting is going to be convened to determine the question once and for all. It is a meeting that the premier of Alberta had in mind to deal with a natural resource of that province, and I do not think it would be proper for us to convene a meeting for that purpose. The premier of the province is arranging for that kind of a discussion. Whether the discussion will reach a point that can be regarded as final is something that no one can predict before the meeting takes place.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Would the meeting settle the question once, if not once and for all?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Well, it is not a meeting that is being arranged by me. It is a meeting that was suggested by the premier of Alberta. Now, I do not know whether anything will be settled even for once. I do not know just what information will be before those who will be attending the meeting. I am sure that what the premier of Alberta had in mind was to try to have a proper assessment of the present situation made to see what could be done to achieve as rapid progress as possible.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. I would ask him whether Premier Manning's statement in the legislature yesterday has been brought to his attention, to the effect that the Prime Minister had agreed to a meeting in Ottawa to reach final yes or no answers on gas exports. Is that correct?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I was not in Edmonton yesterday and I did not see the report of what Premier Manning said-


John George Diefenbaker: Did it happen?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: *

but I told him that I would be very glad to sit in with the representatives that he mentioned as being those he was going to invite. I told him I was sure we would all try to work out something that would mean real progress in the method of

handling the surplus gas that is now available in the province of Alberta. I cannot go beyond that.



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question either to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) or to the same minister in his capacity as Attorney General of Canada. Will the minister investigate the statement made on Monday by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) regarding his interview with Premier Frost to determine whether or not the strict secrecy provision of the Dominion Succession Duty Act was violated? If it was, will an information or complaint be laid against the Minister of National Revenue?


Some hon. Members:: Answer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the Minister of Justice is not prepared to answer today, will he take the question as notice?



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, May 10, consideration of the motion of Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Macdonnell.
Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday when the house adjourned I was discussing the question of family allowances, and had been quoting from Hansard for 1944. I was doing that because one hon. member had risen a day or so ago and accused members of this party of voting in 1944 against the family allowances measure which, he said, had appeared in the speech from the throne, and in other places. I had reviewed the part we had played in the debate in reply to the speech from the throne of that year, particularly as it dealt with family allowances, and I had shown from the record that Social Credit members on every occasion had agreed with the government on the principle of family allowances. I had pointed out that the fact we had voted non-confidence in the government in the division on the address in reply did not indicate at that time, nor does it ever indicate when a vote is being taken on the address, that those who voted against were voting against any suggestion made in the address.

I had pointed out that it did deal with thanks being offered the Governor General for making his address to the House of Commons.
I should like now to go one step further in connection with the discussion which took place in the budget debate of 1944. I would ask hon. members to turn to page 4377 of Hansard for June 29, 1944, where they will find recorded a quotation I should like now to place on record. It is as follows:
I was pleased to see the government do one thing; that is, institute family allowances. May I remind the Minister of Pensions and National Health that the principle of family allowances was first advocated by us; only we called it a national dividend.
I made these remarks when I spoke in the debate, as recorded at page 4377 of Hansard. In the next column I had this to say regarding family allowances on that particular occasion:
Whenever I have an opportunity to congratulate the government I am only too pleased to do so, but that seldom happens. The government has been accused of bringing in this program of family allowances as election bait, and I should like to say just a word on that point. As I have said already, I believe the principle is sound.
During the debate other hon. members suggested that the Prime Minister had brought in the family allowances as election bait because an election was in the offing. Whether or not that was the case on that occasion, sir, it seems rather a coincidence that a by-election is now taking place in Alberta. That may be the reason why the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Studer) made the allegations he did a day or so ago regarding this question. Perhaps he had the same thought in mind, but if he has, then I am sure the facts I am placing on the record will serve a very useful purpose in acquainting the people of Canada, and particularly the people of that riding, if he intends to send his speeches out there, with the truth of the matter. I continue with the quotation:
The Prime Minister stated definitely that the measure would not come into operation until July 1, 1945, and therefore he concluded that no one could accuse him of attempting to buy votes. Just let us analyse the position. I say that the most honourable thing the Prime Minister could have done was to bring that legislation into effect right now and give the people their family allowances. As it is, what is he doing? He is holding a club over the heads of the people of Canada, and saying, in effect at least, "If you do not vote Liberal-*"
There was an interruption at that point. A little further down I had this to say:
I quite anticipated a question like that, and I shall deal with it later on. In effect, the Prime Minister is saying, "If you do not vote Liberal you will not get family allowances. If you do vote Liberal we will give them to you." I think that is the worst kind of political intrigue.
50433-231$
11, 1955
The Budget-Mr. C. E. Johnston
Now, Mr. Speaker, let me apply the words that I used on that occasion to the debate which took place here the other day. If this is being used as political intrigue, then it is the worst type.
I do not intend to refer any more to what I said on that occasion, but I wish to put a quotation on the record which will leave no doubt whatsoever in the mind of the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek, and I hope he will take this to heart. At page 5412 of Hansard of July 26, 1944, the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) spoke. I have pointed it out many times, Mr. Speaker; I have referred to the votes and I have given the actual quotations of members of this party. But I do not see how it is possible for the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek to make statements such as he did the other day that we had voted against the family allowances measure.


Mr. Sluder:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Charles Edward Johnston: No, I do not
think so. The hon. member has already talked too much. If he is sorry, he should just keep his big mouth shut. I do not mean that in any offensive way.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is just a statement of fact.


Mr.   Johnslon@Bow River: When the hon. member for Acadia spoke on that occasion he said this:
Mr. Speaker, we in this group believe that the principle of family allowances paid for in their entirety by the national government is entirely sound, and therefore we will support this bill.
If the hon. member sitting over on the other side of the house can understand English at all that should be clear enough for him.


Irvin William Studer: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


Mr.   Johnslon@Bow River: To say that we voted against family allowances'-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek wishes to ask the hon. member for Bow River a question. Apparently the hon. member for Bow River is not prepared at the moment to receive the question. At the end of the speech of the hon. member for Bow River the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek may ask his question if he cannot have the question put now.


Mr.   Johnslon@Bow River: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was just reading the remarks of the hon. member for Acadia and I shall continue them:
However, that does not mean that we are entirely satisfied with all the provisions of the bill, but

The Budget-Mr. C. E. Johnston
we will deal with them when we are in committee. Personally I am not very much impressed with most of the criticisms-
I want you to notice that, Mr. Speaker.
I am not very much impressed with most of the criticisms that have been levelled against this measure. For example, it is argued that one of the provinces will benefit to a greater extent than the others.
Of course, that reference was to the province of Quebec. I continue:
The same people charge that this is a form of appeasement to Quebec. I do not think that is a fair criticism. If the principle of the bill is sound, and I believe it is, that these allowances should be paid as a right, then what difference does it make where children may live, whether they live in the east, west or centre? As time goes on, that is a situation which may very well change. After all, it is a situation that is fully under the control of the people residing in the respective provinces. They can change it as they so desire.
I hear somebody behind me say: Page the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
This is the debate that took place on the family allowances measure itself. I want to conclude in a few minutes by referring to further paragraphs of the actual debate on family allowances when the measure came up for second reading. This is the only time throughout that entire debate, in fact throughout the entire session, when there was a vote on the family allowances measure. Of course, as was indicated in the speech from the throne during that year, the governor general indicated that a measure dealing with family allowances would be placed before us. Of course, that measure did appear and it is the one we are talking about now. The debate on second reading appears on page 5538. The vote is recorded, Mr. Speaker, and you will find that everyone in the house supported it. There was not one dissenting vote. The yeas were 139 and the nays, nil. Surely, Mr. Speaker, no one can honestly rise in his place in this house and say that the Social Crediters voted against the family allowances measure, either as it was mentioned in the speech from the throne or when it came before the house.
I have traced the history of family allowances right from the opening day of parliament in 1944 to the present. The bill was reported, read the third time and passed unanimously, as will be found on page 5757 of Hansard for the year 1944. Surely, I cannot make it any plainer than that. I have tried to outline the entire discussion on family allowances; I have traced the discussion through its various stages.
On the speech from the throne, on the budget, on the Family Allowances Act itself; at every one of those stages the Social Credit party supported the principle of family 
allowances. When the only vote on this motion was recorded the record clearly indicates that Social Credit members voted in favour of the motion. I hope that from now on, since the record has been put straight on this matter, no hon. member will dare rise in his place in this house or outside of this house and say that the Social Credit party ever voted against the family allowance measure.


Irvin William Studer: May I ask the hon. member a question? The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) has been talking through his Social Credit hat. The question I would like to ask is this: the proposal for family allowances was contained in the speech from the throne and I should like to ask the hon. member why he voted for the defeat of the government on February 10, 1944, when he voted against the adoption of the speech from the throne which contained the family allowance proposal. If that vote had gone the other way the government would have been defeated and we would have had to depend on Social Credit for family allowances.


Charles Edward Johnston: The hon. member has asked me a question. It seems to be the mentality of certain people that when they say they want to ask a question it is merely a deception; they have no intention of asking a question, they simply want to make another speech. The hon. member has stated that we voted against the proposal in the speech from the throne.
There was no proposal in the speech from the throne. May I once again read what the governor general said on that occasion. Are some people going to be so stupid as not to understand what the governor general said? Here are his own words:
-you will be asked to approve a measure-
That is clearly an indication that the proposal was never in the speech from the throne. How could it be? It just simply could not be. This is what the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek said in his speech as reported on page 3512 of Hansard of May 5, 1955:
-in regard to the adoption of the family allowance measure, the following names are written, and they are written there in indelible ink. There is nothing that any Social Crediter can do that will erase it. They are written there at page 364.
I say that there is no vote on page 364 of Hansard of 1944 on the family allowance measure. There is just no such vote there. The hon. member wanted me to answer his question and of course I will answer it. We never voted against the family allowance measure. We have voted non-confidence in the government and shall continue to do so

as long as they put through such measures, which result in the tremendous unemployment problem we have today.


Mr. J. H. Harrison (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to join this portion of the debate, but I shall do so briefly. There is not too much that I intend to add to the argument between my genial colleague, the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Studer), and my equally genial friend, the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston). Two such genial gentlemen should be able to get along a little better.
However, to make a long story short I should like to quote the opinion of a former hon. member of this house who unfortunately is now deceased. I think that this hon. member was perhaps better thought of by hon. members in every quarter of the house than almost any other member of the House of Commons. I should like to quote the words of the late Gordon Graydon as reported on page 2541 of Hansard of April 25, 1949. Referring to the very vote about which the two hon. members have been talking he had this to say:
There in Hansard on February 10, 1944, is the answer to all those things that have been said.
And again:
But you cannot drown out the nays that are recorded on page 364 of Hansard of February 10, 1944. There are the names of those who voted against the speech from the throne which contained the family allowances measure.
I do not think there was any hon. member of this house whose opinions were more highly respected than those of Gordon Graydon and that is what he said on this particular point.
There are a few other matters I should like to deal with. I just returned from a 4,500 mile trip through my riding, pretty well all within its borders, about 3,500 miles by air and about 1,000 miles by car. I think I have obtained a pretty fair cross-section of opinion as to the state of the nation in those parts.
I gathered that the budget presented by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) was fairly well received. That which was received best was the resistance indicated to the terrific pressure of the past few months, not only in this house but by delegations of various kinds, to raise the tariff on incoming goods. Farmers in western Canada sell their produce on the world market and take what they can get. They do not have too great a quarrel with that, but in return they insist that they be permitted to buy on a market as nearly similar as it is possible to get, particularly that they be able to buy from those people who buy their products.
The Budget-Mr. Harrison
We have had many speeches, particularly from members of the official opposition, during this session asking for higher tariffs on British woollen goods and other goods. They get up and wrap themselves in the British flag and talk about calling a trade convention of the British commonwealth of nations.


Mr. Ferguson:: That is a pretty good thing to wrap yourself up in.


John Hornby Harrison: You will get more of this and you had better learn to take it. That is a horse of another colour. On one occasion they talk about a trade convention of commonwealth countries but the moment old Britain sells a yard of woollen cloth under their noses they want something done about it. People in the west, and particularly the farmers in my area, are very pleased at the stand taken by the Minister of Finance in resisting that type of pressure. We are not particularly interested in buying some ersatz type of thermos bottle at twice the price just because it is made in a Conservative riding near Toronto.
The policies of the Tory party have resulted in the representation they presently have in the west. They have nothing else to thank for it. Indicative of their treatment of people in the west is the treatment recently of their leader in British Columbia. I do not agree with their leader in British Columbia in his conclusions regarding the leader of that party in this house; in fact I disagree with him entirely; but I do not think he was treated any too well. Those are the opinions he holds. After 20 years of hard labour in the province of Saskatchewan they have finally elected a Conservative member to the provincial house. Now, lo and behold, our Social Credit friends come along and are going to steal him from under their noses as their Social Credit leader; so our press is telling us.


Mr. Low:: Do you believe the press always? Are you so gullible? I can quote you something that the press has said about you.


John Hornby Harrison: I should like to quote to
you a great authority on this very subject, none other than our friend the premier of Saskatchewan. I shall show you that he is quite an authority on Social Credit. He is quoted as saying in the Saskatoon Star of March 2, 1955, in respect to this attempt to gather in this gentleman as leader of the proposed Social Credit party for Saskatchewan, that the Social Crediters should run a want ad. He said that the want ad should read:
Wanted, an unsuccessful political figure willing to take the position of Social Credit leader in

The Budget-Mr. Harrison
Saskatchewan, former political affiliations unimportant. Main qualifications-willingness to do what he's told.


Mr. Hahn:: Quote something he said about you.


John Hornby Harrison: This is not the first time the Social Credit party in one province has endeavoured to select the leadership of the Social Credit in another province. One thing is certain: If Mr. Kohaly doesn't accept their lucrative offer he is going to make it very embarrassing for whoever does. One would be able to assume that in the meantime the price has gone up.
Mr. Douglas is a man by whose opinion we should be guided in this respect. I have read a tew of Mr. Douglas' posters for the election campaign of 1935. It is interesting to read what these posters have on them. The first says "Fletcher". I thought at first that possibly it was "Thatcher", but I see it is "Fletcher":
Fletcher is not a Social Credit candidate.
Signed-H. W. Arnold, Social Credit provincial organizer, Saskatoon, Sask.
C.P.R. telegram.
Saskatoon, Sask.
Sept. 30, 1935.
Rev. T. C. Douglas,
Weyburn, Sask.
This will confirm endorsation of convention held Weyburn, twenty-eighth, of you as Social Credit candidate.
Signed H. W. Arnold, Social Credit provincial organizer.
Underneath that it says: "Vote Douglas". At the bottom it says "Issued by the C.C.F.- Social Credit, Weyburn Federal Constituency." The next poster he had put out reads as follows: "Douglas has been a student of Social Credit for many years." Then, in large type, "Douglas has endorsed Social Credit. The C.C.F. will make the Social Credit scheme possible." Either the battles we have had between the two groups in this house are just so much window dressing or this poster means what it says. This winds up by saying:
Vote Douglas
Issued by the C.C.F.-Social Credit, Weyburn Federal Constituency.
While he was here recently, Premier Bennett from British Columbia made some bombastic speeches to the effect that this small group was going to take over the federal government in the next election.


An hon. Member:: Are you getting worried?


John Hornby Harrison: I am not a bit afraid. You can concentrate on my riding if you want to. Mr. Speaker, I should like to read into the record what has happened to some of these gentlemen in other places. Here I might interject something that I learned from

my hon. colleague from Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), who is a man of long experience here. He said, "When the balloon is large, you provide the pin." I propose to provide the pin right now. You will find an editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press of the 15th November, 1954, which gives an indication as to how this party is doing in other places. It refers to the recent election in New Zealand, when they were also of the same opinion as Mr. Bennett, that they were going to take over there. This editorial reads as follows:
The National party, which promised little except a continuation of its moderate policies of free enterprise, won 43 out of the 80 seats in the next parliament. The Labour party, which promised some tax reductions and increases in welfare benefits was successful in the other 37 seats. The Social Credit party, which promised the voters everything but the moon with a fence around it, failed to get a single candidate elected.


An hon. Member:: What was the percentage of votes?


John Hornby Harrison: I have some personal experience with this party. In my own riding, since Social Credit has been an entity in Canadian politics, it has run there nine times either provincially or federally. We are right next to the Alberta border and might be susceptible to this type of thinking, but it has been indicated that we are not because on the nine occasions their candidates have lost their deposits.


Mr. Nicholson:: Would the hon. member
permit an interruption?


John Hornby Harrison: I have a long speech to make. When I sit down you can use your time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaile):: The
hon. member for Meadow Lake cannot be interrupted without his consent unless the person interrupting him is rising on a question of personal privilege.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: On a question of privilege, the hon. member has made a reference to Hansard. I have checked, and certainly he is not quoting from the right page. Before he finishes would he produce Hansard and give the exact quotation?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaile):: 
Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Earlier in his speech the hon. member made a reference to those who voted for family allowances in 1944 and referred to a page in Hansard. He made a reference to Mr. Graydon which is not on that page of Hansard-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: can understand that certain hon. members who have been attacked as a group may feel aggrieved. I do not think that is a question of privilege. I think that is a question of fact or of argument, which should be met at the end of the speech which is being made and not as a question of privilege. The hon. member for Meadow Lake.


John Hornby Harrison: I believe that if the hon. gentleman paid closer attention to what I said he would not be making the interjection he is making. If he has any troubles, he can come around and see me and I shall fix him up. There may be a question by hon. members as to what stopped Social Credit from coming across the border into Saskatchewan over such a long period of years. It is not because it has not tried. Of course, many hon. members are familiar with the iron curtain, and some are familiar with the bamboo curtain. But we have a curtain on the border of Saskatchewan that is known as the pussywillow curtain. It may not be important to you people, but it is important to the people of Saskatchewan. As you know, the Social Credit machine runs on oil, and this pussywillow is a very sticky proposition-


An hon. Member:: You should know all about it.


John Hornby Harrison: -with the result that the machine ground to a stop immediately it got across the border. Those who have got over temporarily have found themselves tickled to death by it and have suffered an ignominious death shortly after getting there.


Solon Earl Low: You hope.


John Hornby Harrison: That is no hope. It is a matter of history for 25 years.


Solon Earl Low: You hope.


John Hornby Harrison: The result has been that this pussywillow curtain has worked both ways. The socialists have stubbed their toes on the roots of this innocent-looking shrub and have fallen headlong into the province of Alberta also. I do not want to confine my remarks to my hon. friends over here, as we have even worse troubles in Saskatchewan.
The Budget-Mr. Harrison
In my trip I discovered that our friends of the, shall we say, left and the far left, who are in power in Saskatchewan at the moment, are suffering some falling-off in their prestige. There are reasons for this. This fact has been apparent in the northern part of Saskatchewan and the part that I represent because there they have applied socialism to the resources of the province most rigorously. It has not affected the people farther south so much. Now larger municipal units in that area have been rammed down people's throats without any vote. The hottest political issue I ran into when I was home was the proposed compulsory marketing of livestock. In my riding there is a tremendous resistance to that system, although Mr. Douglas says it is going to come. The downfall of the C.C.F. government is not too far away.


Mr. Ellis:: You have been saying that for a long time.


John Hornby Harrison: The main reason for that is the high taxation they have imposed on the land in Saskatchewan. Around Meadow Lake it is about four times what it was when they took office, and under present economic conditions out there it amounts to being confiscatory.
Finally, the pro-red tendencies of this party which finally came out in this session, and which have been indicated by actions taken by some of their members recently in this house, also are coming home to roost. Hence the party has slipped considerably in the last little while.
I should now like to take you briefly, Mr. Speaker, on a run around the little riding that I represent and give you some idea of the problems that are presented to you, and the variety of them that can be presented in a 3,500-mile trip by air in a riding that occupies nearly all of the north of the province, an area running 500 miles north and south and 250 miles east and west along the border of the Northwest Territories on one side, Alberta on the other and there is only a 60-mile strip of land in between my eastern border and Manitoba. This riding occupies about 40 per cent of the province of Saskatchewan. Being an area of 500 miles in length, running north and south, there is naturally quite a great deal of difference in the economy at the north end from that at the south end. In the southern end you are in an agricultural area. The agriculture is largely of a mixed-farming variety. In the middle you have timber and other natural resources such as fur and fishing. In the north you get into the great Canadian shield where mineral development has just been

The Budget-Mr. Harrison commenced but is already on a tremendous scale. Possibly if I took you from one little place to another, and just gave you an idea of what kind of problems you ran into in this area, Mr. Speaker, it would give you some idea of the size of the riding.
My first stop was at Meadow Lake, which is my main market town, about 80 miles north of the southern border. There I attended a meeting of the board of trade and they told me what problems they had. The first problem was an airfield so they could communicate with the large mineral area at lake Athabasca. I was able to assure them that the federal government was going to give them assistance this year in that respect and that work would commence on it this year.
The next problem they had, of course, was the flooding of Meadow lake and this was previous to the storms that have just occurred in Saskatchewan. Meadow lake itself had backed up about 30 miles to South Makwa and much land that previously has been cultivated will not be possible to cultivate this year. The Beaver river, which is usually about 75 yards wide, was some 14 miles or 15 miles wide for distances of 50 miles or 60 miles. I was speaking to one farmer there. I asked him how things were going in that country. This was previous to the recent flooding because they have had three bad storms there since then. He said, "My old man lost about 50 head of whitefaces that went down the river". I said, "Has he got any left?" He said, "Oh yes, he has a few. Some he took off the islands. When it flooded last year he was not able to get them off until December on account of the ice being thin and the fall being mild".
This is an indication of the kind of thinking that you get in that part of the country. These people were pioneers and they still have the pioneering spirit. They do not run to the nearest government with their troubles. They look after a great many of them themselves. It is not that they do not have troubles. But with all this flooding, I have not had one communication from Meadow Lake, and it is just as hard hit as is any other place in Saskatchewan. That is a tribute to the type of thinking in that part of the country. The main thing that they want-particularly from their experience over the last 10 years-is as little interference from government as possible. That has been their trouble.
I was able to charter an aeroplane, I might say, in Meadow Lake, and we took off for Green Lake, 35 miles east. The troubles we ran into there were that the provincial government had talked the metis into relinquishing their land and had given them in return

a 33-year lease. Having done that, they proceeded to take the timber off it and they said that now belongs to the provincial government. This left the metis without much means of support because it was on timber and lumber that they had depended in years gone by.
At Beauval, 100 miles north, where there is an Oblate mission which has been there for many years, the problem there was the payment to trappers and fishermen of compensation by the dominion government for loss of their fishing and hunting grounds taken over by the Cold Lake bombing range. Going further to lle-a-la-Crosse, the problem of the bombing range was about the same. They also required a new wharf as the present one is so dilapidated that it cannot be used at all. Most of their freight comes via water, and this is greatly needed.
Then I come to Buffalo Narrows, which is quite a fishing centre in the middle of Saskatchewan, situated on the Churchill and Peter Pond lakes, two of the large lakes in the Churchill river chain. Buffalo Narrows, I might say, is a fishing point that produces and processes over half the commercial fish caught within the province of Saskatchewan. There I ran into a small problem. Two war veterans wanted their veterans grant to go into the mink raising business. I found that the main topic of conversation there was the new policy with regard to mink raising in that area, which is proposed by the minister of resources in the province of Saskatchewan, Mr. Brockelbank.
It might be well for me to quote what the old policy was. The old policy was that the fish allowance was based on political expediency, and in the Churchill lake area and Buffalo Narrows, the mink raisers were limited to a catch of rough fish for their mink of 1J to 2 million pounds but they were carefully selected, and particularly before an election. Any mink raiser who showed a tendency to vote against the present government in Saskatchewan, although he might have 1,500 mink on hand and naturally required fish with which to feed them, was suddenly cut in his fishing rights to requirements for 300 or 400 mink. He was thus forced, maybe in the summertime, when the mink fur would have no commercial value, either to dispose of them to a party adherent who could get fishing rights, or to let them die. This policy has been changed and when Mr. Brockelbank made the announcement of the change he said that as a result of research in the area it was found that instead of the lakes being able to support mink on a catch of 2 million pounds of rough fish the lake could quite easily sustain a catch of 7 million

pounds of fish for the use of mink. This caused considerable amusement amongst the mink raisers because they found that Mr. Brockelbank's policy was mainly contingent on a policy formulated in Newfoundland by one Joseph Smallwood. Now, the mink raising policy in Saskatchewan is being run by remote control from Newfoundland. Mr. Smallwood ran advertisements in the newspapers in Saskatchewan asking the mink raisers there to go to Newfoundland and he would pay all the expenses of moving them and their equipment. There would be no monkey business about licences for fishing, and they would have adequate supplies of fish. Two or three of them did move out of the district and the net result was that Mr. Brockelbank found his department had done a lot of research and ascertained the lake would support many more mink. The mink raisers were happy about this because they know that in the future their licences will not be revoked, leaving them up in the air with a lot of mink that they cannot feed.
The next point from Buffalo Narrows was Cree lake. It is 150 miles northeast of Buffalo Narrows and about 275 miles northeast of Meadow Lake. It is a fisherman's paradise, well known to United States fishermen who come up to catch lake trout, giant muskies, and Arctic grayling which abound in that lake. The problem at that point may seem a little strange to eastern members since it related to the mail service. They asked for a once a month or once every two months service. At the moment the residents have to go to Buffalo Narrows, 150 miles away or 300 miles for the round trip to get their mail. I am therefore sometimes somewhat amused by members complaining to the Post Office Department because their mail is not delivered twice a day instead of once.
At Black lake, which is 130 miles north of Cree lake and just east of the east end of lake Athabasca, a problem was put before me by the Chipewyan Indian band. They wanted a portable sawmill to be used by the mission at Black Lake to make lumber for the erection of buildings for their own use. The power for it would be supplied by the mission tractor, and the resident priest, who is an expert sawyer, assured me they could make very good lumber and I am sure they could. The chief of the tribe, a gentleman by the name of Chicken, was exercised over the fact that the people from the United States were coming into the area in larger numbers every year to fish for grayling and were forcing the Indians from some of their traditional camp and fishing sites. He had no objection to these people coming 50433-232
The Budget-Mr. Harrison there to fish, but he would like some legal status for the Indians set up by this government that would entitle them to a small acreage that had been traditionally theirs, and the various sites around the lake which they have always used. It seemed to me this would be a wise provision.
There was a problem, too, with regard to a school for the children. Recently the mission granted the use of their building to start the school in operation, and no doubt a school will be built there.
At Stony lake, just west of Black lake, the problem was an outbreak of flu. I was not able to do anything about that.
At Stony Rapids, which is at the extreme east end of lake Athabasca, there is an air base and a future power site. They had no problems whatever, so that was a good spot for a politician to be.
Fond-du-lac, 100 miles west on the north shore of lake Athabasca, has been a Hudson's Bay Company trading post for about 100 years. The mission has been there nearly as long. A new modern mission and a large four-room school were built there last year. The problem there concerned a dock because the very rugged terrain on the north shore of lake Athabasca makes it nearly impossible to land goods or people there. They wanted a small dock so they could dock planes or barges and embark or debark people and goods.
Now, we come to Uranium City and the Beaver lodge area. This is something I wanted to include in my remarks particularly because some newspaperman who usually writes articles for the Saskatchewan provincial government was in there last winter, and for some reason or other came out with the idea that this area was going backward. He gave it considerable publicity of an adverse nature. I have been going into that area yearly since 1944, and sometimes twice a year. The first organized search for uranium started there in 1949. Since then, in my opinion, there has been a tremendous development. I see it every year. In 1953 when the federal mine came into operation and the $20 million 750 ton a day mill went into operation, there were real signs of the progress that has taken place. I went over this mill thoroughly on a couple of occasions including this trip.
The mill employs about 750 men, and the manager tells me that from his experience, which covers some 40 years in the various provinces of Canada, for every man employed in the mine or mill about four other people will be employed in the district. With other mines coming into production in that area,

The Budget-Mr. Harrison he tells me the result will be that at least 15,000 people will be working in the area within the next two years. He also told me that there are already 120 million tons of high grade ore proven in the area.
I flew from there about 20 miles south to the new Gunnar mine. This is something that is hard to believe unless you see it. Eighteen months ago, it was nothing but wilderness on a point of land which jutted out into lake Athabasca. A year and a half ago there was nothing there, but now there is a commercial empire consisting mainly of a $25 million plant covering many acres which will be in production by the middle of August. In order to give you some idea of the size of this new plant, I may say that the power for it is produced by a diesel electric plant. This diesel plant will produce more electrical energy than the proposed South Saskatchewan dam. The Gunnar mill works on an acid process because their ore is a little different from that at Eldorado mine about 20 miles north. They have put up their own sulphuric acid plant which occupies about half a city block. The pile of sulphur alongside it is about 80 feet high and half a block long. They have built their own new hospital, and I am told that they poured 10,000 cubic yards of concrete there last fall in a month and a half. This will give you some idea of the magnitude of this undertaking. Gunnar has a mill that will produce 1,250 tons a day in its original form, and is quite easily expandable. Only the chemical process has to be expanded. The rock crushing process is adequate to cover an output of 2,000 tons per day. The federal mine is also so designed, and will likely be extended shortly, to handle 1,500 tons a day. There are many other mines in the area. These are private mines, some of which are in production. These are Lorado, National Explorations, Rix, Nicholson and Nesbitt LaBine. There are 70 or 80 others in various stages of development. I might say that Lorado has run into enough ore that they will put up a $5 million or $6 million mill.
I was given the opportunity to hear the complaints in that district, when I attended a meeting of the board of trade, and also a Kiwanis dinner. These were as follows:
1.	That they required a federal custom mill to handle ore of the smaller mines. I asked what it would require, and they said they would need one having a daily capacity of 1,500 tons.
2.	The facilities of the army signals at Uranium are not adequate either in personnel or in equipment to handle the heavy air traffic at that point. They say that the private plane radio band is not guarded and tuned

in for signals from such planes. I intend to take that matter up with the Department of Transport.
3.	They complain of inadequate staff for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to cover a new frontier area of this size. There are two men during the daytime and one man at night. It will be recalled that there have been some outbreaks of lawlessness in the district in the last while, and these people think they should have more adequate police protection from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
4.	They ask for immediate over-all planning by the provincial government of the road system, sewers and water system, and other services such as hospitals, schools and communications, to prevent a hodge-podge of small communities at various mine sites. This was exercising them quite a lot. Many of the mine managers thought that Saskatchewan was more backward, as a province, in coming to the aid of mining, than any province in which they had operated. It appeared to them that, the way provincial authorities operated, they did not want mines there at all.
5.	They ask for the elimination of the provincial education tax on mine development material, and point out that this is very important. Making a computation of what they contributed to the education tax last year in the province they found that it amounted to about $2 million in that little area, alone. In other words they provided about one-sixth of the education tax moneys being raised in Saskatchewan, and were not getting much in return.
6.	They asked for the enactment of new labour laws by the Saskatchewan provincial government to replace those now in effect, which were described by the mine union as the worst in Canada.
7.	They asked for the completion of Saskatchewan highway No. 4 from 40 miles north of Meadow Lake to lake Athabasca, to open up further mine territory and provide communication with their own province of Saskatchewan. In this connection I would join the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Hellyer) who spoke last night and suggested a contribution by the federal government- or, even better, operation by the federal government-of a system of federal highways. Unless some foresight is shown, similar to that which was shown when the Canadian Pacific Railway was pushed across western Canada, this area will lag in its development. This is a storehouse of Canada. That area, and the Northwest Territories, comprise a storehouse of minerals, so far as Canada is concerned. Some foresight must be used in

developing this area, not only for the advantage of those who live there but for all the people in Canada. That is a place to which our expanding population can go, and where people can reside happily.
One would be surprised to see just how modern some of these northern communities are. It was my privilege to go as far north as the north shore of Great Slave lake, and to visit Yellowknife. I was impressed by the modern buildings in which these people live. The same applies of course to the mines at Beaverlodge. The people there live under modern conditions. The wages, naturally, are high. It is my view that those gentlemen who are concerned about what will happen to the coal miners should look to this area. It is a country where an outlet could be found for the energies of those miners. A north-south highway in the lake Athabasca area would give them connection with their own province. At the present time they cannot get into the ordinary commercial areas of Saskatchewan.
Then, the last suggestion:
8.	They ask for the extension of the Canadian National Railways line from Lynn Lake around the north shore of lake Athabasca to the Uranium-Beaverlodge area to open up the richest mineral storehouse in Canada.
This may sound fantastic, but stranger things have been done. It may require a couple of hundred miles of railway line, but it would open areas having tremendous timber and mineral resources.
I think, Mr. Speaker, I have occupied the time of the house long enough, and I am pleased to have had this opportunity to place my remarks on record, setting out what these people would like to have done.


Mr. Hamilton (York West):: Is the hon. member aware that the name "Thermos" is a trade name of a vacuum bottle, just the same as the name "Frigidaire" is the trade name of an electric refrigerator?


John Hornby Harrison: I am aware of the fact, as I was in business for many years, and I recognize that trade names usually mean something. I know that the word "Thermos" on a thermos bottle indicates to me that it is a better bottle than any other on the market, coming either from Japan or from my hon. friend's riding. That also applies to many other products bearing trade names. People buy those articles because they find that, by and large, they do not get stung when they purchase products having trade names. I believe that answers my hon. friend's question.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in listening to the
5,0433-232i
The Budget-Mr. Bryson
discourse of the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Harrison) when he said that he had travelled 3,500 miles by aeroplane. I do not doubt that he could travel that distance in his constituency. The only comment I would make after listening to him is that possibly he flew too high, and found himself up in a rarefied atmosphere.


John Hornby Harrison: At 5,000 feet.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: His great knowledge of provincial affairs has led me to the belief that possibly he has his eye on the leadership of the Liberal party in Saskatchewan. Certainly one could draw that conclusion from what he said this afternoon. However, I do not think any C.C.F.'er need worry much in Saskatchewan about any serious opposition from the Liberal party in that province. We have had a pretty good indication this afternoon, from the two speeches of Libera] members from Saskatchewan, as to what chance they have out there. Those speeches certainly just drove another nail in the coffin of the Liberal party in that province.
On two occasions yesterday two hon. members spoke somewhat briefly about conditions as they exist in that province at the present time. For a few moment only, this afternoon I should like to say something on the disaster that has occurred in that province during the past few days. I might say at the outset that the feeling of fear and concern over the possibilities of a crop being sown in Saskatchewan has been growing during the past few weeks. However, the storm of last week has left little speculation as to what the prospects from now on are going to be in respect to harvesting a normal crop in that province. It is a fact that we cannot ignore. Even before there has been any final assessment of the damage, we can take it from the best authorities that it is the worst single disaster that has ever happened there, and, for that matter, the worst single disaster that has ever happened in any province in the Dominion of Canada. We speak of "Hurricane Hazel" and "Hurricane Edna". I would suggest that "Hurricane Hazel" and "Hurricane Edna" combined were by comparison just minor disturbances. The estimates of the damages of those two hurricanes were $21 million. Just a glance at what has happened out in Saskatchewan by people who have made a casual survey leads them to believe that the damage will exceed $50 million. The estimate will be much higher, I am sure, when the final assessment is made.
The night before last I spoke over the telephone to a party in Regina who told me that the Qu'Appelle valley was flowing from bank to bank, something which I am sure had

The Budget-Mr. Bryson never occurred before in the memories of oldtimers. Preliminary estimates, as was mentioned yesterday by the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight), made by Professor Harrington show that the crop damage will be 50 per cent. By that I mean that 50 per cent of the crops that normally would be sown in all probability will not be sown. Except in one or two isolated areas such as Rosetown and Kindersley, the damage is very widespread. The statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce when he arrived back from his recent trip, that Saskatchewan has never lost a crop in May, was very unfortunate. That is the kind of statement we expect to hear from some hon. members but certainly not from a responsible minister such as the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
One of the most serious aspects is this. All of the crop that will be sown from now on-and incidentally, since the report was made that I mentioned, one inch of rain has fallen in Saskatchewan, adding to the very gloomy and dismal picture out there-will be in coarse grains. The wheat that will be sown will be late. In all probability it will be rusted as it was a year ago. Agricultural scientists tell us now that rust spores survived the winter in the southern states, and in all probability a late crop once again will be affected, with the exception of coarse grains and the very small amount of Selkirk wheat that will be sown.
It is very difficult at this stage-I am the first one to admit it-to estimate what the damage in the final analysis will amount to. To give the house some idea of how terrible it is, in the report that I received from there yesterday municipal officials say that throughout the whole of central and northern Saskatchewan the water is flowing in unheard of directions. It is running in directions that it had never run before. Roads are impassable. That was mentioned yesterday. In many places the water is running eight feet deep over the highways. In the town of Humboldt, in my own constituency, in the past two weeks people have been travelling around by boat and on foot. Not one bushel of grain has been taken to an elevator in the last two weeks. That is a very serious situation. Farmers in the Meadow Lake area, in the area of the hon. member who has just spoken, have been able to travel from Leask to Blaine Lake, a distance of 18 miles across country, in a motorboat, something before unheard of. Losses of livestock are heavy. At Meadow Lake one farmer has already lost over 500 head of cattle. Feed is scarce. Even if feed were available they cannot transport it over the roads,

which is a very serious situation indeed. Similar conditions prevail in all but the one or two isolated areas I mentioned a moment ago, particularly the Kindersley area. Certainly such a condition is disastrous, but when we stop to realize that last year we had a crop failure in Saskatchewan and combine that fact with conditions today, we have something that is more than a disaster. We must view it not only from the point of view of the Saskatchewan farmer; we must view this disaster from the effect it will have on the whole economy of Canada.
Only a few weeks ago in his budget speech, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) said that three-quarters of the drop in the gross national product was caused by the crop failure in western Canada last year. Think of what it is going to mean this year to the gross national product under the conditions that I have outlined. In view of this, I make this suggestion. For every acre of land that will be taken out of production because of land flooding the dominion government should make a payment of not less than $10. I do not care what they use for the cut-off date. They could say that land that is not sown after the first day of June will qualify. The Prairie Farm Assistance Act officials are now in the field and they could easily make the necessary surveys. I make that suggestion in spite of the statement of the Prime Minister yesterday in reply to the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) that any consideration that will be given will be given in lieu of the damage to public property in that province. I hope he will reconsider that statement in the light of this very great disaster.
Public damage has been severe. I am not going to speak of it at this time. It was dealt with at length yesterday by the hon. member for Saskatoon. Power lines, telephone lines, utilities of all kinds, municipal culverts, roads and so forth all need repairs. However, while property damage is a considerable factor and of great concern to those who lost their houses, and so on, the most important factor is the loss of farm income. It is necessary that payments be made in lieu of those losses if farmers are to carry on until another harvest.
Last year, the Saskatchewan crop was cut by 36 per cent. However, by lowering living standards, by extending their credit to the very limit, they were able to carry on. They were able to hang on in the hope that they would secure a normal crop this year and thereby be able to recoup their losses.
As I said a moment ago, the crop that will be sown after a week or so will be

coarse grains. I can imagine the Minister of Agriculture saying it can be fed to hogs. I know he will also say that farmers in Saskatchewan are in a preferred position because hog production is up 26 per cent this year over last year. I would point out to hon. members that our farmers are not going to pull themselves out of any financial difficulties by feeding barley to hogs. Barley is sown because it will mature a little earlier, but if it cannot be sold as grain it will have to be used or sold as feed for hogs.
I have here a report which indicates that early in April the hog-barley ratio at Winnipeg was about 16-3. This means that 100 pounds of live B1 hog was only equal in value to 16-3 bushels of No. 1 feed barley. A year ago 100 pounds of the same kind of hog would buy 30-5 bushels of barley. Or to make another calculation, the hog-feed margin, which is the difference in value between 21 bushels of feed value and a 150-pound hog carcass, stood at $10.45 early in April this year while a year ago it was $31.96.
I should like to make two other suggestions. I submit that it is absolutely imperative that the balance of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act payments be made at this time. To date 10 per cent of the farmers have yet to receive 40 per cent of that payment. I submit it is necessary that this payment be made with the utmost dispatch in order to alleviate 'the acute distress which is being suffered by Saskatchewan farmers because of recent flood damage. I would suggest also that the Department of Trade and Commerce make the final wheat payment immediately as this would help in this great emergency.
Far and beyond these payments, there is need for further assistance along the lines I have just suggested, with the dominion government paying not less than $10 per acre for land which will be taken out of production because of flooding. I feel that we are justified in asking for this, as in my opinion the request is a fair one. Workers in other industries are eligible for unemployment insurance benefits when they are out of work. These benefits are made available to augment their income when they are not working. The government is also giving consideration to making payments over and above these benefits when the unemployment insurance has been exhausted.
I certainly feel that $10 per acre is fair. It falls far short, and necessarily so if we are going to be fair about it, of the value of even a subnormal crop. As I say, this would be of great help in alleviating the present distress being experienced by farmers in Saskatchewan. I feel that the question of making payments for unseeded crops due to
The Budget-Mr. Schneider flooding will have to be considered next fall by the P.F.A.A. officials. I do not think the government will be able to put off making these payments, as they did last year. They will have to face up to the problem next fall in any event, but why delay? I realize that there will have to be an amendment to the act, but why delay making these payments? They should be paid now when they are needed most and when they will do the greatest good.


Mr. N. C. Schneider (Waterloo North):: Mr. Speaker, I must speak to this house on one part of the problem of unemployment which concerns many of my constituents who have spent the best part of their lives in the manufacture of two commodities, supplying most of Canada's needs in the past and exporting millions of dollars worth to other countries. They have made a great contribution to Canada's prosperity and growth in the past and are now facing an economic situation which, in the one product, has reduced Canadian production of rubber soled canvas footwear from a high of over six million pairs in 1947 to less than two million pairs in 1954. Exports have dropped to a fraction of normal because of competition from other countries with low wage production costs, such as Hong Kong.
The loss of our exports can be expected and understood by our rubber workers, but it is another matter when the low wage cost producers are allowed to ship unlimited quantities into Canada at prices which are a fraction of the Canadian cost. In 1954 these low cost imports supplied 35 per cent of the Canadian requirements in rubber canvas footwear. The records show a steady increase of imports which closely follows the corresponding figures of decline in Canadian production.
The imports from Hong Kong are the most serious, amounting to 717,202 pairs in 1954. We are informed by the assistant Canadian trade commissioner at Hong Kong that rubber footwear factories in that district pay wages ranging from 45 to 75 cents per day, according to the 1952 report, while our Canadian rubber workers received $1.40 per hour. The duty of 27J per cent charged on such low cost products is of very little assistance, and I am not suggesting any increase in tariff. A pair of rubber canvas shoes made in Canada have a manufacturing cost of from $2 to $2.50, while Hong Kong shoes are being laid down in Canada at 65 cents per pair plus duty of 27J per cent and 10 per cent sales tax. With a total imported price of 89-4 cents per pair they are being sold in Canada by leading retailers at $1.95 per pair. Defenders of the importation of these

The Budget-Mr. Schneider low standard of living goods are inclined to quote costs in Hong Kong dollars, and do not mention the fact that a Hong Kong dollar is worth 17 Canadian cents.
Our Canadian workmen are willing to meet any fair competition, but this is not competition; it is sabotage. We can easily imagine the standard of living available to a worker on 45 to 75 cents per day, and we ask you to compare this with $1.40 per hour and the Canadian standard of living of which we are all so proud. Until recently we have heard the argument that these low cost shoes were of poor quality, but I assure you that the samples I have seen appear to be of quite good quality and are plainly marked "Made in Hong Kong".
The loss of employment to the rubber workers is only a part of the loss to Canadian workingmen, as we also lose the production of the canvas fabric, the steel eyelets, chemicals, reclaimed rubber, laces and shoe findings as well as packaging materials. While this alarming invasion of over 700,000 pairs of canvas rubber shoes in one year has already thrown hundreds of Canadians out of work-a loss of half a million hours of work-this probably is only the beginning. Canvas rubber shoes are a sideline in Canadian factories, and are produced in slack periods between the seasonal demands for waterproof footwear such as boots, rubbers, and galoshes. These waterproof lines now enter Canada free of duty under the British preferential tariff, and British footwear is making some headway in our domestic market because of wages much lower than ours. The alarming angle to the Hong Kong problem is the steady growth of their sales in Canada, and the fact that there is nothing to prevent them entering the waterproof lines and eliminating our entire rubber footwear industry.
The other problem of my people is the slow but sure elimination of the button manufacturing industry in Canada. For 85 years the largest of my three factories has served Canada, and at one time had a substantial export business. The export business has been lost to low cost competition. This factory is one of the last to be manufacturing in Canada. Competition from other countries has been serious in our remaining domestic business, but the unkindest cut of all comes in the recent invasion of so-called United States buttons which we find are shipped from New York, but are actually manufactured in Puerto Rico. The wage in this industry in Puerto Rico, I am advised, is 30 cents per hour. There is nothing fair about such competition and the Canadian buyer

naturally assumes that the buttons are made by workmen in the United States where wages are higher than ours.
This industry has served Canada well, but the staff in this surviving factory has been reduced to one-third of its former strength. If this cut-rate invasion by Puerto Rico buttons continues the skill and experience of many years will be lost to Canada. If the time should come again when we are forced to depend on our own resources, we will surely be buttonless. We have been told that the Canadian manufacturer should pull up his socks, but if we find ourselves without buttons we may have difficulty keeping our trousers up. Of course there is always the safety pin and the shingle nail.
These two problems do not call for tariff revisions for protection, nor have I ever asked for higher duty on any foreign competition on the domestic market. These two items call for a realistic consideration of standards of living. This is unfair competition between two ways of life. Are we to assume that the importers, the defenders of this unfair competition, favour the Hong Kong way of life with a bowl of rice a day and a bamboo shack, with wages of 45 to 75 cents per day, as compared to Canadian wages of $1.40 per hour? Or do they favour the Puerto Rican 30 cents per hour against the Canadian $1.20 per hour?
I am very proud to quote in this parliament advice which was given by my father, the hard-working founder of our business. He said the one sure thing in this life was change, and the difficulty was to meet these changes and adjust our lives to them. Canada is rapidly changing from a full agricultural economy to an industrial economy. This is the machine age. Are we to become a self-contained country like the United States, which has become the wealthiest country in the world, and so independent that she buys from us only when it suits her?
Anyone finding fault with our system should also find a solution, and I would suggest that we exercise the escape clauses in our GATT agreements, just as the United States and other countries do when serious injury is caused to home industry. We could place quotas on imports which threaten the existence of our producers.
I realize that trade is a two-way street, and that we must export our wheat, paper, minerals and many other products of our vast natural resources. But we must also remember that it would be unpopular to take our thousands of unplaced job applicants and put them to work growing more wheat, making more paper, digging more gold and producing more surpluses. These industrial

workers cannot remain unemployed much longer, and on their behalf I appeal for a realistic consideration of this unfair invasion of our domestic markets.


Mr. James A. McBain (Elgin):: The Budget-Mr. Mang party in Great Britain is a habitual smoker. Few pictures were ever released in which we did not see Sir Winston with his favourite stogie either in the corner of his mouth or in his hand.
Sir Winston did not smoke steadily until after the death of his father, Lord Randolph Churchill, who died on January 24, 1895 . . . One day his father had said to him, through a haze of cigarette smoke, "Why begin to smoke? If you wish to have an eye that is true and a hand that does not quiver, if you wish never to ask yourself a question as you ride for a fence, don't smoke." Sir Winston adored his father, at a distance, and followed his advice for the time being. Happily he did not continue to do so; if he had, he would never have had a 41st birthday or been prime minister. When he was serving in France with the Scots Greys in 1915 he forgot his matches one day at the front and went back to his dugout for them. A German shell fell where he would have been if he had been a non-smoker.
Exports of tobacco in 1954 to the United Kingdom amounted to 25,184,852 pounds; exports to other countries amounted to 6,585,394 pounds, or total exports of 31,770,246 pounds. If the 3-cent reduction requested had been granted, the growers would have been in a more favourable position to export greater quantities of tobacco.
The production of flue-cured tobacco and its processing into a consumer product is an industry by which a great part of the people in the tobacco-growing districts live. It is also the main support of numerous local industries and services which manufacture, sell or service materials and machines for the tobacco industry. Merchants, garages, service stations, banks, legal firms, insurance, real estate and other businesses have gained much from the tobacco industry. It is also the largest customer of the companion branches of agriculture in these same districts. The tobacco industry may also be found to be the largest single source of tax revenue, if not in the country at least in many municipalities. Tobacco is the hub of a great wheel of local industry may also be found to be the largest sure of dependency, their fortunes rising and falling according to the state of the tobacco industry.
It is, therefore, most necessary that we should direct our thoughts and actions toward maintaining the tobacco industry in as healthy a condition as possible. Therefore I suggest to the Minister of Finance that he has failed to give adequate consideration to the 3-cent reduction on a pack of 20 cigarettes which had been asked by the flue-cured tobacco association of Ontario for the last two or three years.


Mr. H. P. Mang (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to detain the house for any great length of time on this occasion, but recent events which have taken place in
[Mr. McBain.l
Saskatchewan and in my constituency of Qu'Appelle make me feel that I would be remiss in my duty if at this time I did not give some picture, so far as I am able to do so, of the latest disaster to hit us. It seems that Canada, in the last few years, has been subject to severe punishment from the weather. In 1948 we had the Fraser river flood which affected so many farmers in British Columbia, as well as towns and villages. Then we had "Hurricane Hazel" and "Hurricane Edna". We have had violent storms in Newfoundland. We in Saskatchewan now are suffering our second severe blow in succession dealt us by the weather.


George Hugh Castleden: In some parts four.


Henry Philip Mang: In some places four and five. It is not my purpose to review the vagaries of the weather but rather to point out that, in this gloomy picture that Saskatchewan has been presenting to the rest of Canada, the constituency of Qu'Appelle has been quite as severely dealt with as have other areas in Saskatchewan. Indeed, on the speech from the throne, when I had occasion to make a few remarks, I pointed out that the eastern third of the area has been suffering now for three years-in some spots for four years- owing to excessive moisture.
As many hon. members here realize, our topography, the lay of the land, is level. When you read about floods in rivers of Saskatchewan, that does not tell the whole story. The greatest disasters are not on the river banks. The disaster extends over the farm lands. The difficulty we have in that level country is that you will find dry spots where seeding could be done, but you simply cannot get on to those dry spots in order to seed them. Some two years ago, southwest of Regina, in those plains east of Wilcox and Tyvan in the southern part of the constituency, when the heavy rains came which flooded a great part of that country, many farmers actually went out, got caught in the rain and hurried home with the tractor, and the seed drill was still in the field in the middle of the summer. The havoc that such storms can cause on the level plains is hardly believable.
In the eastern third of Qu'Appelle constituency-and this applies to the constituencies north and south

we have been suffering for three years. We have made some effort- the provincial department of agriculture has done so as well, and the municipalities have struggled with the problem-to drain that water away. What is happening there is not the immediate result of saturating the ground with water now. What is happening in that part of the area is the deterioration of the topsoil owing to the fact that the water which

soaks down into the ground, when evaporation takes place, begins to come up through the land. As that process goes on it is souring the top six to ten inches of soil, bringing up the alkali and other salts. Unless definite moves are made to drain that area properly the productive value of that soil is going to be destroyed, and it will take years to retrieve.
We live in a pioneer area where some of our grandfathers are still living. They took that land over when it was raw prairie, and they built a productive empire out of it. They are still imbued with the pioneering spirit, and they do the best they can as individuals and as municipalities, but the situation has gone beyond that stage. As I said before, I do not want to go into details at this time but merely desire to present a general picture. Actually the full impact of the heavy rains and snows on this saturated soil has not been felt as yet by the people in general. While it is true that you can seed wheat up to the 24th of May and even later, nevertheless with the ground saturated as it is now a mere quarter inch of rain, for example, will stop you from going back on the land for a week or so.
I just want to emphasize this situation, not from the point of view of being an' alarmist or adopting a panicky attitude, because we have gone through periods of adversity before. As I say, our pioneers were used to having nothing 60 years ago, and they have built up the economy to the point where it is today. They have a great deal of patience, and they are great gamblers as well. They are willing to make the best of it, but the situation is such that there will have to be some positive and quick action with respect to draining these areas.
I should like to read excerpts from three letters. I am not going to read the entire letters. They are from councillors and reeves in our area. I shall quote one paragraph in this letter from Mr. James G. Duthie of Wolseley, to indicate the general situation. The pictures you saw in the newspapers the other day were of the town of Wolseley. This has to do with the farm land there. He said:
I will state briefly that there is a great deal of damage by floods within this municipality to roads, bridges and highways. Quite a lot of the farm lands in the municipality will be unfit for cultivation for years or until some drainage scheme is put into action.
There is another letter from a place farther east, and again I am going to quote briefly:
I can see no hope in trying to make a living here and pay expenses if some of this water is not drained away. There are several hundred acres covered with water. In most cases the prairie that is left isn't sufficient to feed the stock. I have been speaking to several farmers around and unless
The Budget-Mr. Mang
something can be done to get rid of this surplus water, we will have to dispose of our stock and move out.
Further down he says:
We have had this area surveyed by the department of agriculture-
That is of Saskatchewan, with the assistance of P.F.R.A., I understand.
-and they were through surveying before Christmas. They were supposed to give us some decision on the 15th of February, but we had nothing. On the 15th of March they promised and now it is the 26th of April and we had nothing yet. They tell us now that our maps are on print, and that is as far as we know yet.
In this connection I would suggest that here is an area that has already been surveyed for drainage. All that is needed is to move in and get immediate action to drain the land. This letter was from Mr. Oscar Carlson of Beynes, Saskatchewan. He is a councillor in that area.
I am just going to quote one short paragraph from another letter from Clarence B. Hill, reeve of the Martin municipality No. 122, near Moosomin. This area is suffering now for the third year in a row. He suggests something which could be done, and the suggestion could tie in with the letter I have just read from Mr. Carlson. The letter reads:
I would suggest the dominion government set up units of draining machinery consisting of a dragline, cat and dozer and a cat and scraper, say one unit to each two or three municipalities to be used only for draining work. This would reinstate soured land, bring it back into production and taxes, and help considerable towards building roads, once the sloughs and potholes are drained.
That is a concrete suggestion by Clarence Hill. I quote these letters because they come right from this area and emphasize the seriousness of the position, In addition they offer some concrete suggestions which could be applied immediately. Here is an area south of Moosomin which has been surveyed and is ready to go. All that is needed is to follow the suggestion made by Mr. Hill and get this machinery moved out there to work on drainage ditches.
Again I want to emphasize that we are not alarmists; we are not panicky. If I were able to quote these letters in their entirety you would see the pioneering spirit that these people have. They have been out there with their own tractors constructing drainage facilities. The roads are gone, their municipal funds are exhausted, and this spring people have actually been out there with shovels trying to open up drains because all the work they did last year with their own tractors fell in as a result of these heavy rains. They are trying to save the efforts of a lifetime. I would strongly urge

The Budget-Mr. Nicholson that whatever can be done should be done, as I know it will be, by both the provincial and federal governments.
I want to thank the Prime Minister for the assurance he gave that when all the information is in concerning the situation, an assessment will be made and whatever help it is possible to give will be given. Finally, may I say that I feel rather sorry for the Minister of Finance. He mentioned in that budget that the western wheat crop was one source of revenue, and this condition may interfere with his sincere efforts to balance our economy. I am sure the government will give every sympathetic consideration to the situation I have tried to present.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I have already participated in this budget debate, Mr. Speaker, but I cannot miss this opportunity of endorsing what has been said by the hon. member who has just taken his seat, by my colleagues in this party and by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), who have all expressed the view that the crisis which faces Saskatchewan is certainly the most serious we have had during the lifetime of any of us in this parliament.
The Minister of Finance, bringing down his budget for next year, indicated that he expected we would have a good crop on the prairies. Had that crop materialized it would have made a great difference in our economy. I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce is incorrect in his conclusion that you cannot forecast a crop failure in May. When I was home at Easter the outlook was promising. They had had a very good stretch of weather and, had it continued, the land could have been seeded in that area. But as a result of the excessive moisture over a four-year period, the very heavy rainfall last year and the four inches of rain which descended in the last month, it now becomes impossible to seed a large percentage of the land in Mackenzie.
Hon. members have not appreciated the magnitude of this problem. Figures showing farm net income of 1954, which reached us a few days ago, reveal a very sharp drop in net income across Canada, from $2,154 million in 1951 to $1,923 million in 1952, then down to $1,699 million in 1953 and $1,125 million in 1954. This represents a drop of over a billion dollars since 1951. In other words farm net income is cut almost in half.
The hon. member for Elgin (Mr. McBain), who spoke a few moments ago, had something to say about the position of the tobacco farmers. I would point out, however, that no farmers have been hit as hard as the wheat


farmers. Farm income is down in all provinces, but in Saskatchewan our income has dropped from $565-5 million in 1952 to $126-5 million in 1954.
It is not easy for us to think in terms of millions, but if one could picture oneself having an income of $565-and that, by the way, is the income some Canadian families have-what would be his position if that income were reduced in three years to $126? Or, to multiply those figures by twenty, to give an income somewhat in line with what a member of parliament considers he should have, it would represent a drop from $11,310 to $2,530. If one has not had some practical experience in reduced incomes over a short period of time, then he has missed something. Our people in Saskatchewan during the years of depression, and again during the last years, have seen prices collapse, and bad weather conditions. Coupled with the excessive rainfall last year we had heavy rust damage, which normally would not have developed had we not had so much wet weather,- or had more sunshine.
Those on farms, whose incomes have been reduced from $11,310 to $2,530, are in a position where they cannot pay their store bills, their taxes, or their commitments to the implement dealers. Payments to doctors fall in arrears. We have had a combination of these factors. I find that municipalities in my constituency, which had a very good record during the thirties and where we have always had some crop, reported tax arrears of $853,000 at the end of 1953. By the end of 1954 those arrears had reached $1,362,000.
People in Saskatchewan, as in other provinces, realize that if taxes get out of control they are in danger of losing their equity in their holdings, and no one accepts that position cheerfully. As a result of the fall in farm income, tax arrears have piled up. In addition to the tax arrears of the municipalities, the school districts find the municipalities owe them $1,170,000. The banks have been good enough to give the school units credit. Those school units in my district owed the banks over $844,000. Fortunately the banks have confidence in the province. However, this represents a tremendous waste, which is accepted unwillingly by the taxpayers, when such large amounts are paid out in interest. If they had had their fair share of the national income their taxes would have been paid and the school districts would have received their fair share of moneys.
I realize some hon. members from other parts of Canada are under the impression that those of us who come from the prairies do a good deal of complaining, and that at times we make unreasonable demands on the

taxpayers in other parts of Canada. I would remind the house, however, that in years of prosperity we in Saskatchewan are very glad to pay to the Minister of National Revenue a very generous share of our total income, through the income tax. I find that in the last publication of taxation statistics for 1954 a review is made of the year 1952. I was informed by the income tax branch this morning that they will not have information concerning the 1953 position until late in July, although they are speeding up the reporting of those amounts.
However, if one takes the total paid in income tax by the farmers of Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and Alberta and adds them together, he gets less than the amount paid by Saskatchewan farmers in 1952. Farmers in all provinces of Canada, with the exception of British Columbia and Saskatchewan, paid $13,106,000 in 1952, whereas the farmers of Saskatchewan paid $13,268,000.
As I have said, the Saskatchewan farmers made no complaint about paying over $13 million into the treasury in 1952. Oh, some of them felt that it was hard to justify the fact that the farmers of the rich provinces of Ontario and Quebec paid less than $3 million when more than $13 million had been paid by farmers in Saskatchewan who, unfortunately, had not been able to build up a reserve for an emergency. I submit, therefore, that as a result of the net farm income of Saskatchewan dropping from $566 million in 1952 to $126 million in 1954 we have a matter of national concern, apart altogether from the disastrous weather we have experienced in the last month. When Professor Harrington estimates that this unusual weather will result in a reduction in income of over $50 million I am convinced that he is estimating on the conservative side.
By the end of this year the Minister of Finance will realize that the figures he had before him when he prepared his budget for this year did not take into account the fact that at the present time there is still some 1953 grain in the granaries of Saskatchewan. The minister is not really in a position to know the serious impact on our Canadian economy that last year's crop imposed. Many regions in Saskatchewan are in the position that now, on the 11th day of May, the water level is so high there is not a chance in the world of getting on the land to seed oats, barley, wheat or any of the cereals that have been grown in the prairie provinces.
This crisis is going to affect eastern Canada also. On our farm we spent a considerable sum of money last winter to buy
The Budget-Mr. Nicholson fertilizer. We expected that there would be a short growing season this year on account of the excessive moisture, and that if we were to have any crop we should use fertilizer to make the best use of the growing season. It is extremely doubtful whether we shall decide to lose the money that we have now invested in fertilizer, or hold it over for another year. Certainly it is going to have a very direct effect on the fertilizer industry in British Columbia and on the railway companies that transport fertilizer and other products from the west and the east to the prairie provinces.
The hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort (Mr. Bryson) suggested that in addition to helping to meet the capital costs of the recent flooding, the federal government should somehow or other get into the pockets of the farmers whose fields will not be seeded at least $10 for every such acre. It is estimated that this year we shall have at least 2 million acres unseeded. The sum of $20 million may appear to be a large amount; but on the other hand, when one considers the importance of the wheat economy to the whole of Canada it is pretty obvious that sooner or later we shall have to face some of these problems and view them from the national point of view.
I should like to remind the house that late in the last century and in the beginning of this century, the prairie lands of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta were opened up for settlement on the theory that there would be a market for foodstuffs grown in the prairie provinces and shipped abroad. During my lifetime we have brought increased acreage into cultivation; we have improved our techniques of cultivation; we have brought down our costs of operation so that we are now in a position to produce great quantities of a very desirable commodity. We are compelled to sell in world markets in competition with other countries which, for a variety of reasons, are making it very difficult for Canadian grain to be sold.
Hon. members will perhaps have noted in this morning's Gazette that the United States now buys its own exports. That is to be found on the editorial page. It mentions that on May 2 the export-import bank in the United States made funds available to six manufacturing companies to help them export their products. This makes a total of 66 manufacturing firms which are being assisted by all of the manufacturers in the United States.
The hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Schneider) pointed out the very real problem that exists in his area where running shoes that were manufactured to the extent
3676	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Nicholson of 6 million in 1947 were manufactured to the extent of 2 million in 1954. That poses a problem not only for the hon. member for Waterloo North but for Canada. If our products have to compete in world markets with such products from other countries; if the Americans are going to use public funds to enable their manufacturers to sell their goods in world markets, it poses a real problem for us.
The editorial also mentions that last month the United States government offered Denmark $7 * 7 million worth of supplies, provided that Denmark would send industrial products to underdeveloped countries. Apparently Denmark objected to a clause which required the grain to be moved in United States vessels. But the shipment of $7-7 million worth of grain from the United States to Denmark will certainly affect the market in Denmark, and will eventually affect markets which we have had abroad.
I come back to our theories, which I think are fundamental. The 15 million people in Canada should be able somehow or other to organize our economy so we can produce all the food we can use-and we should produce all that we can-but we should be willing to exchange our foodstuffs in the markets of the world for commodities which other people have and which they would prefer to exchange for our foodstuffs. We should also make available, from our surplus supplies, foodstuffs for the two-thirds of the people in the world who never get enough to eat.
Therefore I suggest that the Minister of Finance, along with his colleagues, must give consideration to the request which has come from Saskatchewan that the emergency which has been created by the flooding be regarded as a national emergency, and that sufficient public funds be made available to help repair the property damage. Those who have invested their lives in Saskatchewan to produce food for ourselves and for our overseas markets should be given the assistance necessary over a series of years such as those we have experienced.
During the drought years federal and provincial governments joined with the municipalities in facing that problem. Last fall I met a number of my constituents who went north during the drought years, and they said they never expected to live long enough to be terrified when it started to rain. They had thought if they could only get to a country where they would have rain their troubles would be over; but after the experience they had last year they have come to the conclusion that the hardships involved in connection with a series of flooding are


even more difficult than the calamity which befell them during the 1930's, when it failed to rain and they were unable to grow a crop.
There is probably very little difference between a succession of crop failures as a result of drought and a series of crop failures as a result of flooding. However, there is this difference. In the years when you have flooding you have additional expenses that cannot be avoided very well. Last year a great many farmers spent more than the worth of their crop in trying to get on the fields with a combine towed by a caterpillar tractor. Sometimes it was a combine mounted on a stone boat, with a small engine to operate the combine, while the whole equipment was hauled around by a caterpillar tractor. The cost involved exceeded the revenue from the crop. So it makes very little difference whether a serious crop failure results from flooding or from drought.
I think it is obvious that the people of Canada as a whole must be prepared to stand behind the people of Winnipeg, of the Fraser valley, of the Annapolis valley, of Rimouski when disaster hits those areas, and likewise this year behind the people of the prairie provinces who are faced with disastrous floods. I am sure the government will only be fulfilling its duties to Canada in doing everything that is reasonably possible.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I wish at this time to bring to the attention of the government and the house a particular problem with which we are confronted in the Fraser valley. Some repetition may be necessary, but I shall try to present the matter as briefly and as quickly as possible. When participating in the throne speech debate I paid some attention to various fisheries problems, and endeavoured to place on the record not just my own views with respect to these matters but more especially the views of many of those engaged in the industry who are adversely affected by the imposition of certain measures which, these fishermen claim, are ineffective.
No doubt the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) works under a long range policy, and rather than just leaving this matter I thought if it were brought to his attention he might somehow or other work it into that long range policy and bring certain benefits to the fishermen in my area.
The annual list of proposals for changes in British Columbia fisheries regulations sent out from the office of Mr. A. J. Whitmore, chief supervisor of fisheries, under date of December 3, 1953, contained a clause having

to do with fishing above the New Westminster bridge. This clause No. 5 reads:
To prohibit commercial fishing above New Westminster bridge on and after September 16 each season.
Immediately after that was circulated various fishermen's groups took exception to it and lodged their protests against including this in the list of proposed changes in the fisheries regulations. The united fishermen and allied workers' union lodged a protest, as did the Pacific fishermen and allied trades union, gill net section. Just about that time, on March 16, 1954, I directed a question on the orders of the day to the Minister of Fisheries. The question, reported on page 3029 of Hansard, was as follows:
Will the minister state whether or not a decision has been reached with respect to the closure of the Fraser river above the New Westminster bridge to commercial fishing?
The answer I received from the minister on that occasion was as follows:
The answer to his question is no. I hope to be able to announce a decision before I meet the fishermen's union in convention next week in Vancouver.
Upon his return from Vancouver the minister made a statement with respect to this matter, to be found on page 4510 of Hansard of May 7, 1954, as follows:
I announced to the fishermen at the union meeting in Vancouver that we would stop that fishery on September 16.
And a little further on:
I met the union, I met the gill netters, I met the local mayors and reeves and pointed out that we were interested in quality and conservation.
And again:
Since I came back to Ottawa we have discussed the matter again with our research people and our officers, and it is probably right that we are doing it in a little too big a sweep. Therefore we have changed the closing date this year from September 16 to three weeks later, October 8. They will have the tail end of the sockeye and the first of the pinks and the chums. The hon. member for New Westminster applauds. I want to tell the committee that next year it will be September SO and the year after it will be September 15 because it is felt that in the interests of quality and conservation we must close this fishery. But because of the reasons put forward by these people for a little more gradual closing off, we have agreed to make that change.
Perhaps with some optimism, but prompted by the minister's co-operative attitude and his encouraging announcement, I ventured to express the hope that progressively earlier closures as threatened would be found unnecessary. However, that has not worked out and we find that the department are intent on continuing with their announced policy.
Further protests have been registered in this connection. I received one dated May
The Budget-Mr. Patterson 27, 1954, from the united fishermen and allied workers' union, the first part of which reads: Dear Sir,
We are enclosing with this letter copy of a letter just recently sent to the Hon. James Sinclair, Minister of Fisheries. You will note that we take quite sharp objection to a number of statements which he made in the House of Commons on May 7.
The most immediate issue is that of the closure of the area between Pattullo bridge and Mission bridge on the Fraser river. You will recall that on previous occasions we have written you at some length in respect to this proposed closure. Our members are not at all satisfied with the new revised decision which was announced by the minister. We urge you, as a member representing British Columbia, to do everything in your power to have the entire order rescinded.
That is just the first part of the letter which is signed by Homer Stevens, secretary treasurer of the union. Another communication which I received is in the form of a resolution dealing with fishing in the upper Fraser, adopted at a mass meeting in Fort Langley on Friday, October 8, 1954. It reads:
Whereas the 1954 salmon season is not a pink year as far as the Fraser river is concerned and
Whereas there is no dispute in quality of salmon in the Fraser river for the balance of the 1954 season and
Whereas we are fully aware of the fact that there is too much fishing gear in the water and therefore drastic conservation measures are necessary
Therefore be it resolved that we petition the Minister of Fisheries, Mr. Sinclair, to open the Fraser river again from the Pattullo bridge to Mission bridge as in past and that for the balance of the 1954 salmon season the minister is assured that we are escaping any conservation measures that may be necessary other than a complete closure; and
Be it further resolved that as far as the 1955 fishing season is concerned, further meeting be held with the minister in order that we may arrive at an equitable solution to this pertinent problem for the future.
Resolution carried unanimously.
Pete Jenewein acting as secretary.
Those are only two communications in this connection. The Pacific fishermen and allied trades union's brief of December 1 of last year raised a similar protest. A letter dated February 14, from the native sons of British Columbia, post No. 2, submitted a resolution in protest against this measure. I also have another communication from prevost post No. 10 of the native sons of British Columbia, dated January 4, 1955, which deals with the matter very fully and not only protests against the action that has been taken but asks that it be rescinded and proposes some other measures in its place.
Just prior to coming to this session of parliament, Mr. Speaker, we had the opportunity of meeting two delegations of fishermen, and they also registered their protest

The Budget-Mr. Patterson
over the measures proposed by the Minister of Fisheries. They presented statements showing that, as far as the purposes of these proposed measures were concerned, they were not being realized and they therefore felt that in all fairness the minister should rescind his proposed measure and take some more appropriate action in regard to conservation and so on.
There were two main reasons for the introduction of these measures. We find outlined in the British Columbia fishery regulations the suggested regulatory and administrative changes. We find these two are outlined very clearly, but I may say that the fishermen's unions take exception to both counts. In regard to conservation, I should like to read from article No. 5 of the suggested amendments to the British Columbia fishery regulations:
(b) the inability of the slow moving later classes of salmon, principally pinks and chums, to clear through the 50 mile stretch of the Fraser from its mouth to Mission during the protection period provided by the weekly closed times.
In this connection the brief has this to say:
It is represented the proposal would assist in meeting the difficulty and in addition would serve to give badly needed protection to spawning stocks of pinks and chums destined for important streams flowing into the Fraser between New Westminster and Mission, i.e., Coquitlam, Alouette, Whonock, Stave and Silverdale streams on the north side, and Salmon, Beaver, West, and other smaller creeks on the south side.
This was the position set out in this brief. The union's view in this connection is that the closure measures have not resulted in the desired and anticipated results. The brief has this to say:
We note that It is suggested that the closure of this area would help to rehabilitate several streams on the north and south sides of the Fraser river. Several points are not taken into consideration with regard to these streams.
After listing changed conditions on some of these tributaries, the brief goes on to state:
The fact of the matter is that as far as the local streams mentioned are concerned, the salmon have a better opportunity of entering these streams today than they had years ago when there were considerably less restrictions on fishing and it should be quite clear to everyone that the fine escapement of pinks to the upper Fraser river in 1953 passed the mouths of these streams en route.
With regard to the inability of the spawning fish to reach the headwaters of the main stem of the Fraser river, this particular brief contends that the escapement of the Fraser river pink salmon to the spawning ground in the last year was exceptionally good, and at least equal to any pink run in the last 40 years. It goes on to quote from the Department of Fisheries 1953 spawning

report dealing with the pinks in the Fraser river area. I should like to give this quotation from the same brief:
In 1951 we had no special closures on pink salmon fishing and the Department of Fisheries spawning report (1953) from which we quote does not bear out the contention that the closing of the fishing area above New Westminster bridge is necessary from a standpoint of conservation.
One of the other reasons given for the application of these earlier closures was the increasing efficiency of gill net operations through the use of nylon gear, etc. But the fishermen in this area maintain that the nylon nets have not proven as effective in this area in question as they have in other areas. They say it is due to the discolouration of the water in the Fraser river.
We also notice that in the minister's statement from which I have read there is reference to the necessity for these closures because of the quality of the fish. Some time ago I placed on record two letters, and I should like to refer to them again today. These letters have to do with the question of the quality of the fish taken in this area. The first one is to the Johnston Fishing and Packing Company, R.R.l, New Westminster, British Columbia. It is signed by Mr. Rolley. It reads as follows:
Gentlemen:
The directors of the gill net section of our union are desirous of obtaining information as to the procedure used in handling salmon caught above New Westminster bridge. As you probably know, there have been a lot of loose statements as to the quality of salmon caught in this area and in order to arrive at the facts of the case we would be very much obliged if your company could answer the questions listed below.
1.	In deliveries of salmon from your collectors to your plant are the salmon caught and collected above New Westminster bridge kept entirely separate at all times from salmon caught and collected in other parts of district No. 1.
2.	In the process of canning salmon at your plant is a separate code mark used to differentiate between salmon caught above New Westminster bridge and salmon caught in other parts of district No. 1?
3.	Does the government laboratory require certification from your company as to the place of origin of any parcel of canned salmon submitted by your company for inspection?
I should like to quote from the answer, or the letter Mr. Rolley received in reply. The letter reads as follows:
Dear Sir:
Replying to yours of the 4th instant in which you ask four questions dealing with the Fraser river fishing operations, our answer to the first three is "no".
The fourth question was:
4.	What percentage of this year's total pack was of grade B quality which was canned at your plant?
The reply to that fourth question was "none". I just place that information on the

record once again, Mr. Speaker, in order to show that the argument that has been used with respect to the quality of the salmon is not very conclusive.
I should like to refer just briefly to the economic effects of this broad measure. We find that the number of fishermen in this area taking out licences in 1953 stood at 639. I should like to emphasize the fact that these are gill net fishing licences. We further note that, in order to secure such a licence, the applicant must be a resident of that area. We therefore see that this is a considerable number who are affected at the present time and who will be affected by the earlier closures on the Fraser river.
As to the estimated loss, it is difficult, of course, to estimate that. We find that these fishermen through the years have adapted their boats and their fishing gear to local conditions. It would, of course, entail a heavy expenditure, estimated from $2,000 to $7,000 per boat, to convert their equipment for operation in other fishing areas. Of course that would be almost impossible for a great number of these fishermen. Then we also realize that if 639 fishermen are adversely affected by these closures, certainly the merchants of the area would suffer loss of income resulting from this measure.
I refer not only to these aspects of the problem, but I should like to remind the house that a considerable number of these people are veterans, I understand. I have here in my hand an article from the Gazette, Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows, dated March 10, 1955. The article is headed "Canadian Legion Rap Proposed Closure of Fraser to Fishing. Charge Action is Drastic, Deprives Veterans of Jobs", and reads as follows:
Following a series of meetings between Canadian Legion officers from Haney, Mission and Agassiz, a resolution will be presented to the members of the organization protesting the closing of the Fraser river to commercial fishermen.
The resolution is expected to be approved by the memberships by a clear majority since it affects an estimated 105 veterans of the last war and first world war, presently engaged in fishing as a livelihood.
"Most of the equipment owned by the fishermen here is inadequate for fishing in the mouth of the Fraser or at sea", stated secretary-manager Roger Ansell of the Haney Legion branch.
Following is the resolution to be presented to the memberships of three valley Legion branches and then forwarded to the federal government. Department of Fisheries.
Whereas the federal Department of Fisheries has decided to close the Fraser river to commercial fishermen on September 16, 1955, from Pattullo bridge, New Westminster to Mission city;
And whereas the Minister of Fisheries has definitely stated this is the first step towards the complete closure of this area to commercial fishing;
And whereas the chief reason given for this drastic action is to maintain and increase the conservation of salmon, a statement strongly disputed by fishermen;
The Budget-Mr. Patterson
And whereas this drastic and unwarranted action will undoubtedly deprive many veterans of world wars I and II who have a large investment in equipment and through age and disability, though able to fish in home waters cannot stand the rigours of going upcoast in open waters to make their livelihood;
Be it resolved that the B.C. and N.W.S. command of the Canadian Legion register the strongest possible protest directly to the Minister of Fisheries against the closure of the Fraser river to commercial fishing in this area.
In an effort to evaluate the amount of loss that will occur to the fishermen if the river is closed permanently, the legion are presently circulating questionnaires to the fishermen in each area.
The questionnaire contains ten pertinent questions such as age, service record, length of fishing activities, home ownership, veterans allowances for purchase of home or equipment, equipment owned, such as boat gear, float or dockage and net shed, value of these and whether the fisherman is capable of supporting himself outside the industry and his physical capabilities.
Then the article concludes with this paragraph:
It is expected that a compilation of the information so gathered will be presented with the resolution as a brief.
I give that quotation in order to indicate that, as is brought out in that brief, about 105 veterans of the first and second world wars will be adversely affected.
Some of the suggested alternate proposals that we find in these various briefs are the following. The first is a treaty with the United States covering conservation of pink runs and equal catch division. In this connection, on page 7 of a brief dated February 5, 1954, sent to Mr. A. J. Whitmore, chief supervisor of fisheries, Department of Fisheries, Vancouver, we find this statement:
Certain things stand out like a sore thumb. The Americans are getting 65 per cent of the Fraser pink catch, the Canadian fleet as a whole is getting about 35 per cent. Out of the total run, the fishermen in area 29D are getting about 1 per cent. Out of the Canadian portion, they are only getting about 3 per cent. Even out of the Fraser river area catch they only took about 12 per cent. Yet it is suggested that closure of this area after September 16th would help solve the difficult problerp of pink conservation.
The second suggestion I have gleaned from these briefs is the equalization of the weekend closures between the approaches to the Fraser and the Fraser river, combined with a deliberate program of equalizing catches between Canadian seiners and gill netters; third, the extension of weekly closures if advisable; and fourth, reappraisal of the whole situation with respect to closure measures.
Just to sum up this matter, Mr. Speaker, I have intimated first of all that the fishermen still maintain that the measures' that have been put into operation are largely ineffective. Second, the efficiency of the new

The Budget-Mr. Zaplitny gear is overestimated so far as the Fraser river is concerned. Third, the quality argument used by the Minister of Fisheries is not conclusive. Fourth, the displacement of fishermen from this area is too high a price for any slight possible results. Fifth, the financial loss is not justified. Finally, I would say that more effective and less discriminatory measures are possible in the solution of the problem of conservation.


Mr. F. S. Zaplitny (Dauphin):: It is not my
intention, Mr. Speaker, to delay the house very long, but I do wish to refer briefly to a matter which I believe is of extreme importance. It is important from the point of view of the political conduct of those who are in charge of our affairs, and also from the point of view of administration.
On two occasions during this session I have raised questions in the house in connection with the Department of National Revenue concerning certain tax remissions being made by that department to certain corporations. On the second occasion we were promised an explanation by the minister. May I say incidentally, sir, that I have notified the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) that I am raising this matter in the house this afternoon. Unfortunately he is not in his seat, but perhaps he will be in later.
While we are still waiting for the answer to that question, another has come up that has to do with the same department. I believe it is time a statement was made in the house to set out all the facts in order that we can be sure the law of the land is being observed. In order to put the background of this question as fairly as possible, I should like to quote part of an editorial which appeared in the Toronto Star today. It deals with the question of Mr. Dempsey and the connection his activities have had with the Minister of National Revenue and others. The editorial reads as follows:
Mr. Dempsey admits that at least $5,000 in 1951 election funds, contributed to him by the late John Drohan, were not reported to the returning officer as required by the Ontario election act. The act provides penalties for failing to make a detailed statement of campaign fund receipts, and for making a false return. In Mr. Dempsey's case, penalties upon conviction might total more than $13,000.
Then the editorial continues with a reference to a statement made by the attorney general of Ontario, which appeared in the same newspaper. The statement was to the effect that no action would be taken, and the editorial continues as follows:
But Mr. Dana Porter, attorney general in the Frost government, says he has no intention of laying a charge against Mr. Dempsey. Does this mean that Conservative candidates in Ontario can

flout the election act with impunity and feel safe from prosecution in the courts as long as their government is in power?
The widow of the late Mr. Drohan says he told her he handed over the money to Mr. Dempsey "for favours he would get from the government". Perhaps the attorney general prefers to have Mr. Dempsey escape all penalty rather than have the facts brought out in court.
It is up to the voters in the June 9 election to judge as to what standard of political morality prevails in Ontario government circles. It is bad enough that highway frauds, irregularities and overpayments totalled many millions in a few years; that thousands of dollars were contributed to a Conservative candidate in advance for concessions expected from the lands and forests department. But it is worse still when the government deliberately does its best to prevent the public getting all the facts.
Up to that point I agree with the Toronto Star that it is a matter for the consideration of the Ontario electors whenever they have to cast their ballots. This is the part to which I wish to address myself particularly, because this goes much farther than Ontario. The last part says:
The Renfrew South election fund scandal came to light only by accident through receipts in the estate of the donor, who died in 1952. The voters have the right to wonder how many other government candidates benefited in similar fashion through large contributions which will never be revealed. Certain it is that the Ontario Conservative party never seems to lack for funds at election time.
May I add to that my opinion that the Liberal party does not seem to lack for election funds, either in Ontario or elsewhere. The reason this involves the House of Commons is that we are all trustees of the public treasury. It is true that for the time being the Minister of National Revenue is in charge of and responsible for the collection of the taxes imposed by this parliament. Since we are the public representatives it is we, in the last analysis, who are the final trustees of the public purse. Any time there appears to be any irregularity affecting moneys which are the property of the people of Canada, then the representatives of the people have a right to know the full facts and have a full explanation laid before them in order that they may be able to explain to their electors just what is happening.
I believe the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) performed a public service when on May 9 of this year he asked the following question on the orders of the day, which appears at page 3565 of Hansard:
In view of the speculation raised by an editorial in today's Globe and Mail regarding the minister's previous knowledge of the Dempsey affair, will the minister clarify the situation by making a statement to the house?
That was a very fair question. I think he gave the minister a wonderful opportunity to lay the facts before the house. What did

we get at that time? The reply was that the minister was prohibited by section 133 of the Income Tax Act and section 55 of the succession duty act-I believe that section number should have been different- from disclosing the information he had. He did admit in his reply, and I quote:
I admit that I had a conference with Mr. Frost while he was in Ottawa. He had to leave hurriedly, so that the conference was incomplete. I am not in a position to disclose any information that passed between us at that time.
The question was followed up later by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), when he asked if the minister could point out where, in section 133 of the Income Tax Act, the minister found authority under which he could disclose information to Premier Frost which he could not disclose to parliament. The reply given to that was:
I quoted section 133 with reference to the Income Tax Act and section 54 of the succession duty act, and it was under section 55 of the succession duty act that Premier Frost, as treasurer of Ontario, was entitled to any information we have.
We go to section 55 of the succession duty act, and what do we find? I shall quote the whole section because it is short, at least the first part of the section which has to do with this matter.
55. (1) No person employed in the service of Her Majesty shall communicate or allow to be communicated to any person not legally entitled thereto, any information obtained under the provisions of this act, or allow any such person to inspect or have access to any written statement furnished under the provisions of this act.
Quite obviously the minister is attempting to justify the result on the basis of these words, "any person not legally entitled thereto", and perhaps is prepared to argue that in his opinion the premier of Ontario was so entitled. But is it not a strange situation, where one would expect that the persons entitled to that information would be officials of the department-and one would expect that those officials are sworn to secrecy; because if they are not, then this whole section becomes a farce and means nothing-if one person, who is bound by the secrecy of the act, gives information to somebody else who is not so bound? If that is so, then of course the act has no effect.
I would ask the Minister of National Revenue to state in this house whether he considers Premier Frost in the same category as officials of his own department, and whether Premier Frost is sworn to secrecy under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. If that is not the case; if Premier Frost is not in the same category as officials of the Department of National Revenue and the minister himself, then of course he is not
The Budget-Mr. Zaplitny subject to the same restrictions. The minister, then, had no business to disclose information to a person who is not bound by the secrecy provision, when he has refused to give the same information, or similar information, in the House of Commons.
What makes the matter still worse is this, that if what I am now going to quote is correct, then of course the whole thing becomes a sort of midsummer night's dream.
I quote now from the report of a speech made by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees), as it is reported in the Ottawa Citizen of today:
Revenue Minister McCann was charged today with playing politics with the Dempsey case and of withholding information from Premier Frost of Ontario until he felt it would be of political advantage to have it known.
George Hees, president of the national Progressive Conservative association and M.P. for Toronto-Broadview told a regional party meeting here the method chosen by Dr. McCann to communicate the information by drawing the premier into a corner at the recent federal-provincial meeting "was just like a Parisian postcard vendor trying to peddle his wares".
Well, I am not going to say that I agree with that description of the way in which this information was given, because I have nothing to base it upon; but certainly it appears as if the Minister of National Revenue were trying to make a sort of cloak and dagger affair out of the whole matter. If the information which came to the notice of the minister as the result of the administration of an estate-and we are given to understand that this happened a few years ago-was in his possession, and if he felt that the law of the land was being broken, or that regulations were not being lived up to, then it was his duty at that time to notify the proper authorities.
If he felt that it was an evasion of the Income Tax Act, and that undisclosed income was involved, then I think it was his duty to lay a proper charge and start action at that time. The fact that he did not do so lends credence to the statement made by the president of the Progressive Conservative association.
The part that really causes me the greatest concern is this. Further on in the same report it is stated that Mr. Dempsey, in speaking to a reporter today, is credited with having said that he had not reported his contribution to the 1951 campaign funds, because-and these are the words in the report-
-he had received assurances from revenue minister J. J. McCann that income tax authorities would take no action on the matter.


James Joseph McCann: Absolutely false.

The Budget-Mr. Zaplitny


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Then there is this further direct quotation:
"Just mind your P's and Q's and the government won't do anything about the contribution," Mr. Dempsey said he was told by Dr. McCann.
I say this, that if those words are correct then the Minister of National Revenue, in fairness to himself and in fairness to this parliament, should forthwith hand in his resignation because any minister-


An hon. Member:: No.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: If the hon. member disagrees he will have an opportunity to say so.


James Joseph McCann: I wish at this time to declare positively that the statement you have just quoted is absolutely false in every particular.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I take it that the minister refers to the last quotation I put on the record. He did not identify which one. If that is not correct, then of course the minister and Mr. Dempsey can fight that out between themselves. The fact remains that in my opinion there has been a lack of frankness on the part of the minister. If the minister obtained certain information-and we are given to understand that it was as the result of his being a director of a company which had something to do with the administration of an estate-which he felt was evidence of a law being violated, and if he withheld that information from the appropriate sources for two or three years in order to use it for political purposes, that in itself in my opinion would be enough for the minister to be charged with a great misdemeanour.
It is not the prerogative or the right of a minister of the crown to use his position for political purposes, particularly a position such as that held by the Minister of National Revenue, who has access to information so confidential that even when it affects the public interest he will not disclose it to parliament because, he tells us, the secrecy provisions of the act do not permit him to do so. I say that to use that kind of information for political purposes is in my opinion a dereliction of duty and an abuse of public trust. If the minister has used his position, either as director of a company or as Minister of National Revenue, to obtain information and hold it for a strategic time at which he could do political harm to his opponent, then I say he is performing an act for which he should be censured.
I say that very frankly, because I am not at all satisfied that the Minister of National Revenue has given the house any information so far. The questions that have been put to him and the answers we have received have left much to be desired. It is still 

not clear, certainly not to me, what the minister means when he tells us that under section 55 of the Dominion Succession Duty Act he is permitted to give information to the premier of Ontario. When he says that, then I think the minister should state in this house how he comes to that conclusion.


James Joseph McCann: He is treasurer of Ontario.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Is the premier of Ontario an official of the minister's department? Is he sworn to secrecy, so far as this act is concerned? That is what I want to know.
Point 2 is this. Did the minister have this information for the last two or three years as a result of the fact that he was director of a company and, if so, why did he not give that information to the proper authorities and see that appropriate action was taken?
While we are on this subject, may I say that a new method seems to be creeping in. There was a time when the Prime Minister of Canada used to insist that ministers of the crown should divest themselves of directorships in companies. Apparently a change has come about, and we now have the new look in government. They can have one foot in the government and one foot in private business and use both sources to advantage, one for the other.
I hope that process has not gone too far, because it makes one wonder to what extent it could be used if ministers of the crown were to find themselves in the position of obtaining confidential information from private industry, on the one hand and, on the other hand, in the position of being able to obtain private and confidential information in a government position. One can easily imagine the terrific abuses that could creep into the administration of the affairs of this country if that were so.
I think it is time the Minister of National Revenue gave the House of Commons the facts and explained why, if he had information which came to him as the result of a position he holds outside the government and which he felt perfectly willing to give to the premier of Ontario a few weeks ago, he kept that information hidden all this time; and whether there is any truth at all in the statement that he had assured Mr. Dempsey that the government would not take action with regard to the contribution in 1951.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


James Joseph McCann: I said a moment ago that was absolutely false. The hon. member quoted that before.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will recall that, as the Minister of National Revenue said, he dealt with that point on a question of privilege a few moments ago. Of course the hon. member, and all hon. members, must accept the minister's assurance on that point, and I hope the hon. member who has the floor will not pursue it any further.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: In order that there may be no misunderstanding, that was the reason I asked the minister to which quotation he was objecting and he said it was the last one I had given. The one I have just mentioned was made previous to that. I understand that the minister now denies everything in connection with what Mr. Dempsey said to the reporter, as recorded in this newspaper. That still leaves many questions unanswered.


Mr. Lennard:: He said "no, no, I did not."


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I will leave it to the minister right now. He can have all the "no, noes" he wants. He can tell the house exactly what has happened and where he finds authority in section 55 of the succession duty act to disclose information to the premier of Ontario which he cannot disclose to this house, and to what extent he is involved in this whole question of the contributions to Mr. Dempsey which came to his knowledge as a result of his being a director of the company.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Some hon. Members:: Answer.


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Speaker, will you call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Frederick George Hahn: Apparently the house is anxious to hear me, so I shall continue.
A few moments ago the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Patterson) told of some of the difficulties his people encounter in trying to carry on fishing in the Fraser river, as the result of certain action the Department of Fisheries has taken to conserve, or so-called conserve, salmon. I have a similar problem in my riding, and I should like to second everything that he has brought to the attention of the house.
I am sure the minister has had many representations, even as I and the hon. member for Fraser Valley have had. We have had many meetings; we have had many letters indicating disapproval of the regulation that was brought in a year ago announcing the date of closure of salmon fishing above the Pattullo bridge. Many cross words have been used and many accusations have been made.
The Budget-Mr. Hahn
The hon. member for Fraser Valley mentioned Peter Jenewein. He is a fisherman; he is connected with the united fishermen and allied workers' union. He is also the reeve of the municipal district of Maple Ridge. As recently as the day before this house opened he indicated to me that things had reached such a state between the Minister of Fisheries and the gill net fishermen that they considered it absolutely futile to talk to such an autocratic minister. Such a condition is most unfortunate. It is most unfortunate that any group of producers in this country should feel it absolutely futile to spend a few moments with a minister of the crown discussing the possibility of rectifying a condition that has been forced upon them. I would say that some fault must lie with the minister.
The history of the fishing industry in British Columbia is long, and I do not intend to elaborate on it at this time. However, last year the minister indicated something of the story of the protection of the sockeye salmon industry in British Columbia, and what it means to that province. I am not too interested in that question at this time, by reason of the fact that the international Pacific salmon fisheries commission, which was set up some years ago to protect the sockeye salmon, has done an excellent job on the conservation of sockeye. Last year we had the finest sockeye salmon fishing season in the history of our province. We obtained something in the neighbourhood of 9,500,000 salmon. This commission, which is virtually a partnership between United States and Canadian fishermen, has proven most successful, with the result that an industry that at one time was threatened with extinction is today thriving.
I should like the minister to recognize one fact in this regard. That is that we built up a tremendous fishing industry because we had conservation of fish according to the proposals set forth by the fishermen themselves under the international joint commission which studied the question. Fishing was continued above the Pattullo bridge, the very thing the minister is asking us not to do today. The conservation program that was carried out under the terms of the agreement helped to save our sockeye fishing industry.
The fishermen themselves are most anxious to protect their own industry. They know what will happen to them unless they have conservation in all branches of the fishing industry, so they have done everything possible to study the question. They have tried to meet the minister half way, but it

The Budget-Mr. Hahn seems that such a thing is quite impracticable and the minister just will not listen.
When the minister spoke in the debate last year he indicated that he had changed his mind to a certain extent, and he set back the time for closure by some six weeks. He mentioned at that time that it would gradually be closed off completely. However, that is not desirable. It did not satisfy the gill netters, who are most affected by this particular action.
The representations that were made to the minister by the united fishermen and allied workers' union, as well as by the gill net section of the Pacific fishermen and allied trades union, were mentioned earlier by the hon. member for Fraser Valley and I am not going to deal with them at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Speaker, will you call it six o'clock?


Mr. Harris:: Before that is done, may I say that everyone is aware of the fact that the hon. member is the last speaker on the list in this debate. I wonder whether the house would continue long enough to enable him to complete his remarks and have a vote.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No. Many hon. members have left the house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is not agreeable?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I do not want any misunderstanding. I am not attempting to

put anything over on the house. It has been the agreement all day that when we reached this point we would have a vote. I hope hon. members will find it possible to do so, but if that is not the desire we can only adjourn until tomorrow. On reflection I think hon. members would prefer to get the vote over with now, and if they feel that any absent member has something to say, it is possible for him to say it on the main motion tomorrow.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it is now three minutes after six o'clock. It would be perfectly legitimate if some hon. members have gone home, in which case they would not be here to record their votes if a division were called at the end of the hon. member's speech.


Frederick George Hahn: Lest there be any misunderstanding, I want to say that I am quite prepared to talk for the next 30 or 40 minutes. I shall comply with your wishes. The Minister of Finance and I had had a discussion earlier today respecting this debate. This would not have happened if things had taken their normal course. If the house wishes to call it six o'clock I am quite happy to agree.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It would require unanimous consent to proceed. Do I understand that unanimous consent has not been granted?


Some hon. Members:: No.
On motion of Mr. Hahn the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 12, 1955