1955-04-27

Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: On a
question of personal privilege, in the issue of the Ottawa Journal of Tuesday, April 26, the Canadian Press reported me as having said, and I quote from the newspaper:
Mr. Johnston raised his protests in opposing a bill to extend provisions of Alberta's health plan to residents of national parks in the province.
Of course that is quite contrary to the facts. I shall refer to one part of my speech which is indicative of what I said on many occasions during that speech. I am quoting from page 3131 of Hansard:
As I said when I started my remarks, we are all grateful to the minister for bringing in this legislation-although it is only his job-and making it possible for the people of Banff to have hospital service.
That makes quite clear the stand on which I took on the matter. There are many other references which give the same impression, but I shall not bother to read them.



MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Fourth and fifth reports of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. Hunter.


Mr. McCulloch (Pictou):: When is work expected to start on the ferry to be built in Pictou, Nova Scotia, for operation between Caribou and Wood Island?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: It is expected that work in the shipyard will commence in July, 1955.


CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Mr. Fulton:: 1.	Did the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration make a trip to the Pacific coast during the Easter recess of parliament?
2. Was this trip for the purpose of official business? If so, what were the details of the business, and when and where was it transacted?
3.	Was the government railway car used by the minister on this trip? If so, who were the occupants of the car?
4.	Between what points and by what route was the car moved on this trip, and what was the duration of the trip?


Mr. Pickersgill:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Partially. The minister inspected offices of the immigration branch in Victoria, Vancouver and Calgary; the Indian affairs branch in Vancouver and Calgary; the citizenship branch in Vancouver; and the national film board offices in Vancouver and Calgary. He received a delegation on Indian affairs at Calgary; inspected a new citizenship reception centre at Calgary and addressed the Women's Canadian Club of Calgary on citizenship. These duties occupied every working day not spent in travel.
3.	Yes. The car was occupied by the Minister of Fisheries and two of his children and by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, his wife and four children.
4.	From Ottawa to Vancouver by C.N.R. and from Vancouver to Ottawa by C.P.R. From April 6 to April 18, 1955.


CURRIE REPORT
Mr. Fulton:: With respect to the 18 types of accounting irregularities in No. 11 works company R.C.E. found by the chief auditor of the Department of National Defence, as summarized in the Currie report:
1.	When was each of these irregularities found and reported on by the auditor?
2.	What action. In detail, was taken as a result of his findings in each case, and when?
3.	What action, in each case, was taken following the submission of the Currie report, and when?
4.	Were any changes in personnel made as a result of these findings and actions, and if so, what changes?
5.	After the actions and changes referred to in parts 2, 3 and 4 were taken or made, if any, what further or continuing investigations were made with respect to the administration of this company, and when?
6.	What were the results or findings in each case?


Mr. Blanchette:: No. 11 Victoria 1951
Cost accounting records are of little value because certain
essential data are not included.
(a)	Distribution of casual labour was not prepared by civilian pay May to Sep due to pressure of work in the section.
(b)	Indirect costs not charged.
(c)	Stores not yet priced have not been included in cost accounting records.
(d)	Quarterly inventory reconciliations are not prepared.
It is difficult to get personnel to do the job as required. A clerk grade one was authorized, but the job requires a clerk grade three. With four incompetents in I j years it was impossible to get the job done properly. Recent authority has been received to upgrade this job to 2A.
Type 18: No. 11 Chilliwack 1952..
No cost accounting has been done since Julyl951. Itis planned to commence next fiscal year if a finance clerk can be trained in time to set up records.
A clerk has been trained and records set up and difficulties are being overcome. Consolidated report 1 Aug 1951 to 31 Jan 52 was compiled and submitted and report for February was submitted 10 March.
Type 19: No. 11 Victoria 1951	
Unit personnel are of opinion that staff is not sufficient to maintain cost of accounting records.
See irregularity No. 17.
Type 20: No. 11 Chilliwack 1952...
No. 11 Vancouver 1952
One hourly casual labourer employed as full time storeman and clerk.
Command have been endeavouring to regularize part V establishment of Coy. Pending approval it is proposed to obtain authority to employ this man against a military vacancy.
Two casual labourers misemployed, one as draughtsman and one as a clerk.
A sgt draughtsman was posted and there was no trained person to replace him except a civilian. The other employee is only employed part time as clerk when work load becomes too great.
3212	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Questions

3. Shortly after the submission of the Currie report, the judge advocate general, at the request of the Minister of National Defence, examined each of the instances of irregularity mentioned in appendix B. His report of his investigation is contained in minutes and proceedings of the special committee on defence expenditure No. 11, 5 March 1953, pages 288-297.
With respect to No. 11 works company, there were 32 instances of irregularity, classified under 18 types, reported by the chief auditor. The judge advocate general found that in nine instances there had been no violation of regulations or instructions; in these instances the chief auditor had either commented on errors in accounting or on the manner in which records were kept or had made recommendations. In the remaining 23 instances, the judge advocate general found no evidence of culpable neglect; in these cases it appeared that breaches of regulations arising from improper motives had not been committed and the persons concerned had been reasonably zealous and conscientious. There was, therefore, no ground for taking legal action in any of these instances.
Nearly a third of the instances reported by the chief auditor were, in the judge advocate general's opinion, the result of a shortage of staff. The remainder were very largely understandable errors, honest misinterpretations of regulations, bookkeeping errors and other minor breaches of regulations; in other instances the explanation provided by command or army headquarters was considered reasonable. In only one case had there been any loss (a refrigerator valued at $80) and a full investigation was unable to find the missing article or to establish any responsibility for the loss.
Following the tabling of the Currie report, many improvements were pressed forward in the army works service as a whole, as well as in No. 11 works company. Regulations governing works procedures, financial accounting, stores control and general administrative procedures were reviewed to provide a closer control over the type and quality of work being done, expenditure of funds and the holding of warehouse stocks. Surplus and stockpiled stores were withdrawn from works services units and sent to engineer stores depots for retention. Warehousing facilities at works units were improved.
The Currie report recommended that real property records be brought up to date as quickly as possible. It was calculated that this project would require three years to complete and it has been steadily pressed forward.
Questions
Shortage of staff had been a major difficulty. A new army works services establishment was approved and the civil service commission made every effort to fill vacancies with qualified personnel. In particular, as recommended by the Currie report, estimators were employed. Special courses have been conducted to train new personnel in their duties. Recruiting and training of personnel has been a lengthy process and the results are only now being felt.
An inspection and audit group has been established within the directorate of works and frequent inspections have been carried out.
4.	Yes. Two administrative officers, three works officers, two estimators, three stores officers and twenty-eight clerks, storemen and foremen were added to the company.
5.	(a) Since December 1952 the chief auditor has made eight audits of the company on the following dates:
1953	1954	1955Vancouver	March	March	JanuaryVictoria	March	February	MarchChilliwack	March	April(b)	The directorate of works inspection team inspected the company on the following dates:(1)	23 June to 12 July 1953(2)	7 June to 25 June 1954(c)	The command engineer, western command, makes a tour of inspection quarterly.(d)	The inspectorate of quartermaster services inspected the company in April 1953 and May 1954.(e)	The chief inspector of the Adjutant General's inspectorate inspected the Vancouver detachment in January 1954.(f)	Periodic inspections are also made by the commanding officer of the company.6.	In reports of audits made since October 1952, the chief auditor has made observations through the normal channels, concerning instances of irregularity, all of a minor nature, in No. 11 works company. A third of these observations have dealt with the condition of property records, while recognizing that the task of putting these records in proper order is a long-term project. The March 1955 audit at the Victoria detachment noted that property records there were now in satisfactory condition.
Some instances were noted of scrap not being taken on charge quickly enough following the completion of works projects. Bookkeeping errors, which did not involve any

Questions
losses, were also reported. One instance of misemployment was observed but it was recognized that suitable employees could not be engaged until a revised establishment had been authorized.
The latest audits by the chief auditor at each detachment revealed that: at Vancouver there had been improvements in the engineer account although the ordnance account was still not acceptable (a determined effort is being made to improve it), at Victoria accounting records were on the whole satisfactory and at Chilliwack accounting records were in good condition although a few phases still required attention.
The new inspections by the directorate of works service inspection team resulted in a number of observations at Chilliwack, Victoria and Vancouver. All these observations were noted and explained and action taken to correct the situation where necessary.
In 1954 the inspection by the inspectorate of quartermaster services resulted in a comment on security arrangements at each detachment. The area commander is studying this matter but the lay-out of the sites makes the cost of complete security prohibitive.
The chief inspector of the adjutant general's inspectorate made five observations after his visit to the Vancouver detachment in January 1954.
A statement concerning the investigation initiated by the commanding officer, which is still in progress, was given to the house by the Minister of National Defence on 21 March 1955 at page 2218 of Hansard.


CUSTOMS ACT APPEALS
Mr. Michener:: 1.	How many appeals under the Customs Act have been heard and decided upon by the present tariff board since its appointment?
(a)	Appeals and/or references by the deputy minister?
(b)	Appeals by other parties?
2.	How many such appeals have resulted in the reduction of customs duties on imported goods?
3.	Concerning the appeals covered by item X (b), above:
(a)	How many applications for leave to appeal to the exchequer court have been made?
(b)	How many granted?
(c)	How many have been heard and decided upon by the exchequer court?
(d)	Of those in (c), how many have upheld the decision of the tariff board?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1 and 3. Questions numbered (1) and (3) can most intelligibly be answered by one tabular statement, as follows:
Total appeals under the Customs Act lodged with the board since its appointment	 150

Of this total, references by deputy
minister were	 7
Appeals withdrawn after filing with
board	 27
Appeals heard by board and disposed
of	 109
Appeals awaiting disposal by board 14 Applications to exchequer court for
further appeal	 14
Of these, on behalf of deputy minister	  3
Applications granted by exchequer
court	 6
Applications dismissed by exchequer
court	 5
Applications for leave to appeal,
pending	 3
Appeals heard by exchequer court .	6
Appeals disposed of by exchequer
court	 4
Tariff board decisions upheld by exchequer court	 4
2.	In hearing appeals under the Customs Act, the tariff board, sitting as a court of record, takes no cognizance of the rates of duty or the amount of duty properly leviable and collectable. It determines, as the premises may require, either the proper tariff classification or the proper value for duty purposes. Accordingly, no record is kept by the board as to whether or not the effect of its finding is an increase or a decrease in the amount of duty-burden properly to be levied and collected by the customs authorities.
Note: The above tabular statement does not cover appeals before the tariff board under the provisions of the Excise Tax Act.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Is any department or branch of the federal government making any studies as to the extent to which atomic and hydrogen bomb tests can be made without grave danger to the human race?
2.	If so, what are the results or findings of such studies?


RADIATION DOSES AND LEVELS
Mr. Noseworthy:: 1.	What is the maximum dose, in roentgens, which the Chalk River workers are allowed to absorb each week?
2.	What radiation levels have been reported in Canada following atom bomb tests (also in roentgen units for comparison) ?
3.	What is the minimum lethal dose (in
roentgens)?


GOVERNMENT CHEQUES
Mr. Poulin:: 1. Are all cheques issued by the federal government, or by any department, board, commission, corporation, etc., of the said government, bilingual?

2.	Are all cheques Issued In the province of Quebec entirely bilingual on the face and the reverse side?
3.	Are all cheques issued outside the province of Quebec and intended for persons residing within the said province, entirely bilingual on the reverse side and the face?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Diefenbaker:: For a copy of all correspondence directed to any minister or department of government since the 1st day of January, 1950 and replies thereto, which relate to applications made for permission to use the expression "royal", "queen", or any other title or word, which law, tradition or practice requires must have the consent of the crown before same may be used as part of the name of any corporation, partnership, institution or thing.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Mr. Pinard:: Subject to the usual reservations.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion is carried subject to the usual reservations.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE ACCOUNTS

Edmund Davie Fulton: For a copy of all correspondence, memoranda, etc., exchanged between the office of the Auditor General and the Department of National Defence or the minister or any official of the said department, since January 1, 1950, relating to the accounts of the said department.


Mr. Campney:: In addition to associating myself with a number of the arguments made by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) last Monday on the motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Kamloops and addressed to the Department of National Revenue, I should like to point out that the Auditor General maintains at all times an office within our department and that, through that office, his representative and his officials have access to all the documents, memoranda, reports, and papers pertaining to internal audit which pass within the department. As this motion is worded, I would take it to mean that all these documents should be made available.
First there is the question of the magnitude of the time and effort involved in the preparation for production of such documents. Then above and beyond that consideration, and the ground on which I will have to oppose this motion, there is the fact that it certainly presupposes the production of numerous privileged documents. I would therefore ask that the motion be withdrawn or, failing that, that it be voted down.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If I may do so, I should like to make this explanation. It seems to me that the motion is perfectly clear. It does
Motions for Papers
not ask for the production of any documents prepared in and for the purposes of the Department of National Defence. It asks for the production of correspondence, memoranda, et cetera, exchanged between the office of the Auditor General and the Department of National Defence. Hence the first ground upon which the minister sought to indicate that the motion should not be accepted is disposed of by the very clear wording of the motion itself. Then the motion does not call for the production of any privileged documents. It does not call for the production of documents prepared within or for the use of the department itself but only for those exchanged between the department and the Auditor General who is, of course, a servant of parliament.
I might just say this, Mr. Speaker. Following the exchange that took place on Monday between the Minister of National Revenue, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and myself, I was in touch with the office of the Auditor General. I am advised by him that there could, of course, be no objection whatsoever so far as he is concerned to the production of the correspondence and memoranda referred to in the two motions, one of which is now before the house. I have checked further and I find that until at least as recently as 1938 it was a matter of course for the correspondence such as that which is referred to here to be incorporated in the Auditor General's report.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is certainly going beyond what he is allowed to do. The motion is not debatable. He therefore should not have been allowed to say anything. But as he has been allowed to make a few remarks with respect to the opposition indicated by the minister, I think we must now settle this matter one way or the other. I take it that the hon. member is not withdrawing his motion?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No.


Mr. Speaker:: And I take it that he is not allowing it to be dropped?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State based on an article in the Trade Marks Journal of April 13, 1955, to which I have directed his attention. Has the government, as therein recorded, given instructions to the registrar to advise the adoption and use by Canada, as a distinctive Canadian flag, of the red ensign with the shield and coat of arms of Canada on the fly as shown in the said article? If so, has the question of Canada's national flag Anally been determined by the government?


Roch Pinard: thank my hon. friend for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. I have the article to which he refers, in which appear both the Canadian coat of arms and the Canadian red ensign. I wish to inform my hon. friend that this is strictly a matter of routine procedure. It arises out of the proclamation last year of the new Trade Marks Act which replaced the Unfair Competition Act of 1932. The coat of arms was adopted under royal proclamation in 1921. The red ensign, as was recently explained by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in answer to a question by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Girard), was adopted as a distinctive Canadian flag by order in council of September 5, 1945.
Section 14 of the Unfair Competition Act of 1932, which as I said before was replaced by the Trade Marks Act of last year, did not require the publication of any notice as a condition of the existence of the Canadian government's exclusive right to use the coat

of arms or the flag. Section 9, subsection 1, paragraph (e) of the Trade Marks Act as proclaimed last year makes such notice necessary for the government to benefit from the exclusive right to the coat of arms and the Canadian red ensign. I might possibly read that section of the act to which I have just referred:
No person shall adopt in connection with a business, as a trade mark or otherwise, any mark consisting of, or so nearly resembling as to be likely to be mistaken for
(e)	the arms, crest or flag adopted and used at any time by Canada or by any province or municipal corporation in Canada in respect of which the registrar has at the request of the government of Canada or of the province or municipal corporation concerned, given public notice of its adoption and use;
The notice to which the hon. gentleman has referred is simply putting into effect this clause of section 9 to which I have just referred.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Roch Pinard: should like to answer a question that was asked of me yesterday by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The question was:
Can he say when stationary engineers and firemen employed by the federal government will be put on a five-day 40-hour week along the lines of his announcement of March 30?
The answer, according to the information I have received from the civil service commission, is as follows. The five-day 40-hour week will be extended to stationary engineers and firemen employed by the federal government with effect from June 1, 1955. Implementation of the five-day week will not be applicable to heating staffs in hospitals, convalescent institutions, establishments and services maintained to provide living accommodation or furnish messing facilities, penitentiaries, farms, fish hatcheries and national parks, or in centres where general application of the five-day week has not been authorized.



REFERENCE TO PRESS REPORT OF STATEMENT BY MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture arising out of a press report in the Ottawa Journal of April 26, 1955,
The Budget-Mr. Ellis
attributing a statement to the Right Hon. C. D. Howe that Canada would buy more New Zealand primary produce-


Some hon. Members:: Question, question.


Edward George McCullough: -and
which quotes him in this regard as saying Canada would take "everything but dairy produce".


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Edward George McCullough: Could the minister indicate what quantities of wheat, beef or other primary produce Canada is prepared to buy from New Zealand?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: I have not read the report in the Journal, but even taking the wording as it has been stated, I do not think there is any reference to wheat or beef in the statement. On the other hand, this is a report of a statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce on the other side of the world. We have sufficient difficulty in properly interpreting reports of statements we make in this country, and I would not therefore attempt to make any comment based on a report from that far away. I would point out as well that I do not believe the question is sufficiently urgent to require an answer before the minister comes back.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, April 22, 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, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. Claude Ellis (Regina Ciiy):: Mr. Speaker, at the time of adjournment last Friday I had been dealing with the failure of the budget to provide any measure of tax relief to the great percentage of Canadian people who are earning incomes below that figure at which they would be required to pay income tax, and I had suggested that if this government had been anxious to help those Canadians who are in greatest need of tax reductions it could have done so through a reduction in the sales tax.
Today I wish to continue with a very brief examination of some of the particulars of the budget brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris). These details taken
321?

The Budget-Mr. Ellis
alone are important enough; but when combined I think they illustrate quite clearly the inequity and injustice in our present tax structure.
Dealing briefly with a number of these glaring injustices I would first draw the attention of the house to the flat old age security tax of $60. I believe that, as a general principle, taxation should be based upon ability to pay. Yet we have in this instance a tax in which a man earning $3,000 of taxable income is required to pay as much tax as is the millionaire. The maximum figure of $60 destroys completely what I believe to be the only fair concept of taxation, and that is taxation having regard to the ability to pay.
Then of course we have the 3 per cent floor on deductions for medical expenses, in so far as income tax is concerned. I need not refer at great length to that because, over a period of years, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has brought in resolutions urging the removal of this floor. Here is a practical way in which the Minister of Finance could have afforded some tax relief to Canadian citizens who are in sore need of tax relief. Yet the floor remains.
And I notice some other examples. On the T-l form among the deductions allowed there will be seen a deduction of 20 per cent of net dividends from taxable Canadian corporations. Prior to the budget a married man with no children would have been permitted an income of $9,760, under this provision, without paying a cent of tax. As a result of the budget and as a result of the continuance of this feature in the income tax, today the same married man with no children can earn up to $11,131 in income without having to pay a single cent of tax.
I suggest there is something drastically wrong with an income tax set-up which permits a person who derives his income from clipping coupons to receive over $11,000 by way of income during a year without becoming liable for taxation on that income while, at the same time, those who earn their incomes in the form of wages or salaries or commissions, or from the sale of farm produce, are required to pay income tax on everything over the allowable limit.
Clearly here is an example of the lack of concern of this government for the wage earners who are so sorely pressed by taxes of all kinds. I suggest that before members of the government wax too enthusiastic over this budget they should give serious consideration to the discontinuing of factors of that kind.
Then we find also preferential treatment given with respect to deductions in the corporation income tax. Once again as happened a few years ago when adjustments were made in personal and corporation income tax rates we find that the corporation income tax rates have been made retroactive to January 1, whereas the rates affecting the personal income tax do not become operative until July 1. Here again on the one hand we find those who are going to benefit as a result of deductions in corporation income tax getting the full year's benefit, so far as those reductions are concerned, while those in the personal income tax brackets do not receive benefits until July 1.
There are other items in the budget which were not given too much prominence by the Minister of Finance. For example, the incentive tax concessions for oil, gas and mining companies, which had been effective on a rather indefinite basis, are now made permanent under the provisions of this budget.
Then there are a number of other things concerning which the budget must be scored because of the absence of provisions which would allow a more equitable tax structure in this country. For example, we have no capital gains tax; and I suggest that any equitable tax structure should make provision whereby those deriving income from capital gains would bear their fair share of the tax load. Capital gains are a form of wealth accumulation not generally the result of any useful economic activity or work; and yet they are given preferential tax-free treatment by this government. Capital gains have played a very outstanding role in the creation of large fortunes, to a point where it could be said that such capital gains have been the main source of those fortunes. I suggest capital gains should be taxed, just as any other addition to income should be taxed.
Then we have another notable absence, that of the absence of an excess profits tax. I would draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that in 1948 the government removed this tax. I think there are some very interesting figures which bear out my contention that there was no need for its removal at that time, and that any tax relief afforded these companies was in turn borne by the taxpapers as a whole.
I have in my hand a report from the Bank of Canada which gives a cross-section survey of 704 companies in Canada having assets of $200,000 or more. This report indicates that in 1947, the last full year before the removal of the excess profits tax, those 704 companies in Canada had net profits, before taxes, of some $742-4 million. In the year following the removal of the excess profits

tax those same companies earned $856'4 million; and in 1953 they were earning net incomes, before taxes, of $1,147-6 million.
It is clear from the statistics I have given that there was absolutely no justification for the removal of the excess profits tax at that time, because since the removal of the tax the profits of Canadian corporations have gone up. Here is a perfect example of the willingness of the government to come to the assistance of those who need it least. Because certainly no one could argue that in 1947, when the decision was made to remove the excess profits tax, these companies were in sore need, and that the tax should have been removed.
I have cited some of these instances of injustice in our taxing structure to support my main point. Each example in itself, as I pointed out, is very important; but when they are taken together we see the pattern and realize what is the philosophy of the Minister of Finance and the government, that when it comes to tax reductions or tax concessions they are far more concerned about the business interests than they are about the small taxpayers and the low income groups throughout the country.
I suggested the other evening that in the final analysis the real test of the budget would be with respect to its contribution toward the solution of our major economic problems. I suggested that the budget is an instrument of government policy, and whether we like it or not, in our modern day and age, the budget is of necessity an instrument of social planning. Therefore, it is not merely a question of bringing about adjustments in the tax rates and judging the budget on the basis of whether the tax reductions are as large as we would hope; for the budget must, in the final analysis, be judged upon the effect it will have on the economy of this country and toward the solution of the difficulties facing Canada at the present time.
I do not think any of us need to be reminded of the major economic problem facing this country. I suggest that our major problem is a two-sided one. It consists on the one side of falling farm net income and on the other of mounting unemployment. In spite of all the efforts of the government to minimize the importance of these two factors, the white paper brought in at the time of the budget indicates what we have been arguing for many years, namely, that there has been a steady, precipitous drop in farm income. The white paper revealed a drop of 30 per cent, and it is the third consecutive year in which there has been a serious drop in farm income.
Now, with respect to unemployment, a few weeks ago I had occasion to say something
The Budget-Mr. Ellis
about the unemployment problem, but since that time there have been a number of items on which I should like to comment. In the first instance, in looking to the government for some sort of leadership and to government supporters for some suggestion as to how we are to deal with the unemployment problem, it was quite significant that the only suggestions we heard from the government side of the house were two which were made during the external affairs debate when the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) suggested that we deal with the seasonal unemployment problem by putting the unemployed in the army during the winter months. If he left any doubts as to what he meant, they were removed by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor), who rose in his place and said it would be a splendid idea and certainly it would take care of these men who are out of work, to put them in the army between November 1 and April 1, or May 1. Apparently, that is the only suggestion that has come from the government side with respect to finding jobs for our unemployed.
I suggest further that the Prime Minister has made a number of statements which I feel are too bluntly indicative of the government's attitude toward unemployment. Since the provincial premiers are in Ottawa at the present time working out an agenda for the forthcoming dominion-provincial conference, I certainly am not going to try to speculate on the result of such deliberations, but I must comment on certain remarks made by the Prime Minister.
We in the C.C.F. have long maintained that the supporters of free enterprise accept a certain amount of unemployment. As a matter of fact, we can go farther and say that big business desires a surplus of workers over jobs, and that they see nothing wrong in a certain percentage of unemployment in this country. The thing that worries us is how many unemployed we must have in Canada before the government considers it has any responsibility in this matter. It will be recalled that earlier in the year when the figures were mounting month by month the government was unwilling to take any action except in the form of relief. These are the only suggestions we have had from the government.
Now, we have made statements to the effect that under free enterprise a certain percentage of unemployment is accepted, and for so doing we have often been abused or ridiculed. I think the Prime Minister's speech the other day is clearly indicative of the fact that the government accepts a certain amount of unemployment; because in his welcoming remarks to the provincial premiers he suggested

The Budget-Mr. Ellis
that the federal government might be prepared to contribute something toward the relief of unemployment beyond a certain minimum figure. In other words, the government was quite prepared to have so many unemployed in the country, and it was only when the number of unemployed went beyond a particular figure-we have not any information as to what the level is-the government considered it had any responsibility toward supplying even relief, much less work and wages. We in this movement maintain that the right to work ought to be the birthright of every Canadian citizen.
During the war years when the late President Roosevelt and Winston Churchill met and formulated the Atlantic charter, one of the provisions which struck a responsive chord throughout the world was "freedom from want". We can interpret that to mean the right of every citizen to earn his own bread. I say that any government which cannot, in the words of the Prime Minister, manage its affairs in such a manner that jobs can be provided is unfit to govern.
We were forewarned in this house as to the attitude the Prime Minister was going to take, because it will be recalled that on Monday last he was asked by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) a question regarding unemployment. In answer to the hon. member the Prime Minister said, as recorded on page 3122 of Hansard:
I say that it is my intention to suggest that relief for needy persons, whether employable or unemployable, be discussed at this meeting with the provincial premiers.
At that point the hon. member for Assini-boia (Mr. Argue) interjected this remark:
How about work for them?
Well, I need not remind the house of the answer; I prefer to use inverted commas around the word "answer". The Prime Minister refused bluntly even to consider a work and wages program. He thinks only in terms of direct relief. Surely, Mr. Speaker, we have learned our lessons from the past, the economic imbecility of the thirties when millions of dollars were poured down the drain for direct relief, with nothing to show for them except the disillusionment, the embarrassment, the demoralization of so many of our people. If we have learned from the lessons of the past, we should certainly have learned the lesson that the only way to deal with unemployment is to provide jobs, not relief.
It is rather strange that the Prime Minister, who today has turned his back flatly on a work and wages program, is the same man who just a few months ago made a speech in the city of Quebec in which he stated quite

categorically that it was the responsibility of the government to provide employment, and if the government could not so organize its economic activities as to provide jobs for all, then that government should resign. It is the same Prime Minister who heads the government today who is absolutely refusing to consider anything but a paltry contribution to direct relief. Today we find that the suggestions offered to the provincial premiers is that we shall pay between 30 per cent and 50 per cent of the relief costs, and the remainder will be borne by the already over-harassed, over-burdened provinces and municipalities.


Mr. Knowles:: Over-Harrised is right.


Alfred Claude Ellis: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre certainly deserves a big mark for that interjection. We have reached the stage today when we must accept the fact that relief is not the answer. I shall grant you that relief is a stop-gap. I realize there are people in need in Canada today and their needs have to be met today, not tomorrow, not next week, but today. But that should be a stop-gap only. The government should be taking steps to provide employment, and the amazing thing is that the Prime Minister has accepted this sort of thing. I am going to read another excerpt from the speech made by the Prime Minister at Quebec. He said this:
We are told that for some time now construction industry activities have been slowing down slightly. We have deliberately held back a great number of construction projects we want to launch. We did not wish to compete with private industry, with Canadian individuals, in the hiring of workers and purchase of materials. But we have a duty to prevent a drop in the construction industry and we are going to prevent it.
How does the Prime Minister tie that statement in with the type of statement he made to the provincial premiers yesterday? The Prime Minister made the categorical statement that the federal government has deliberately held back certain construction projects. I should like to know what those construction projects are. Would the Prime Minister care to name them? Let us know what these projects are and how many there are. Let us know when they are going to proceed with them. We have no information whatsoever. Yet the Prime Minister made the categorical statement that they had been deliberately holding back on construction projects until such time as there was a slackening in industrial activities.
Someone mentioned the South Saskatchewan dam. On that point, the premier of Saskatchewan wrote to the Prime Minister, immediately .after reading this wonderful speech the right hon. gentleman made in

Quebec city, congratulating him on it and suggesting that, now that the Prime Minister had revealed that the present government had been holding certain projects in reserve, perhaps one of those projects might be the South Saskatchewan dam. The Prime Minister replied to the premier of Saskatchewan, informing him that the government did not consider the South Saskatchewan project as one which was being held in reserve and that that project would be considered on its merits. My suggestion is this. If there was merit in the project before unemployment came along, certainly there is twice the merit in this project now. If the government had any hesitancy in going ahead with that project three or four years ago, much less 15 years ago when the Liberals first promised it, there is certainly plenty of argument today for starting that project immediately.
In connection with that dam, it is very interesting that on March 9 the government tabled sessional paper 106-A, which contained a copy of all correspondence between the government of Saskatchewan and the government of Canada regarding the South Saskatchewan dam and irrigation projects. It is exactly one year tomorrow since the premier of Saskatchewan wrote to the Minister of Agriculture in the federal cabinet, reminding Mr. Gardiner that by common admission previous to this the only remaining obstacle to agreement as to whether the federal government was prepared to go ahead with this project was the matter of the contribution the government of Saskatchewan would be called upon to make towards the construction of the dam itself.
In view of the emphasis placed by federal officials on the possibility of subsidization of power by the federal government in making a federal contribution to this dam, Mr. Douglas pointed out in his letter that by a figure agreed between representatives of the federal government and provincial government the value of the power which would be made available to Saskatchewan through the building of this dam would amount to some $17,860,000. The province had previously agreed to pay all the cost of the building of the hydroelectric generating stations. So here definitely was the commitment by the province of Saskatchewan that they were prepared to pay not only the full cost of building the power stations at the dam site but also $17,860,000 towards the construction of the dam itself. Certainly this removed any possible thought in the minds of any hon. gentlemen that in going ahead with this project federal moneys would in any way be used to subsidize the generation of power in the province of Saskatchewan,
The Budget-Mr. Ellis
Mr. Douglas went on to point out that, as we are well aware, this was initially a federal project. It was promised to the people of Saskatchewan year in and year out by Liberal politicians. The Minister of Agriculture was the foremost of those who promised the dam. They have used that promise to get votes in more elections than one, and this was largely instrumental in their victory in the Rosthern by-election a few years ago. When the people of Saskatchewan finally got around to asking the government of Canada when they were going to proceed with the dam, the reply was, "We are waiting until the provincial government agrees to pay its share." That came as a big shock to the provincial government because they had always understood that it was a purely federal project. There are many people in Saskatchewan who feel that the federal government deliberately put forth that requirement hoping that the provincial government would turn it down and then the Liberals could go up and down Saskatchewan saying, "We were prepared to build this dam, but the C.C.F. provincial government has denied that dam to us." But the provincial government, much as they might have been put out by this sudden change, agreed that they would participate in the building of the dam, though every time they got close to agreement the Minister of Agriculture came forth with new conditions. Each time these new conditions were brought forth, it appears quite obvious that the federal government was doing everything it could to get off the hook and to throw the responsibility on the shoulders of the provincial government.
The situation was simply this, that this started out as a purely federal project. There have been meetings of the technical staffs of the provincial and the federal government, and they have arrived at these figures. They decided that to build the main reservoir and dam would cost $80 million; the irrigation system would cost $35 million; and the power system $20 million; making a total of $135 million. This was at the outset a purely federal matter. The provincial government agreed to pay the cost of the power stations, $20 million. They agreed to pay for the cost of the irrigation work, $35 million. But even that was not enough. After we had gone out of our way to accommodate the federal government, it turned around and said, "That is not enough; we want you to pay a share of the cost of the reservoir itself". It felt certain that the provincial government could not meet these exacting demands. The provincial government have enough faith in the province, and were prepared to undertake a venture of this kind. The provincial

The Budget-Mr. Ellis
government said, "All right, we will decide on a figure which we feel we might pay to bring about some satisfactory conclusion of these negotiations." As a result of meetings between the technical staffs of P.F.R.A. and the provincial government, it was agreed that the province of Saskatchewan would be called upon to pay, in addition to the $55 million to which they had already committed themselves, an additional $17,860,000. One might have thought that certainly they would go ahead with it now because, in a project that originally began as a federal undertaking, the provincial government is committed to spend $73 million and the federal investment is only $62 million. The province, with a population of less than a million, is prepared to pay over half the cost of the project, and the federal government has not yet made up its mind as to whether it will go ahead with the project.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I am obliged to advise him that his time has expired.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Speaker, I am just concluding my remarks. I do want to say-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Has the hon. member unanimous consent to proceed?


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Alfred Claude Ellis: I can conclude briefly. I want to conclude simply by making these remarks. Up to the present time the situation has been simply this. Representatives of the provincial government have been meeting with representatives of the federal government. They have been sitting down and working out the details of a draft agreement which was brought up for consideration last fall. Yet all during these negotiations the provincial government was in the rather ridiculous situation that even if they acceded to every request made by the federal representatives, there was still no guarantee that the federal government would go ahead and build the dam. In other words, even if the representatives of P.F.R.A. and the representatives of the federal government were to come to complete agreement with the provincial authorities, all it would take is a shake of the head by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) to have done with the whole project.
I therefore say that we have now reached the stage where I believe the province of Saskatchewan has indicated its good faith. It has perhaps gone further than many people think we should have gone. But we want this dam built. It will be a great boon, or a great shot in the arm to our economy. It will aid our employment situation in this country.
I think here is a practical example of how

the government can now get down to business and do something towards the solution of our unemployment problem.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I have two reasons for taking part in this debate. The first is that I have something to say and the second is that I represent a constituency that is worth representing. I was one of those who congratulated the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris); and notwithstanding anything that has been said, even by the hon. member who has just spoken, I did not change my mind because I believe he was right and that he deserves any encouragement that he gets. I know that the Minister of Finance did not bring down his budget in order to please the opposition. If he had tried to do so, he just could not do it nor could anybody else. The Minister of Finance is just like the other three men I knew who preceded him. He is steady, optimistic and progressive. He is one of those who stand solidly for stable government and he is a credit to Canada.
I agree with the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees) when he said that this was a popular budget after he had made his statement and his suggestions. It is a popular budget. There are those who would back up the minister, including the fishermen, the automobile companies, and those with lower income taxes and the farmers. I know that each of these classes would like to have more, but that is human nature. We want more and more of the material things.
To me the outstanding thing in the budget was the reference to the royal commission. Of that matter I will speak later. I do not agree with the amendment moved by the leader of the C.C.F. I do not think the government should hand over money to any province without having a say as to how it is to be spent. Just imagine the dominion government handing over money to the province of Ontario which hardly knows what to do with all its money, and which always has a big surplus. Just imagine the dominion government handing over money to the province of Quebec. The premier of Quebec would say, "We are able to handle our own business and we can carry on without you".


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the hon. member not support the taxation agreements?


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I am not in any big hurry, Mr. Speaker, but I will answer any question afterwards. Let us consider the province of British Columbia. I do not think it is a poor province. Let us look at the province of Alberta with all their millions made out of oil. Do they want a handout from the dominion government? I know that most

of the provinces have a little bit of "Scotch" in them, and they will take any given quantity.
I commend the government for its trade policy, especially for the one outstanding act. I think even the opposition commended the government for that act, in view of the farewell that was given to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). I think that a wise move was made in sending him to Australia and New Zealand. As somebody said at that time-perhaps it was myself- he is an outstanding salesman for Canada and he will do a good job. We shall look forward to his report when he comes back.
I know that we need good crops. While I bear the name of a prophet, I am not much of a prophet. However, I would say that in the last 60 years in Canada I never knew a year when we had a big fall of snow that we had a poor crop. This year we have snow everywhere and little frost in the ground. I therefore expect that the benefit of this snow that has fallen will result in a good crop.
I should just like to tell the Minister of Finance how he might make a little bit of money or save a little bit. In the city of Fort William we pay $33,000 out in rent. I have advocated a federal building. I would suggest, according to my own figuring, that you can build for $200,000 a building that will house these offices, with a little bit of space to spare. Therefore in about six years that building would be clear. I think that this is absolutely necessary.
I commend the Minister of Finance for the reduction from 4 per cent to 2 per cent in the taxing ability of our cities. That does not come low enough for Fort William. Ours is 1-7. We need another -3. But I think we shall get this later on when we get our public buildings.
We have four large buildings in Fort William and we think that they should have some help from the dominion government. Let us consider our big post office building. In it are several large offices for the Canadian mounted police. Public works have a great big corner; agriculture have a corner, and immigration have a corner as well as have the post office. That is an important building. Then, with its three storeys, there is the old post office that was renovated in which are the unemployment insurance offices. Then we have a customs building that houses the customs offices and income tax offices. Then we have the armoury and the air field. We think that we should have some consideration and that we should have a public building.
I know there are those who say that we have hard times in Canada. I do not
The Budget-Mr. Mclvor believe that. When I want to get a holiday, I often make a trip around the beer parlours and places that sell the thing that some people think is good. I should be glad to take the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) with me some time. I will show him some things. If one goes in after five o'clock, one will find that he will have a hard time to get a seat to get a drink.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is this the story of Daniel
in the lions' den?


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I would suggest that in 1953 in Canada $868 million was spent for alcoholic beverages and for tobacco, $465 million. I think anybody would agree with me that anyone who uses those things, even moderately, and on which he spends his loose cash, does not find that they do him much good. Here we have $1,333 million spent for things that do not bring any material result or mental health and do not supply any requirement of the individual. What do the C.C.F. say about that $1,333 million? That is more than is spent on schools in Canada. Yet it is said that the country is going to the bowwows. If it is, it is not because of the dominion government.
As I said, I commend the Minister of Finance for his royal commission. I would suggest to him that all phases of our economic system be thoroughly examined. I would also suggest that local mayors and councillors be considered. I think consideration should be given to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) with reference to the guaranteed annual wage and also to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) to the effect that military training be set up in the fall of each year. But I would say that it absolutely must not be done by way of conscription. It must be on a voluntary basis.
I know that our major problem is unemployment. I think we have no right to be pessimistic at the present time because of the fact of the dominion-provincial conference which is now meeting and tackling this job. Notwithstanding what was said by the hon. member who has just taken his seat, I commend the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) for making the suggestion of paying 50 per cent of the cost of assisting the unemployed. I am sure those who will be spending this money will not give it as a relief handout but that it will be spent to pay decent wages for work done.
I have said before that Fort William led the parade in Canada in showing how to cure unemployment. Unemployment should have been higher there this year than last year

The Budget-Mr. McLeod and yet because of the "do it now" campaign there were 800 fewer unemployed in Fort William when I was at home at Easter than there were a year ago. If every city, including Winnipeg, had done the same thing there would be a big hole in the unemployment problem today.
I believe somebody found fault with the United Nations and expressed the view that it was doomed to failure. In my opinion the United Nations is on the right road. When the Great Teacher was asked "who is my neighbour?" He said that it was anyone in need no matter where the individual lived. When the dominion government supports the Colombo plan and sends money to feed hungry people they are getting into the position where, according to the Divine Teacher, .they are going to live.


Mr. G. W. McLeod (Okanagan-Revelsloke):: Mr. Speaker, in making a few remarks in the budget debate I will try not to become too vociferous or rhetorical, but it comes to my mind that it is over three weeks since the budget was presented and I believe it is generally accepted at the present time that it is pretty well forgotten. That does not speak too well for the budget. However, so far as I am concerned, I believe it was as good a budget as we could expect from a Liberal government working under the outmoded set of fiscal and financial policies by Which they are trying to govern the country.
An amendment was introduced by the Conservative party and a subamendment by the C.C.F. In his budget speech our leader advised the house that we would support these amendments on general principles. With respect to the subamendment, the matter of provincial and municipal taxation is certainly a problem. We all know that the only source of revenue for municipalities and school districts is direct land taxes. Such funds should not and cannot be used for welfare payments to unemployed employables. It is also regrettable that there was no plan in the budget for remission of excise taxes on purchases of machinery, equipment and other supplies necessary in the maintenance and operation of community projects and for school purposes. However, in the light of the proposed federal-provincial conference I think we should possibly withhold our criticism. I am sure that the fields of taxation will be the big issue at the conference, and I am satisfied that the provinces will be able to set forth their case for a new deal in taxation better than we are able to do here.
I have followed very closely the speeches of our socialist friends in this debate, and here I should like to comment on the speech
[Mr. Mclvor.l

of the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. Ellis), who spoke a few minutes ago. He is quite concerned about a program of jobs for all. I am sure we all wish to have the privilege of earning our own living, but I believe that the problem before the government today in the face of mechanized production is rather to devise a plan to distribute the profits earned by the machines and to institute a program to educate our people how to enjoy the life of leisure which will be their lot in the very near future.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) discoursed in his usual clear and decisive manner but I noted the absence of any great emphasis on nationalization of industry or banicing which was the cry in former years. Could it be that time has a mellowing effect, or is it that he has come to the conclusion that such policies do not appeal to the great majority of the Canadian people? I have noticed a new phrase creeping into the speeches of the various members of the C.C.F. group-public investment. Just what is meant by this phrase? It could be investment in public buildings, in roads and bridges, in hospitals or it could be in industry. Possibly as the days pass we shall have an explanation of this new phrase, but I venture to predict there will be as many definitions as there will be C.C.F. speakers. I make this prediction on the basis of what has been happening in the discussions of various matters before the house, especially in relation to foreign affairs. I am afraid the C.C.F. is not a very happy family. By the way, Mr. Speaker, do you know what "C.C.F." stands for? It is supposed to mean "Co-operative Commonwealth Federation", but I would say that today these letters stand for confusion, chaos and frustration.
I had expected to learn much from our Conservative friends. The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) has again proven that he is a master critic. In a very long speech he poured forth criticism after criticism, expressing great alarm over deficit budgeting. We know the hon. member is a great exponent of sound money and sees inflation around every corner. Note these words of his as found on page 2947 of Hansard of April 19:
Deficits mean higher purchasing power with a tendency toward higher prices.
Again at page 2948 he said:
Is the government so bankrupt that in the face of difficulties that we all know we are facing now its only expedient is the old-fashioned one of debasing the currency?
That sounds like the talk we heard in the old days of the gold standard, but now when our money is backed only by the production

of our people his thinking might be revised. When we have an annual wealth production of $24 billion compared with a gross national income of some $18 billion, there is a wide gap to bridge before we need to worry about inflation or debasing the currency. I should also like to refer to what another Conservative had to say. As found at page 3009 of Hansard of April 20, the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees) said:
A temporary deficit in my opinion would be well worth while if, by so doing, trade were stimulated and there was a stimulation of production to the point where in the near future it would be greater than it is at the present time.
I should like to know which is the Conservative viewpoint. I should think the national organizer of the once great Conservative party and the recognized financial critic would get together. I thought the hon. member for Broadview made a very good speech up to a point. I am sorry to say, however, that there are a couple of pages in Hansard containing the worst drivel I have heard since coming to this House of Commons. It is difficult to realize that these words were spoken by the very great national leader who is destined to lead the Conservative party from oblivion.
I cannot let the opportunity pass without referring to the speech of our leader, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low). He gave a very clear outline of the reaction of the Social Credit group to the budget, and where there was criticism there were suggestions concerning remedial measures. In other words there was constructive criticism. We in this group are behind him 100 per cent. I shall endeavour to present a few more of our views. The hon. member for Peace River mentioned that the injection in the arm for industry contained milk, but in so far as the farm industry is concerned I would say it was rather blue milk. Listen to this quotation from page 2738 of Hansard dealing with tariffs:
A number of the reductions will benefit farmers, directly or indirectly. They include reduction or elimination of tariffs on brooders for farm animals, certain components of feedstuffs, sweet potato seedlings-
That is the part that amuses me.
-poultry eviscerating equipment, and others.
I wonder how many cents this will save the average Canadian farmer. I doubt if it will offset the increase in the tariff on ethylene glycol now so commonly used. I was glad to hear that the tariff on potatoes is to be referred to the tariff board. I would have liked to see fruits and vegetables included. However, one thing at a time is pretty good for the Liberals.
The Budget-Mr. McLeod
I should like to say how closely I studied the speech of the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) concerning the annual wage, which is a problem that must be faced. Working men will insist on a steady income, and this is their right. The Social Credit group has always advocated a continuity of income. Is the annual wage the answer? We doubt it. We are not saying it is impossible, but many problems exist. In order to satisfy all our people under present conditions there would have to be full employment. Is this going to be possible under normal peacetime conditions and with automation only in its infancy? You may say that manual labour must share in the profits of the machine and to a great extent that is true, but a machine also incurs some expenses in its operation. Then, too, other countries in the world might not have an annual wage plan, so what about price competition?
Some people believe we are now pricing ourselves out of world markets. Could industry pay annual wages to a large percentage of employees and still keep prices competitive? These are questions we must ask ourselves and for which answers must be found. Is one year's severance pay a sufficient guarantee to a worker in the face of total or near total mechanization of industry? I believe the answer must be no. If the annual wage is forced on industry it will wreck our entire economy. In that event we would have to subsidize industry to keep up our production in the face of foreign competition, or build an impassable tariff wall around our nation.
We believe there is a better way. We believe our Canadian people are entitled to the security of a steady income. We believe the Canadian economy, with its high standard of production and with our vast national wealth, can supply each Canadian citizen with sufficient income to enjoy a high standard of living. But we believe it should be done by the national dividend system, bringing up the earnings of labourers to the level our economy can afford. I realize, Mr. Speaker, that this is one of the biggest problems facing industry and the government today. I would suggest that each member of this house carefully study the whole question, free from the bias of political thinking.
In my opinion the most noteworthy item in the whole budget is the notice of a plan to establish a royal commission to study our economy. I do not like that word "royal", it sounds too much like a judicial inquiry. The Social Credit group has advocated a board similar to this ever since our policies were first enunciated. We are not satisfied

The Budget-Mr. McLeod with the duties of this commission as set forth by the minister on page 2740 of Hansard. He said:
The government intends, therefore, to appoint a royal commission with instructions to look ahead and examine carefully our future economic prospects. The sort of study we have in mind would include probable developments both in our productive capacity and in our external markets. It would include an examination of our population growth in both its regional and age distribution aspects. It would assemble information and speculate thoughtfully about the magnitude and nature of our future requirements for the great varieties of physical amenities which contribute to a steadily rising level of well-being.
I take it, Mr. Speaker, that is what is commonly spoken of as the terms of reference. Within the limits of those terms the commission or board would function. In speaking of the results the minister said on page 2741 of Hansard:
I think the work of this royal commission will do several things. It will focus public attention, here and abroad, in a rather specific and detailed way on our prospects. It will gather together the considerable amount of material already in existence, but scattered in many different places, that throws light on these problems.
The first result mentioned was that it would focus public attention here and abroad. Since the minister placed that result first it must have been the most important one the minister hoped to achieve through the working of this commission. I feel that is a secondary result. The other results are more important. The fourth result the minister mentioned was as follows:
It will sharpen our understanding of some of the problems we face, and will provide useful guides to governments and businessmen, and to leaders in all walks of life, in making plans and policies for the future.
Of course the terms of reference are indefinite and quite vague, and just what this commission will study is possibly something to be decided in the future. However, I should like to lay before the house what we believe should be included in the terms of reference, or some of the conditions under which this board should be set up.
In the first place, we believe it should be permanent. It should consist of top level economists, scientists, engineers, all versed in industrial development, production and distribution, in international trade, international fiscal policy, finance and agriculture. Of course representatives of labour and management would have to be included. The terms of reference must be limited only by the knowledge required by the government in administering the affairs of the people of Canada in the best interests of each individual.


At the present time it is pretty well admitted that the greatest problems of production, so far as supplying the needs of our own people are concerned, have been solved. We can produce plenty for our own consumption, but our problems in meeting competition in world markets are many. These will be for the board to study so they may report to the interested parties.
It is generally agreed that the main problem today is distribution rather than production. We have so-called surpluses, yet we know there is a potential demand for many of those surpluses right here in Canada. We also know that every dollar's worth of goods piled in our warehouses is sorely needed in many parts of the world. Why do we have unsold goods when the need is so great? That, it seems to me, is a problem that could be considered by such a board.
We Social Crediters believe we have the answer. We believe that whatever we can produce from our natural resources, plus the labour and know-how of our people, can and must be distributed to meet the demands of our people, by maintaining a proper balance between the purchasing power in their hands and the cost of the goods and services they require. We feel there is need for such a board as is recommended to work out the details and mechanics of the problem, and to advise the government accordingly.
The first problem of such a board would be to study the breakdown of our system of distribution. I am sure its findings would be similar to those of the commission set up in the United States in the early thirties. This was known as the Hoover commission, and its purpose was to study the problems of production and consumption. When this study had been completed Mr. Loeb, who was director of the national survey of potential productive capacity, along with his associates Felix Frazer, Graham Montgomery, Walter Polakov, William Smith and Montgomery Schuyler, published a book entitled "The Chart of Plenty". From this book I should like to read what appears at page 78:
At present, production is curtailed to meet a grossly inadequate buying power.
We have a similar state of affairs in this country right at the present time. Our production is curtailed to meet a grossly inadequate buying power. Factories are being forced to close down or to curtail production, thus causing unemployment and further decreasing our purchasing power.
Then at page 161 we'find this statement by these noted economists:
It apparently takes about two-thirds of our workers, and an even smaller utilization of plant, to provide mere sustenance for our whole people.

By using all our available workers and operating the existing plant efficiently, a comfortable living for everyone would be provided.
I wish the government well in the formation of this commission, and trust they will secure the best brains available, regardless of political affiliation or expediency; and I trust that when the findings are made known every effort will be made to shape our economy to best serve the needs of the Canadian people. If this is done I am sure the finding will be as is set out in this paragraph from the same book:
It would seem that the simple and obvious way out, that of giving a buying power adequate to procure desired goods and services to the limit of our ability to produce them, might well be tried. It is simple in principle but has not been attempted.
Mr. Speaker, that is what those of us in the Social Credit group have been advocating on different occasions both in the house and throughout the country. It is just the old Social Credit philosophy that the buying power in the hands of the people must be sufficient for them to purchase the needed goods and services with which they may enjoy life.
Then there are one or two other points I have noted in the budget, concerning which I should like to give the government credit. There is mention of the huge sums spent on various surveys and studies in government laboratories across the country. Those of us who last year were permitted to visit the laboratories on the Montreal road will agree that science is doing much to help industry promote a better way of life in Canada. Then some were able to visit the laboratory operated by the Department of National Health and Welfare, and I cannot commend too highly the work being undertaken by that department in promoting a better way of life and a healthier life for the people of Canada.
One may talk about unemployment, or about what the government should do, or what must be done; but I am satisfied that if the one plan were instituted, that of making financially possible what is physically possible, many of our problems would disappear.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, one cannot help commenting on the remarks of the hon. member who has just taken his seat, who said that others who might be more expert and more learned have had their speeches described as drivel. Then the hon. member proceeded to say, very definitely, that the Social Credit group has the answer to our problems. Well, this would seem to be a clear case of undue modesty. I thought, however, that words he used later, when he referred to that old Social Credit philosophy, were somewhat more appropriate.
50433-204i
The Budget-Mr. Bell
It would seem that the theme of the budget offered this year by the Minister of Finance is a gross national product of $25,250 million. Indeed even the more optimistic gauge of $26 billion was given. I for one am in agreement with the optimistic forecast of the business picture for this year. The Minister of Finance referred to our dependence on the United States economy, a condition which I believe is recognized by most hon. members. In fact there are many who hold the view that this dependence has taken on alarming proportions.
However, in signifying my agreement with the optimistic outlook for this year I would refer to the issue of Fortune for January, 1955, where in the first article for the new year this magazine sets out a comprehensive business round-up of the financial picture in the United States. This article was most enlightening, and after reading it one could almost suggest that the minister got his budget suggestions from it. The first sentence of this article which bears the heading "Best Year Ever" states:
The year 1955 will be the best in U.S. history, barring war. By the end of 1954 the business upturn had burgeoned into a full fledged recovery. Roundup's forecast now is that business will continue to improve at least through the second quarter of 1956.
With this quotation from a reliable United States publication, I think my agreement with the gross national product estimate for this year can be readily understood. The question that follows from this gross national product estimate, Mr. Speaker, is naturally how one's particular area will share in this expected increase. In presenting a comprehensive survey of the coal mining industry the other evening, the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) suggested he did not feel the maritime areas would share to any great extent in this gross national product increase. I am sorry to say that I cannot go along with his statement, because for once we can report considerable progress in the past year, and an optimistic future is evident with perhaps certain reservations.
In New Brunswick the picture is particularly good for this year. I should like to try and develop the theme that our capital expenditures and other investments for the year have taken a commendable jump, and to my mind this means only that if these optimistic signs and trends can be continued and the mood that is now evident is given some assistance we shall be able, as someone has suggested, to pick ourselves up by our own bootstraps.
The article that is most pleasing to me in this regard is entitled "Supplement to Private

The Budget-Mr. Bell
and Public Investment in Canada, Outlook 1955, Regional Estimates." This is published by the Department of Trade and Commerce and deals with all the provinces, Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, in that order, giving the total capital expenditures and the percentage change.
The percentage change is what I am particularly referring to now. The change from 1953 to 1954 is given in the total, and from 1954 to 1955. The figures which I would like to place on Hansard show that in New Brunswick in the last two years we have had the highest increase in total capital expenditures of any province in Canada.
It is perhaps something new to say that a small province like ours is able to be so forward looking in this regard. The figures for 1953 showed a 7-9 per cent increase, and this year we lead again with a 27-7 per cent increase. The capital expenditures shown for each province represent the value of the construction work carried out in the province and the value of the machinery and equipment acquired for use within it. Such expenditures represent gross additions to the capital stock of the province and are a reflection of economic activity in that area.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, and having particular reference to the economic activity in the area, I should like to refer briefly to the local situation in Saint John. Last year I had occasion to be pessimistic about the situation there; but while I would not wish to go on record as saying that everything is perfect, there are some better signs. Again I attach the reservation to those good signs that certain assistance and encouragement must be given; but to me, Mr. Speaker, they do suggest that there is a mood of growing optimism, a mood that must be taken advantage of immediately.
The port situation is much better. Trade during the past winter season reached a much better level. Grain was moving again, and we felt this general economic increase. The unemployment picture was also somewhat better. It is not good, but some 800 fewer men were unemployed each week during the winter as compared with the corresponding week of the previous year. One worry, though, that I should like to mention concerns the future of some of the war contracts in our area. The local drydock, which is largely dependent on naval contracts, cannot make plans for the future because of this hackneyed, politics-ridden manner of handing out those patronage plums. For example, officials of the drydock, which is mainly engaged in naval construction work, must come to
	I
Ottawa every two or three months on their hands and knees, develop the local situation, emphasize the unemployment and general economic chaos that will result if they are not given work; and if they are good, and I suppose if they conform to other standards, they are given another contract that will last for another two or three months. Mr. Speaker, I say here, surely it should be possible to line up for the entire year the necessary plans in the defence production department.
The other day I was interested in hearing the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Ferguson) refer to an overseas trip he took during the past winter. He left from the noble port of Saint John, and I was privileged to wish him bon voyage. Whether it was necessary or not he made the mistake of coming back by the port of Halifax. The hon. member for Simcoe North is a very discerning traveller, and while he made note of the good facilities and conditions in Saint John as he passed through that port, he could not help but comment-in fact he felt he was obliged to comment-on conditions in the port of Halifax as regards customs and immigration, which held him up for long hours and caused him to stand in the cold and reach Montreal in a state of sheer exhaustion.
I wish to say one thing on that point, Mr. Speaker. In Saint John we are grateful for the fact that right after the war we built a $1,500,000 immigration shed that is one of the finest in the world. There is no question about it. It was built to handle at least a hundred immigrants a day. It was designed for that, and we were pleased when that new immigration shed was built with plans in mind for the future. But, Mr. Speaker, I take exception to the fact that this shed has not been used at all to the extent that was planned.
The other day I had occasion to ask in this house for the total of all immigrants landed since January 1, 1950, at Saint John, at Halifax and at other ports. I have the figures here, Mr. Speaker, and I should like to read them. Since 1950, 21,582 immigrants have passed through Saint John; through the port of Halifax, with the facilities that the hon. member found thoroughly inadequate and not properly managed, 292,632 immigrants have passed. What is the reason and logic behind that method of doing business in our country?
Having said that the economy in the province of New Brunswick is taking on an optimistic look, and having quoted figures that show we wish to help ourselves and that

we are digging down and finding the money- which is hard to come by in the so-called have-not provinces-having said that we are digging down and making that effort, I wish to refer to the fact that in the budget very little consideration is given to the development, both financial and industrial, that is needed in the province.
The Minister of Finance refers on page 2730 of Hansard to the second important ingredient, that is the second important consideration in the budget:
The second important ingredient of further expansion exists in the program for the construction of new capital facilities.
He goes on to stress this point, but no mention is made of any assistance or any new help to be given to the province. These two ingredients are important in the budget. The picture in the United States is stressed by the Minister of Finance as being of first importance. I agree with him 100 per cent. The second ingredient he mentioned is this expansion program that is needed for new capital facilities. I agree with him 100 per cent in that respect. But from there on I am sorry to say I part company with him because of the fact that the financial status of the provinces and the demands which they have to meet have not even been recognized in the budget.
May I refer to an article in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of February 18, 1955, entitled "Low-Cost Power" by Eric Dennis. I quote:
In introducing a bill in the House of Commons a few days ago for federal control over the use of international rivers for hydro purposes, the trade and commerce minister, C. D. Howe said: ". . . In fact, our industrial economy is largely built on low-cost electricity."
This fact, set out by the man who has guided Canada's economic development since the war years, pinpoints the troubles that have beset the maritime provinces over the period of many decades to a steadily increasing degree.
During the past war, when the various defence contracts were handed out to the different areas of Canada for the necessary war effort, we felt that down our way at last we would be given our just due, and that the encouragement that would follow these government-assisted industries would be welcome and noticeable. May I quote from a very interesting article called "The Economic Effects of the War on the Maritime Provinces of Canada" published by the institute of public affairs, Dalhousie University, written by one of our famous native sons, of whom we have many.
To digress a minute, it was interesting to me to put in a brief appearance at the conference yesterday of dominion and provincial ministers. Everyone was a little timid about
The Budget-Mr. Bell
going in at first and being recognized or seeing people, but one certainly was at ease as far as the maritimers were concerned, because you were falling all over provincial premiers and ministers from the maritimes.
To get back to "The Economic Effects of the War", I quote again, and I think this is the last time I shall be quoting. This was an economic survey made toward the end of the war on the entire maritime economy, with particular reference to defence contracts and the increase in industry that could be expected after the war by the maritimes. This is on page 13:
Thus, whereas the central provinces have achieved a great expansion in their industrial equipment and capacity as a result of the war, the maritimes have had little expansion of a permanent nature in their industrial equipment. The effects of this on the internal balance of industry will presumably be to increase the concentration of manufacturing industry in Canada and the general location advantages enjoyed by industries in the central provinces. Although no one can complain of this, for it was essential in wartime to develop war industry on the most suitable sites regardless of regional politics, it nevertheless is a probable consequence that the economic and political weight of the maritime provinces will be even less in the post-war than the pre-war period.
Having read reports like that and having realized the situation; having been told when we went after these defence contracts that we could not have them because we did not have the hydroelectric power available, we made long-range plans for the development of hydro in the maritimes and particularly in New Brunswick. I refer again to the minister's statement of the absolute necessity, in this day of quick development in Canada, for the ready availability of cheap hydroelectric power.
We have in New Brunswick a large amount of undeveloped natural power in our rivers. The situation began to take form in 1945 under the Liberal government then in power in the province. They made initial moves to correct this situation, and I wish that credit be given to them in this regard. They did not perhaps carry it through but, when the change of government came in that province in 1952-I remember the red letter day very well, September 22, 1952-our young, energetic, new government tackled this matter of the undeveloped hydro sites in New Brunswick with a businesslike, farsighted approach. They did not play politics with it either. When they introduced the initial motion in the house they appealed to the Liberal party who were then and still are in opposition; and there is a chance here to say that it may be some time before this situation is changed again. The Liberal opposition, in all fairness to them, joined the premier and government of that province in

The Budget-Mr. Bell a joint appeal to the federal government for certain assistance to enable us to finance the development of our rivers at a low rate of interest.
This situation developed, and I wish to say that at all points it was handled by the provincial and federal governments in a most businesslike manner. That I personally cannot object to. When it reached here, I am pleased to say that the Minister of Labour called a meeting in his office of all the federal New Brunswick members of both parties. He had maps and experts on hand, and we had a very careful and frank discussion of this future problem. I am pleased to say that all the members and the senators who were there showed acquiescence in this plan in various ways and in various degrees.
The situation developed in the last year in a peculiar manner. While I have some of the correspondence and records that I wish to place before this house, I notice that there is a motion to produce certain papers which probably will disclose a great many of the facts with which I would have to deal. So, Mr. Speaker, if I may, I should like to bring this situation up to date, to a few days ago when evidently the provincial government were given word, by letter or by some other method, that the federal government had decided, after two years of playing around with it and giving all encouragement, that it would not be possible to financially assist the province of New Brunswick in any manner in this development of our resources that is so greatly needed to finish the program we have so optimistically started down there.
Here is the thing that amuses me about the whole matter. It concerns the federal aspect of it, which is really all I feel responsible for. The Minister of Labour, our representative in the federal government, who seemingly took an interest in this matter and followed it along, instead of making some sort of announcement in the house, took occasion in a radio broadcast over a local station to say that financial help to Beech-wood was not possible because of the constitution.
Mr. Speaker, any other reason would have stood up to some extent; but to fall back on that argument and say that the refusal is because of the constitution seems to me amusing. The fact that the announcement was made in a radio broadcast to my mind suggests that the situation was not treated nearly as seriously as it should have been.
There is one other matter to which I wish to refer, namely the attitude of the federal Liberal members of parliament who represent New Brunswick. They acquiesced


in this proposal. They signified their approval of the Beechwood plan. But what have we heard from them in this house in this regard? We have heard absolutely nothing from them, Mr. Speaker, and I challenge them here now.
I see the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) over there on the opposite side. He made one brief reference to it in the debate on the speech from the throne. But I now say to him, to the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Murphy) and anybody else, that they should take the opportunity in this budget debate to get to their feet and let us know what they think about this plan. I will state this further. If the Minister of Labour does not get to his feet in this house during the budget debate or at some other favourable opportunity and make a statement on this matter, in my opinion he has not treated this serious problem in New Brunswick with the respect and dignity with which it should be treated.
Just to follow this matter up, Mr. Speaker, I should like to dwell on the national aspect of this financial assistance plan that we are after. We have had the gas pipe line up for consideration at various times. It was mentioned only in an insignificant way perhaps this year, but in other years it has been considered. It is of considerable importance to Canada. Nobody at all takes exception to it. We in the maritimes have always appreciated any of these problems that have a national aspect. Being a member of the Conservative party I certainly am aware of the national policy that is necessary for the development of this country. But, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we should be given some financial assistance along this same line.
At the time the pipe-line proposal was turned down, perhaps temporarily, it was said that the problem of assistance to New Brunswick for hydroelectric development was one thing that would have caused trouble. Where is the trouble there? We are asking for some financial assistance such as has been given to every other area of this country in some way or other. How about the St. Lawrence seaway? Is that project any different from another natural resource development?
In our province we are not going to benefit one bit from the St. Lawrence seaway, if I can say that in such a narrow way. It is going to take business farther inland. There is no question of the ports of the maritimes being assisted in any way. Yet we do not take any narrow point of view. We see that it is for our national development. The only point of view I take-and I digress a moment in connection with the seaway-is that we be given some information on it.

When this hydroelectric development plan was presented to the legislature in New Brunswick for the first time, a blackboard with the entire story was brought onto the floor of the legislature, all details were carefully gone into and it was explained fully. As this St. Lawrence seaway develops, and as changes are being made, I suggest that some method be devised by means of which all members can be completely informed about the whole business, instead of being given some coloured book on the St. Lawrence seaway authority or being asked to pass in the estimates some amount of $1 million or so and being told to question it. How can you question it? How can you find out anything about it?
There again I am getting away from our problem. I refer to the St. Lawrence seaway. I refer to the pipe line. I refer particularly to one other matter that I put in the same category, namely atomic power development in the country. When plans were lined up and we realized, perhaps a few years ahead of time, that there was some hope for nuclear development of power we in the maritimes- New Brunswick and Nova Scotia-naturally felt that we would be given the first choice. Here was the area in Canada that everybody said he wanted to help. Here was the area that had the labour, that had the initiative and that had everything except the power. We were told that on many occasions. But what happens when atomic energy comes around the corner? What do the central provinces do? By some devious method they either hinder our chance to take part in this development, or they completely exclude us from it.
Again there is an amusing and ironical element about the matter. They had edged us and coached us along. It is discouraging to see the way in which Nova Scotia, in their bid for hydroelectric power, was encouraged along. It had the first application in. It was told by the Minister of Trade and Commerce at various times that it was being considered; it was given to understand that its application was first, or No. 1. But what happened? There again it went to industry in central Canada. With those three thoughts I leave this story.
In closing I should simply like to review what I have said today. I first of all pointed out that I am in hearty agreement with the optimistic view of the Minister of Finance in budgeting for a gross national product of $25J billion and the further opinion that we may reach $26 billion. I think he deserves considerable credit for taking this optimistic point of view.
The Budget-Mr. Bell
I followed along by saying that in New Brunswick things are beginning to move. We definitely have a good optimistic mood down there now. We have a new government. They have tackled our economic problems in a sensible way. We have invested iii ourselves, Mr. Speaker. That is something which a great many of the other areas of Canada cannot say. We have led in that investment in ourselves in the last few years, and I put the figures on the record for everyone to see.
While this is good, and while there is a future, I went on to say that we must take advantage of it and that we must roll along, because these things come only once in a lifetime. We were hopeful that the budget would provide some sort of regional financial assistance to the provinces, but there was nothing in it.
We must have power, Mr. Speaker, to develop our industries. We must have power to take advantage of the money we have invested in our province. Power for our new mining industries can only be developed by money lent to us by the federal government at a low rate of interest. The province of New Brunswick could go out tomorrow and borrow money on any market in the world, but we would have to pay around 5 per cent for it. Hydroelectric power developed on that basis is not good enough, in view of the higher costs involved in maintaining industry.
We came to Ottawa in a non-political, nonpartisan, businesslike way. We thought we were being treated fairly, but what happened? We were given a complete run-around, in my opinion, and I am sure the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) and the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Montgomery) will join me when I challenge other members from the province who have not spoken on this matter to get up on their feet and tell us what they think about it.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to a statement made by the premier of the province when dealing with the motion to proceed with the Beechwood project on our own. In spite of the financial obstacles, our young members in the legislature have a clear, optimistic view of the project. These were the closing words of the premier's speech, delivered on March 25, 1955:
The construction of Beechwood is a major undertaking and I want to make it clear that it is only being undertaken and able to be undertaken because the credit of the province under this administration is sound enough to allow construction to go ahead. We have offered everyone concerned a chance to share in this great enterprise but the fact remains that the province, under the leadership of this government, must now undertake it upon its own resources. That fact should not be forgotten when the record of this government is considered by future generations.
3232	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Matheson
We are very hopeful about our future. We hope our proposal will still be considered, and that some official formal announcement will yet be made in this house. We all agree that the maritime economic council established a couple of years ago, a dream of the late Angus L. Macdonald, will have far-reaching effects on our economy. This council, which is to consider our industrial and financial development and present proposals in a united way for the first time, has a motto which expresses the hope that the maritimes will be a better part of a better Canada.


Mr. N. A. Matheson (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have spoken in the house since I was elected in 1953. I understand it is customary for members making their first speech to deal with matters pertaining specifically to their own constituencies. I want to talk about several phases of our economy in Prince Edward Island and tell you something about the excellent standards we have achieved in our primary products. I also want to say to the house that, although we are small in size, we have achieved top rank in the production of some of the very best products of this great country.
Before I go into that, may I make a general observation. I have noted with some concern a tendency toward sectionalism on the part of some in this chamber in their approach to problems that affect all of us as Canadians. I call this a great country, but how can it be great unless we, as elected representatives of the people, are broadminded enough to have the interests of all the people at heart?
I know that the problems of my province do not directly affect many people in other parts of Canada. You have problems that do not affect my people, but all these problems affect the economy of Canada. Therefore, to that extent at least, I think all of us should have mutual interests. For example, I hear spokesmen for farm groups saying the farmers are not getting a fair deal and their rightful share of the national income. They protest that we do not appreciate the position of the farmer, his value in the national economy and his worth. I use the farm spokesmen merely as an example. I could have referred to any one of a number of other groups.
I am going to tell you something about the farming achievements of Prince Edward Island, but before I do so may I suggest that if some hon. members do not appreciate the farmers' problems it may well be the fault of those members who are the spokesmen for areas where farming is the dominant factor. It may be we have failed to explain


the farmers' position and paint a true picture of his worth. We know that Canada needs a strong and growing agricultural economy, but have we made our urban friends aware of that fact?
Nobody is more conscious of some of the agricultural problems than I am. I know that many city folk fail to realize these problems. But I am not going to try to win the support of my urban friends by kicking them in the shins. I am not going to try to win their friendship and understanding by antagonizing them. I do not believe in carrying a chip on my shoulder when I am trying to sell my ideas to others.
May I, therefore, make this observation directed specifically to people in the city areas. Do not forget that you need the farmer. What would you and your families eat if he did not grow the foodstuffs that stock your great supermarkets? Do not forget that he often produces this food at a loss, or at a price that does not give him a working profit. Remember also that in producing the food he has to sell it at the price that somebody else wants to pay. Imagine a lawyer taking what his client wants to pay instead of the set fee which he demands and gets as his right. Imagine a merchant selling groceries, or clothing, or hardware or any other commodity for what the customer wanted to pay.
Before some of my city friends start throwing missiles at me, let me add that the farmer needs the city people just as much as they need him. If it were not for our great metropolitan centres, our smaller cities and towns, where would the farmer sell his products? I am not a farmer. I am a newspaperman, but I do own a small farm and live in the country. In that way I have kept closely in touch with the problems of the farmer.
If I may digress for a moment, I may say that for ten years I sat in the press gallery of our provincial legislature. I would feel much more at home in the press gallery here now than I do making my first speech in this chamber.
I speak of agricultural problems first because agriculture is the dominant factor in our provincial economy. My riding includes Charlottetown, our capital city and our largest centre. Therefore a large portion of my constituents are urban people. I have lived and worked among them for many years. But because we have no industries, as most of you understand the term, we depend for the most part on agriculture. We also have our fishing industry and our tourist business. Both of them are very important. I am not unmindful of the problems of city people

because I have lived and worked among them for 20 years. In fact recently at home I have been in closer touch with urban groups than I have been with the farm people, and I have tried to keep in close touch with them throughout the years.
One problem causing concern in our area now is the potato trade between our country and the United States. As many of you probably know, we work on a quota basis. We are allowed to ship into the United States-I say "we" but it is mostly New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island that fill the quota-2-5 million bushels of seed potatoes and 1 million bushels as table stock. There is a rider to the agreement, which is based on the total volume of the United States crop, which sometimes gives us the opportunity of shipping an extra amount of table stock. But even under the quota we pay a duty of 37-5 cents per hundred pounds, and for amounts above the quota we pay 75 cents per hundred pounds.
Some years ago the United States was given permission to ship potatoes into our country duty free. There is one exception which I should mention, and I believe that refers to about one month during the summer when protection is afforded to the growers in the southern Ontario peninsula. With that one exception I do not think United States shippers pay any duty at all on potatoes shipped into this country.
A few months ago potatoes were rolling across the border from Maine in such a volume that both growers and shippers in my province and New Brunswick viewed the problem with grave concern. The matter was brought to the attention of the responsible people here, and I was glad to hear the Minister of Finance say in his budget speech that it will be turned over to the tariff board for their consideration. I know that tariffs are a difficult and complicated problem, but I hope the board can find some solution for our particular difficulty.
The potato situation at home right now is good. Some two or three weeks ago the price soared to $3.20 a bushel, that is the price to the farmer. It is somewhat less now, but it is still good. However, sudden price fluctuations are bad for any industry. The potato industry is no exception. At their peak they cause terrifically high prices to the consumer, and therefore discourage consumption. They are often likely to cause very heavy planting the following year. The results are sometimes chaotic and at times even disastrous.
But potato growing is only one phase of our farming program. I want to tell you 50433-205
The Budget-Mr. Matheson something about our Yorkshire hogs. We have developed a special bacon type. The Canadian Press had a story last week concerning a new type of bacon hog that is being developed at the experimental farm at Lacombe, Alberta. The story says, in part, that they aim at faster maturing animals with more vigour. The dams are good mothers, the story says. The young pigs are bigger. It sounds like the sort of thing we have been developing for 30 years in our island Yorkshires. This is a big statement to make, but I am going to make it. We have the best bacon hog in this country. Here is the proof. It is from an official publication, and if anyone wants to check it, it is the Livestock Market Review, published by the marketing information section of the marketing service, Department of Agriculture, Ottawa, Canada.
This information appears on page 87 and is given in some detail, but I have summarized it to save time. You will find that in 1953 our island breeders had 51-3 per cent grade A or the top grade it is possible to produce in bacon hogs. Nova Scotia had 43-1 per cent and New Brunswick 38-1 per cent. The others were far behind. Last year Prince Edward Island had 53-6 per cent. Alberta was lowest with 18-2 per cent. The results for the other three years were the same. Our province was well ahead. In 1951 we had 53-1 per cent in the top grade. No other province can touch our record in the production of top grade bacon hogs.
Here is further proof of the excellence of our island Yorkshires and the high value people in other provinces place on them. I am quoting from the Charlottetown newspaper, the Guardian, under date of April 22, 1955. The heading is "Demand exceeds supply for famed island Yorkshires". The article reads in part:
"In the face of recent shipments of Yorkshire breeding stock from this province and in view of the expected requirements, our island breeders are not going to be able to meet outside demand", said Mr. H. W. Clay, senior livestock field man, production branch, federal Department of Agriculture, yesterday.
Mr. Clay is quoting from a letter written by Mr. Longman, deputy minister of agriculture in Alberta, to Mr. Frank Baker, western director of the Canadian industrial council of meat packers. Mr. Baker was in touch with Mr. Clay and the letter states in part -this is Mr. Longman speaking-
The question is-how can we bring this about? Why is P.E.I. attaining the reputation it has with respect to hogs? .	.	. An examination of the
P.E.I. situation might be extremely profitable to the farmers of Alberta . . . Alberta hog producers must adopt the principles and practices which have brought about the improvement in P.E.I.

The Budget-Mr. Matheson
That is the end of the quotation from the letter, but the newspaper article continues:
Within recent weeks breeding stock, mostly boars, has gone to the following destinations throughout Canada:
I have listed a few of them. There are Dorchester penitentiary, Grand Falls, Hart-land, Harvey Station, and several other places in New Brunswick. There are Czar and Red Deer and Edmonton in Alberta. There are Dunnville, London, Bath, Chats-worth, Hawkestone and Brunner in Ontario. There is Gaspe in Quebec. Mr. Clay has stated that shipments outside the province over the same period of time have never been equalled. In addition to these, he says he is reasonably sure "that a party from Edmonton, Alberta, is coming back to the island in late May to purchase a carload, and only yesterday he received an inquiry from an Alberta farm organization regarding the possibility of procuring young boars". The demand has been so keen, according to Mr. Clay, that "there are practically no young boars available in the province".
This latter story concerns our registered, purebred swine and the demand that exists for them. The previous story concerns animals produced by our commercial breeders. Correlate the two stories and you have the answer to our hog supremacy in producing the type of bacon the discerning Canadian wants on his breakfast plate. The registered breeder of purebred swine furnishes the foundation stock for our top commercial herds. Our purebred swine are kept on a high level by the continuous testing that is done through the medium of advanced registry, under the careful direction of the Department of Agriculture. This is part of the service for which you and I, as Canadians, pay; but in our province we have made a little better use of it than they have elsewhere.
Let me illustrate. The term "carcass score" will not mean much to you unless you are familiar with it. The better the animal, the higher the score. It measures the prolificacy of the dam. It considers the liveability of the young. It measures the rate at which the litter reaches market weight. It checks the amount of feed required to produce a pound of bacon. It takes into account the type and quality of bacon that the test group produce when they go on the rail. The information is used to assess and evaluate the breeding qualities of the sire and the dam, the ability to pass on desirable qualities to their young. Desirable sires and dams are kept for breeding purposes, while the undesirable are destroyed.

It is as simple as the theory of natural selection, but in this case science and practical knowledge are used to speed up and intensify the selective process. I checked through official figures for 1952 and 1953, and I am quoting from a publication of the production service of the Canadian Department of Agriculture. Anyone who is interested can check what I am saying. I checked through the figures for 1952 and 1953. Last year's figures are not immediately available.
In 1952, for example, I found that in the whole of Canada there were only 22 sires that sired litters with scores of 90 or more. A score of 90 is most unusual. Fifteen of the 22 were bred in my province. There were 18 dams with scores of 90 or more. Twelve of them were bred in Prince Edward Island. Of many hundreds of dams tested, only four in all Canada had a score of 95. All of them were from our province. The figures for 1953 are almost equally significant. One animal sired two test litters that scored 95. Our numbers naturally are much smaller than the combined numbers of the other provinces, but we have by far the most top scoring animals, both sires and dams. Our commercial herds carry the blood lines of those outstanding individuals of proven value. It is easy to understand why our bacon grades are so consistently high.
My constituency of Queens is not usually considered a producer of top grade beef cattle, though we do have some top flight animals. But our fat stock show and sale, held this year, brought an average price of 28 [DOT] 88 cents per pound on the hoof. That was the best in eastern Canada. I do not know whether you can beat that in western Canada. My neighbour, Athol Roberts, of Southport, is the president of the organization. All the championship animals in this outstanding show came from my constituency.
I am happy about a new development in our Atlantic provinces. This was referred to by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell). It is called the Atlantic provinces development council. It has the blessing of the four Atlantic premiers and their governments, but it is being administered, fostered and financed by industry. I spoke a few days ago to Keith MacKinnon in Charlottetown, our island vice-president of the council. Here is part of what he had to say:
The formation of the Atlantic provinces economic council symbolizes "self help" for maritime business, and the prospect of a new deal for the economic life of maritime citizens.
It symbolizes leadership by the businessmen themselves in appraising their own problems. Through the research and technical facilities available, the idea is to work toward improving the production, marketing, and utilization of goods and services of these provinces by the sea.

The Atlantic provinces have played an important part in the building of Canada. Canada grew westward, and with the development of its vast resources and industries-waterpower, manufacturing, transportation, minerals, oil, gas and pipelines, grain, lumber and livestock-the spotlight has turned away from maritime business.
However, our resources are not depleted. Agriculture, fisheries, minerals, lumber and the untapped natural facilities for a profitable tourist and holiday trade, leave us much with which to prosper.
With this new instrument at our disposal we can put our collective minds to work at the task of finding new ways and bettering old, in making the best use of our resources to bring about that new prosperity that is surely our due.
Our government has made a fine start in economic development in my province. Premier A. W. Matheson and his government will be calling an election very soon. Their return is assured. They have the confidence of the people as no other administration has had for some time. They have earned that confidence.
Earlier this year Premier Matheson announced a program of industrial development designed to assist fishing and agriculture. It will also assist the urban people by providing employment. The government set up a fund to assist such development. Already one reasonably large processing plant is being organized. There is a possibility of a very large one coming into the province in the near future. Foods grown on the island will be processed on the island. This sort of thing could make a great difference; it could be a great boon to our economic development. For years they talked about rural electrification in our province. Premier Matheson set the plan in motion. I might say in passing that the premier is no relation of mine.
I have to strike one sour note at this stage. It concerns an important industry that was started two years ago in Charlottetown by two very fine young men. They produce Perfection brand condensed milk. It is a splendid product, which can compete in quality with any similar product produced anywhere. It has been doing that very successfully. Right now, however, the product is faced with a price-cutting campaign by a very large and very powerful company that has been selling condensed milk for many years.
The development of this plant has meant a good deal to our agriculture and to our economy in general. Further development of this local industry could mean even more. I do not know just how serious the threat t.o the Perfection people may be, but it is another example of how some of the big firms will try to squeeze out competition to maintain the monopoly they invariably seem so anxious to have.
50433-205J
The Budget-Mr. Matheson
I said that our fishing industry is important. Our lobster fishermen are now preparing for the opening of the 1955 season. Theirs is a difficult task. They are hardy and fearless men, these fishermen who brave the storms and the turbulent seas to wrest their living from the deep. They have come through many adversities. They have persevered in the face of discouragement and disaster. They deserve happier days. I am glad to note that there has been some improvement. New and modern processing plants make for a better product, and an increase in consumption should be the result.
I congratulate the Department of Fisheries upon the splendid advertising job they are doing through their fish kitchen in the west block. I recently attended a dinner there, at which my friend the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Fisheries was host. The meals they serve are attractive and delicious. If we could have fish served in our commercial eating establishments as it is served there we would have no worries about a market. We would eat our fish right here in our own country. Like all islanders I am very modest, but our island lobsters rank with the best anywhere in the world. The fame of our oysters has spread far and wide. We have other fish products that tempt the appetite of the discerning diner.
About a year ago I asked a question of my good friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters). It concerned the calling of tenders for a new federal building in Charlottetown. I remember the shouts of derision from across the way. They were good-natured shouts, but they indicated that nothing would be done. The minister indicated tenders would be called by the 1st of June. Work is progressing favourably, and the builders tell me the steel work will be completed the first week in May. I thank the minister and his departmental officials for their co-operation in several matters relating to this project. A modification of plans meant that work could proceed during the early months of the year, which meant employment for a number of people who otherwise would have been idle.
We talked for some time this session about unemployment. We talk of a "shelf of public works" to provide work. I shall welcome any work that is useful, but major projects do not provide nearly as much work now as they did in the past. Our federal building property covers half a city block. The site had to be cleared, and a huge excavation job was necessary. Before the development of today's power machinery it would have provided work for several hundred men for perhaps six months or more. The job was

The Budget-Mr. Matheson done in six weeks by a handful of men and some powerful machinery. This is a sample of modern efficiency, but I sometimes wonder just how far this development can go. One cannot make progress by turning back the hands of the clock, but the shimmering glimpses of future trends are sometimes cause for concern.
My thanks are due the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) and his officials for their very splendid co-operation in the planning of a new car ferry between Wood Island in my constituency and Caribou, Nova Scotia. I have also received the utmost co-operation and courtesy from the members of the Canadian maritime commission and those associated with them. The target for completion of the new boat is the season of 1956. I await with a great deal of anticipation the day when the new ferry will be able to handle the traffic that develops at both ends of the ferry run.
My thanks are due also to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), who interrupted his vacation last summer to speak at the 100th anniversary celebration at St. Dunstan's University, just outside Charlottetown. I am glad the genial minister found restful relaxation and wonderful swimming for a few days on the silvery sands and in the stimulating salt water along the north shore of my riding.
I hope many of you will visit Charlottetown this year to participate in its centennial program. The committee in charge have prepared a splendid program of fun and entertainment. In their name I invite you to visit this year the city where Canada was born. It was there in 1864 that the first discussion on confederation was held. There in the very room where the delegates met more than 90 years ago you can see the table around which they sat. The very chairs have been kept through the years. In the old visitors' book you can see the handwriting of Sir John A. Macdonald, who indicated his occupation as a "cabinet maker". It is an exhilarating experience to stand in the confederation chamber and think that here the fathers of confederation held their first momentous meeting. Here the history of our country was shaped.
I have in my room official invitations from the mayor of Charlottetown asking you to visit our beautiful city this coming summer. I shall have them distributed to you in the near future. They are novel and interesting. I hope you will keep them as souvenirs; but I hope you will accept the invitation and come to see us.
A few weeks ago the Canadian Association of Radio and Television Broadcasters hon-


oured posthumously the late Colonel Keith Rogers. They conferred on him an honour given to pioneers of the radio industry. Colonel Rogers was indeed a pioneer in radio broadcasting in the maritimes and indeed in Canada. Ta honouring Colonel Rogers the C.A.R.T.B. honoured itself. It is interesting to note that a few days ago the governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation also approved a licence application for a television station in my riding. It will be known as CFCY-TV, and will be owned and operated by the estate of the late Colonel Rogers.
Now may I say a personal word of appreciation to my friends in this chamber who normally speak in French. Many of them have spoken in English this year so that we who are not bilingual could understand what they had to say. I deeply appreciate their courtesy. I hope that some day I may be able to converse with them in their language.
I appealed a while ago for sympathetic consideration and understanding of our mutual problems. I shall be a ready and sympathetic listener to anyone who wishes to discuss his problems. I have tried to learn something about their constituencies, and as time goes on I hope to learn more about them. Thus I shall become better acquainted with the problems of other areas as well as with those that confront my own people in Prince Edward Island, and particularly with those of Queens county.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this discussion I am not going to make any reference whatsoever to those phases of the budget speech by the Minister of Finance that had to do with fiscal policies. A great many members have already spoken on that aspect of his speech, some in condemnation and some in commendation. I want to spend what time I have on only one aspect of the minister's speech, namely his concluding remarks which can be found in Hansard at pages 2740 and 2741. I should like to recall to hon. members what he said on April 5 and what he must have thought of the important matter, because he concluded in this way:
The government intends, therefore, to appoint a royal commission with instructions to look ahead and examine carefully our future economic prospects. The sort of study we have in mind would include probable developments both in our productive capacities and in our external markets. It would include an examination of our population growth in both its regional and age distribution aspects. It would assemble information and speculate thoughtfully about the magnitude and nature of our future requirements for the great varieties of physical amenities which contribute to a steadily rising level of well-being.
He followed that up by saying:
Wise and practical policies are founded on knowledge, inspiration and courage. The Canadian

people have always demonstrated that they have Inspiration and courage. I suggest we improve our knowledge that we may not fail to take full and proper advantage of the heritage with which Providence has so richly endowed this nation.
I think the work of this royal commission will do several things. It will focus public attention, here and abroad, in a rather specific and detailed yay, on our prospects. It will gather together the considerable amount of material already in existence, but scattered in many different places, that throws light on these prospects. It will also promote and stimulate studies to fill the many gaps in essential factual material. It will sharpen our understanding of some of the problems we face, and will provide useful guides to governments and businessmen, and to leaders in all walks of life, in making plans and policies for the future.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, these concluding remarks of the Minister of Finance were the most important in his entire speech. I am very glad that at long last the government has come to a realization of the correctness of the socialist principle of looking ahead, of research and of planning. And in the words of the minister himself, we must have first of all knowledge, then vision and then the courage to act. I am glad to hear that a royal commission is to be appointed, to look ahead, to do research, to plan and make recommendations to guarantee the future well-being of all the provinces and of Canada itself. I sincerely hope that the report will not be pigeonholed and gather dust.
I can remember, sir, that it was my privilege in 1941 and 1942 to be a member of a royal commission that was called the British Columbia post-war rehabilitation council. We were told at that time by the legislature to examine the province of British Columbia, its economy, its industries, its potentialities, its needs, and to look ahead and try to come up with a plan.
It was a commission on planning appointed on a political basis. By that I mean all phases of politics were represented. As I recall it the chairman was the minister of education of British Columbia, a Liberal; another member became Speaker of the British Columbia legislature, and at the present time she is a senator from the province of British Columbia. Another member was a Conservative. He became an independent; then he became a Socred, and now he is sitting not far from here as the premier of British Columbia. It is worth while recounting that on that planning board of 1941 and 1942 I cannot remember one day or one discussion when politics ever came up as politics. A job was done and a report was made. I think it was a good one. My only regret is that it has never been acted upon. It is gathering dust somewhere in the archives of British Columbia.
I am glad to know that a federal planning commission is to be appointed, and I sincerely
The Budget-Mr. Winch hope that when the report comes down it will not gather dust, but that it will be studied and acted upon. I desire to devote my time this afternoon to only one phase of that study. It is a phase which many of you may perhaps be rather amazed to hear discussed by me, but I believe there is a study that has to be made.
I want to make as a contribution just one recommendation. It has long been my thought and my conclusion that we in Canada, and particularly in western Canada, have been missing the opportunity for a multimillion dollar industry that has always been at our doorstep. In these present days of high unemployment-according to the latest figures
640,000	are out of work in the Dominion of Canada-the governments have failed to take advantage of our resources and establish a new industry. That is something of which we should be ashamed. But, though we have failed in the past, that is no reason for failing in the future, and I should like to recommend to the Minister of Finance that in his terms of reference to the royal commission to go into research and plan the economy of Canada for the future he include research and planning to establish what I think can become one of the greatest industries in this dominion. That is the health restoring industry.
It is unfortunate that the majority of us do not appreciate good health as long as we have it, but when we lose it there is not one thing on which we are more prepared to spend money than trying to regain our health. What applies to us as individuals applies to all individuals throughout the world. I have been interested in this matter now for some 15 years. Perhaps I should explain how I became interested, because you may think that, having been an electrician or for 22 years a member of provincial and federal parliaments, I am now entering the medical field. It is for this reason. Some 15 years ago, as an electrician, I was called in to see whether I could repair certain scientific machines which were used by naturopathic physicians. These machines were imported from Europe and were unknown in North America. They used static current and galvanic current and shortwave. As a result of tinkering around and trying to fix these machines I became interested in what they were used for. That led me into a study of natural health resources.
I did not believe all I was told. Two physicians who knew something about the use of natural health measures in combination with orthodox medical restorative health measures said to me, "You bring to our attention cases of which you know personally, and for which you are certain on the advice of

The Budget-Mr. Winch medical men that nothing can be done, and let us see if anything can be done for them through the use of nature itself". I accepted that challenge, and since then I have been interested in the natural health resources of Canada. I myself have referred to the doctors people absolutely crippled with rheumatoid arthritis. One woman was under medical care and had to have nursing care 24 hours a day to move and feed her. After two years I saw that same woman getting around and looking after herself, crocheting and knitting.
I know the case of a passenger in an automobile, which skidded on the ice, went over a steep cliff and rolled over several times. One of the passengers badly tore all the ligaments of his chest. The medical advice was that he would have to be strapped for five or six weeks and be in pain most of the time. This was another good case to refer. Under what was known as the hormone peat treatment, instead of being strapped for five or six weeks before he could get up and go back to work, after 10 days he did not know that he had had an accident. I know that is true. I was the passenger in the car.
I could give you instance after instance, but I am just giving you these to illustrate how I became interested in the study. It is acknowledged throughout the world-not as a competitor with medical science but as a collaborator with medical science-that the greatest advances today are being made in the realm of natural medicine, or physical medicine. What does that mean? It means the use of the clinical nature of our hot springs, our cold springs, our radium springs, our saline muds and clays, our hormone peats, and so on. Nowhere in the world is there such an accumulation of natural healthgiving resources in the way of hormone peats, saline muds and clays, hot springs, cold springs and radium springs as we have in the Dominion of Canada. Yet we have never used them or developed their full scale of health-giving potentialities.
I know we have the radium hot springs in the national parks; we have our Harrison hot springs. They are used to attract tourists or honeymooners-a place you can go either to get on a drunk or get off a drunk- but not in the main for their health-giving purposes. Banff is closed for the greater part of the year. Our own radium hot springs are closed for the greater part of the year. Yet, when they are open, what do we have there in order to utilize the health-giving resources of the radium hot springs? You do not have to ask me; ask the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott). Unfortunately a cripple, as he is, he goes there every


year because of the help he can get there. Yet when it is open there is one physiotherapist and helper. For the majority of the year it is not open at all.
Perhaps you may think I am a visionary when I say that we have a multimillion dollar industry that we are ignoring. Let me say this. If the countries of Europe had the resources we have they would be using them. I should like to give you briefly a resume of what other people are doing with their limited resources. Mineral springs have been developed in various parts of the North American continent as well as in Europe, based on the use of hydrotherapy, physiotherapy and electrotherapy. The state of New York operates one at Saratoga Springs. It is not only health-giving, it is not only self-supporting, but it returns a revenue to the state. But it is to Europe we must go to find industries based on health.
Before the war Germany was quite frank in stating the financial value of her natural health resources. They spent enormous sums of money on research and development, and the fact that the money was not wasted is shown by this one quotation from a government report. It says this:
Many an erroneous idea of a philosophy estranged from nature had to be overcome for science and popular sentiment to combine so as to rediscover on a higher plane of knowledge the nature of medicinal springs and their functions. It is that common knowledge that makes the foundation for a sound development of Germany's medicinal springs in the interest of national business as well as in the service of mankind.
Let us go on from there and come back to North America. Just as a comparatively small illustration, on this continent we have Battle Creek which in less than 40 years has grown from a rural village to a great manufacturing centre whose products are almost entirely, directly or indirectly, built around the health centre itself.
Hon. members may be interested in learning that, according to the last figures I have, France has 186 official spas which have developed from villages of a few hundred population to great international health resorts. Germany, according to the latest figures I have-and of course they are slightly out of date now-has 212 official spas of first-class standing and many others that are not listed and, attached to these and to her universities, research institutions that have involved an outlay of millions of dollars.
Just to show the possibility of development around a spa or hot spring that has a curative value, may I say that in France there is a village which just prior to the first great war had a population of 75 to 100 people. Since the development of two small spas, one

hot and one cold, it now has a population of over 2,000 with an annual attendance of
60.000	to 80,000 visitors in search of health. There are 14 large hotels and numerous furnished villas. It requires the daily attendance of 32 doctors, with all the technicians who go with them, to take care of those who come there from all parts of the world.
Another famous spa-and I want to mention this one because its name is well known -is at Aix-les-Bains. Less than 30 years ago the population was about 2,500. Now it is 12,000. It has 45,000 visitors each year in search of health. It has four springs, two hot and two cold. They are of the sulphur type. This spa caters in particular to rheumatic and arthritic cases, and it requires 32 physicians to deal with the patients, including nine specialists in various fields. The hotels have a total accommodation of more than
4.000	rooms, in addition to pensions and large numbers of beautiful furnished villas.
I wish to mention just one more, Mr. Speaker, because you also have heard of this one but have not perhaps understood what it means. One of the largest and most fashionable spas in the world is Baden-Baden, 590 to 820 feet above sea level. The therapeutic facilities consist of the salt springs and the grape cure. There are six large sanitaria, more than 50 hotels and a large number of boarding establishments and private villas that are rented by the season. It requires 75 doctors to staff the sanitaria. Of course it must also be remembered that an average of 20 to 30 trained technicians are required for every doctor at the sanitaria in addition to cooks, gardeners and so forth.
When we recognize the fact that all the great medical authorities in the world today are turning more and more to natural health as a corollory of orthodox medicine; when we recognize the fact that a great number of people who travel from Canada, the United States, Australia and New Zealand to Europe are not going there for the sake of tourism but are going there in search of health; when we recognize the fact that we here in Canada have the greatest collection of natural health resources in the world, I wonder why we do not do some research and develop Canada as the land of health.
As far as my own province of British Columbia is concerned, I am convinced that within a very few years that province and western Canada generally could be known as the health mecca of the world. It requires a little bit of vision. Certainly it requires research, which I think must be done on a governmental basis. It also requires proper planning. Surely it is not too much for us to be able to conjure up in our minds what
The Budget-Mr. Winch it would mean if we made use of the God-given resources that are right at our door- even outside of health and outside of tourism -in construction, technology, new fields for medicine in this country, in maintenance and in a new market for the produce of the farmers. To me it is a "natural" going to waste.
Here on the Grand Trunk Pacific, a part of the Canadian National Railways, only 15 miles from Terrace which is now the junction point of the railway going down to Kitimat, we have the outstanding hot spring on the North American continent and, I think in the world, because it contains lithia. There are nine springs there. Only one is cribbed, but that one which is cribbed turns out
6,000	gallons of lithia water an hour. You need only go back to the writings of such famous medical men as Dr. Alexis Carrel or Lieutenant Colonel Dr. Samson of the physiotherapy branch of the United States army, to learn the use of lithia water in curing or helping people.
There it is, just 15 miles from a major centre on the Canadian National, pouring out its 6,000 gallons per hour with no use being made by the province and no use being made by the dominion of one of the great God-given, natural, health-giving resources in the entire world. If they had that in Europe-in France, in Germany, in Russia or in Switzerland-they would have a million-dollar concern right around that one spring.
I do not know the story of all Canada, but I know from my own personal knowledge of 30 hot and cold springs in the province of British Columbia. I know that we have millions of tons of what is known as hormone peat. I know of medical clays. I am sure my friend the Minister of National Defence can tell you as well as I of what the Indians can do with those clays and peats. It is almost miraculous.
There is the foundation for a new industry. I do not think people realize what we have. We have springs, hot and cold, in British Columbia. I am going to read off just what they contain, and medical men can tell you their medicinal value far better than can I. We have these right at our doorstep. These springs contain strontium sulphate, aluminum, hydrogen sulphide, calcium carbonate, calcium sulphate, magnesium carbonate, magnesium sulphate, sodium carbonate, sodium sulphate, sodium chloride, potassium chloride, lithium chloride, silica, iron and alumina. These are natural health springs known to science, and we, sir, do nothing about the matter.
3240	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Winch
I do not want to carry on beyond closing time tonight. I am convinced that we have a great natural industry at our doorstep. I am convinced that we have a multimillion dollar industry at our doorstep. I am convinced that with a little bit of attention and, to use the words of the Minister of Finance himself, research, planning and courage, we can make Canada the health mecca of the world. I am putting this forward as a constructive proposal, asking for the interest and support of hon. members.
They are not obliged to accept what I say. Let us have some research into the matter. Let us do some work on it. But I want to say this. To the best of my knowledge, throughout this country there is a great deal to offer in the realm of health not only to our own people but to the world. Doctors are more and more recognizing the need for changing altitudes and changing climates in matters of health. In our country we certainly have the changing altitudes. We certainly have the changing climates. We certainly have in almost every constituency the minerals, the springs, the fruits, the climates, the pine trees, the muds, the clays,

the peats, the bogs, the alkalis and the sunshine that can be tied in, as I say, to build a great new industry.
This is my feeling as the result of years of study, of reading the words of the world's scientists, of having cases attended to when I was faced with a challenge; and as my contribution to this debate I should like to throw out the challenge at this time that we do something about the matter, starting now.


Mr. Enfield:: Mr. Speaker, I notice it is very close to six o'clock. Perhaps members would be agreeable to calling it six o'clock rather than having me start now and speak for only six minutes.
On motion of Mr. Enfield the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ralph Osborne Campney: the adjournment of the house.
He said: Tomorrow we shall continue this debate.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 5.55 p.m.

Thursday, April 28, 1955