1956-04-12

PETITION REQUESTING DECLARATION OF ASSINIBOINE VALLEY AS DISASTER AREA

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that the Clerk has laid on the table the 20th report of the clerk of petitions. In that report the clerk of petitions says that the petition of the following- which is the one of J. L. C. Carter of Peters-field, Manitoba, and others presented on April 11 by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce)-meets the requirements of standing order 70 as to form. However, the clerk in connection with this petition has given me an opinion which reads as follows:
It is my duty to inform you that although the petition presented Wednesday. April 11, by Mr. Bryce meets the requirements of standing order 70 as to form, it is irregular in so far as it asks the house to consider the granting of financial assistance.
The petitioners pray that this house may be pleased to consider:
(a)	The advisability of declaring the flooded Assiniboine river valley and the interlake area a disaster area;
(b)	The granting of financial assistance on the basis of $5 per productive acre flooded during the 1955 crop year, which would assist us to maintain our farm homes and to put in a crop this coming spring.
It is my submission that, in accordance with section 54 of the British North America Act, 1867, it is not lawful for the house either to receive or to consider a petition or any other measure involving the expenditure of public money unless the expenditure has been first recommended to the house by a message of the governor general. In dealing with the provisions of section 54 of the British North America Act, Bourinot at page 407 of his fourth edition has this to say:
"No principle is better understood than the constitutional obligation that rests upon the executive government, of alone initiating measures imposing charges upon the public exchequer."
May in his fifteenth edition, page 654, deals with the financial initiative of the crown, in the following words:
"The sovereign, being the executive power, is charged with the management of all the revenue of the state, and with all payments for the public service. The crown, therefore, acting with the advice of its responsible ministers, makes known to the commons the pecuniary necessities of the government; the commons, in return, grant such aids or supplies as are required to satisfy these demands: and they provide by taxes, and by the appropriation of other sources of the public income, the ways and means to meet the supplies which they have granted. Thus the crown demands money, the commons grant it, and the
lords assent to the grant; but the commons do not vote money unless it be required by the crown." ... If this petition were to be received and considered, the house in my opinion would be dealing not only with a direct request for a grant of money out of the public revenues, but it also would be deciding the quantum of the proposed grant.
There is no doubt in my mind that it has been an unbroken practice in our house to reject petitions directly praying for the granting of money out of the public revenues. (See Bourinot's fourth edition, page 237; also Beauchesne's third edition, citations 608 and 621.)
For these reasons, it is my considered opinion that the petition is out of order and therefore it should not be received.
Respectfully submitted,
(Sgd) Leon J. Raymond.
I concur in this opinion, and therefore I rule the petition cannot be received.



RULING WITH RESPECT TO MOTIONS FOR PAPERS AND QUESTIONS TRANSFERRED TO NOTICES OF MOTIONS

['The engraving which appears on the Canadian currency was taken from a photograph which the Queen authorized for that particular purpose. The engraving was done by an employee of a bank note company that we employ on most occasions when we print currency. I am not familiar with his name, nor do I know how I could find out what it is.']
Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members will notice on today's order paper at page 12 that there are two notices of motions that are still printed notwithstanding the provisions of standing order 15 (4).
On Wednesday, March 21 last, two motions for the production of papers were transferred to "Notices of Motions" by virtue of the latter part of standing order 47:
". . . but if on any such motion a debate be desired, it will be transferred by the Clerk to the order of 'Notices of Motions' ".
At the time there was one private members' Monday still available out of the six provided by standing order 15 (3).
The last private members' day was spent on March 26.
Standing order 15 (4) states that after the fifth sitting day following the expiry of Monday as a private members' day, notices of motions shall not be printed on the order paper.
Yesterday, Wednesday, April 11, was the fifth sitting day following the expiry of Mondays as private members' days.
It is one of the numerous duties of the Clerk to attend to the preparation of the order paper (see standing order 84).

Standing Order No. 47 On the day immediately following the last private member's Monday, namely, on Tuesday, March 27 last, I wrote to the Clerk as follows:
My dear Mr. Raymond:
I wish to follow up the ruling that I made on March 21 last, regarding the transfer of a motion under standing order 47, a ruling in which you concurred.
At the time of the ruling there was one private members' day left, and it was spent yesterday, Monday, March 26. Because of some of the remarks that were made at the time of the ruling, I expected that yesterday some member would, shortly after the opening of the house, use standing order 24 and move "that the orders of the day be now read". If that motion had carried, the motion could then be moved by virtue of standing order 44 "that the house do proceed to order No. 35 under 'Notices of Motions' ", namely, the motion for production of papers transferred at the request of Mr. Pickersgill under the latter part of standing order 47. However, no one tried to have that notice of motion reached.
Now that the sixth private members' day has expired we must take a look at standing order 15 (4):
"Notwithstanding the listing of 'Notices of Motions' as an item of daily business in section (3) of this order, such notices shall not be printed on the order paper after the fifth sitting day following the expiry of Monday as a private members' day".
It is my considered opinion that when standing order 15 (4) was adopted by the committee last year, the "Notices of Motions" to be affected were those introduced on the order paper after notice under standing order 48. Now that all private members' days have been exhausted, "Notices of Motions" appearing on the order paper by virtue of standing order 48, will not be printed on the order paper in consequence of the provisions of standing order 15 (4) but standing order 15 (4) was never meant to and does not affect "Notices of Motions" transferred under the latter part of standing order 47. In my opinion, motions that have been transferred or motions that will be transferred under the latter part of standing order 47, whether private members' days have expired or not, have to be printed under "Notices of Motions". The purpose of transferring a "notice of motion" under the latter part of standing order 47 is to have a debate. It is obvious that when we amended the rules last year we overlooked the passage of the necessary consequential amendments in order to make good the right of debate in relation to the right of transfer given to any member in the latter part of standing order 47. It is clear to me that once all private members' days have expired, the right to transfer should be upheld by the house only if the right to debate the transferred motion is assured. It will be, of course, the responsibility of the house, and particularly of the leader of the house (Beauchesne's third edition, citations 136, 9 and 10), to provide the opportunity to debate any motion so transferred.
In the circumstances, if you agree, I would advise you to have printed under the listing "notices of motions" all motions which may have been transferred or may be transferred under the latter part of standing order 47.
Yours sincerely,
(Sgd) L. Rene Beaudoin, Speaker.

To that letter I received from the Clerk the following reply on March 28:
Dear Mr. Speaker:
In reply to your letter of March 27, it also seems to me that the committee on procedure did not intend to have the provisions of standing order 15 (4) apply to motions for the production of papers which have been transferred to the heading "notices of motions" pursuant to standing order 47. Accordingly, I propose to continue for the duration of the session the daily printing of any motion for the production of papers that has been or which may be transferred to the heading "notices of motions".
I have read carefully your ruling of Wednesday, March 21 last, and the remarks made on the point of order at that time by several members. Although it is not for me to comment upon a Speaker's ruling, I venture to say that, according to practice, you had no alternative to the course which you pursued at that time. In every precedent which I have been able to find, the same course has been followed without exception.
If it is desirable to have a change made in a procedure based on a standing order and supported by an invariable practice, even though that procedure may not have been used very often, the responsibility for taking corrective steps rests, in my opinion, with the house.
It is obviously impracticable to provide for a debate by standing order 47 and, on the other hand, to prohibit debate on the same question by virtue of standing order 15 (3).
To my mind, the transfer of a motion for the production of papers should be conditional in every case upon an assurance that there will be an opportunity to debate the same.
Respectfully submitted,
(Sgd) Leon J. Raymond.
The same reasoning must apply to any question which could be transferred to notices of motions under standing order 39(4), which reads as follows:
(4) If, in the opinion of Mr. Speaker, a question on the order paper put to a minister of the crown is of such a nature as to require a lengthy reply, he may, upon a request made by the government during the question period on Wednesday, direct the same to stand as a notice of motion, and to be transferred to its proper place as such upon the order paper, the clerk of the house being authorized to amend the same as to matters of form.
I wrote again to the Clerk on April 11, 1956, as follows:
Dear Mr. Raymond:
Please refer to my letter of March 27 and your reply of March 28, 1956.
The same procedure should, I believe, be followed if paragraph 4 of standing order 39 were to be taken advantage of.
I could find only one precedent for the use of standing order 39 (4) which appears in Hansard, Vol. 1, February 16, 1923, pages 343 and 344.
Yours truly,
(Sgd) L. Rene Beaudoin, Speaker.
This correspondence speaks for itself and I do hope that this ruling will meet with the approval of the house, which is the master of its own procedure and may use it in any way it pleases to carry out its wishes.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask one question. In doing so I wish to express my own personal thanks to Your Honour for having supplied me with copies of this correspondence so that I have been able to study it. My question is this. In view of the statement in your letter to the Clerk under date of March 27 that it will be the responsibility of the house and particularly the leader of the house to provide the opportunity to debate any motion so transferred, will the leader of the house make such an arrangement?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps the minister would indicate when that debate will be arranged.


Walter Edward Harris: Not now.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. G. H. Castleden (Yorkton):: I should like to ask the leader of the house a question. He indicated today that an opportunity will be given to debate notices of motions for production of papers transferred to notices of motions. Can he inform the house when that opportunity will be given?


Walter Edward Harris: At a time to be arranged in the usual manner.



[Stage Direction]
Mr. Rene N. Jutras (Provencher) presented the first report of the standing committee on agriculture and colonization, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Mr. W. J. Henderson (Kingston) moved:: That the petition for a' private bill of Ogdens-burg bridge authority, presented on April 10, 1956, together with the clerk of petitions' report thereon of April 11, 1956, be referred to the standing committee on standing orders for such recommendations as may be deemed advisable.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 212, to amend the Telegraphs Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Explain.
Inquiries of the Ministry


George Carlyle Marler: The purpose of the bill is to amend the provisions of the Telegraphs Act concerning the licensing of the installation of submarine cables.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


INTERNATIONAL WHEAT AGREEMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether he jp in a position to advise the present situation relative to the international wheat agreement conference and whether there has been any reasonably firm conclusion arrived at as to maximum and minimum prices.


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the international wheat agreement conference was recessed some three weeks ago to enable delegates to consult their governments and will reconvene in London on the 16th of this month. As all the sessions were in camera I will not be able to disclose the present situation until the conference reaches a conclusion.


John George Diefenbaker: Is there any hope?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh, yes.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I wonder if I could ask a supplementary question. Is there any possibility that the United Kingdom will come into the agreement or is the United Kingdom still opposed to such agreement?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The United Kingdom is not opposing the agreement, but on the first day of the conference it stated that it would not be a party to the agreement.


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Carl O. Nickle (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance of which I have given notice. In view of the submissions made to him by the association of Canadian advertisers, which would indicate that the actual effect of his proposed 20 per cent tax on advertising revenues of foreign-owned Canadian edition publications would be the direct opposite of his stated purpose of the tax, is the Minister of Finance now considering scrapping this proposed measure before it can become law?
2852	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Walter Edward Harris: The letter from the association of Canadian advertisers reached my desk yesterday along with a number of other letters in connection with the magazine tax. All of these representations are of course being considered by the government and will be dealt with when we reach the resolutions stage.


INQUIRY AS TO REPRODUCTION OF HER MAJESTY'S PICTURE ON PAPER CURRENCY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, notice of which I have already sent him. Will the minister tell the house when it might expect the answer to each of the two questions which I asked him on March 26, 1956, seeking to learn: First, who was the artist who prepared the picture of Her Majesty as it appears on current Bank of Canada bills; and second, who were the officials who employed that artist?


Walter Edward Harris: The engraving which appears on the Canadian currency was taken from a photograph which the Queen authorized for that particular purpose. The engraving was done by an employee of a bank note company that we employ on most occasions when we print currency. I am not familiar with his name, nor do I know how I could find out what it is.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General or to his parliamentary assistant, notice of which I gave earlier to the parliamentary assistant. Is the minister aware that approximately 40 per cent of the present staff of letter carriers in the New Westminster area are not properly equipped with proper rain gear, nor has it been available to them for the past six months; and, if so, what action is being taken to rectify this condition?


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Postmaster General):: I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. I am informed that the district office in Vancouver did advise the head office a short time ago that there was a shortage of rain gear for letter carriers and that a sufficient number were sent, over two weeks ago, to deal with the situation. I must say I am rather surprised to hear someone from the west coast complaining about not being protected against rain at this time of the year.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Carlyle Marler: The hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) inquired yesterday regarding the radar equipment being ordered by my department for installation at Canadian airports.
These radar sets, which are highly complicated and of advanced design, were ordered after tenders had been called, and the contract was awarded to the company which submitted the lowest tender that satisfied departmental specifications. The prices quoted by Canadian companies for the equipment in question and its installation were higher by about $1,400,000 to $3,800,000 than the price quoted by Raytheon Manufacturing Company. This company, jointly with Canadian interests, is establishing a new Canadian company and, as has been announced, certain parts of the equipment will be manufactured in Canada by this new company and by other Canadian firms. I am not in a position, however, to make a general statement on the position of the Canadian electronics industry other than to indicate that I understand that in the case of complex electronic equipment it is normal for some parts to be manufactured outside the country and imported.


Mr. E. D. Fulfon (Kamloops):: I wish to ask a supplementary question. Do I understand from the minister's reply that the subsidiary company, which I believe is to be known as Raytheon Canada Limited, is to be formed or has been formed subsequent to the letting of the contract to the principal company whose head office is in Waltham, Massachusetts?


George Carlyle Marler: I am not able to answer precisely as to when the subsidiary company was established or is to be established. My information is that it was the intention of Raytheon Manufacturing Company with Canadian interests to establish a Canadian subsidiary.


Mr. John B. Hamilton (York West):: I
should like to ask a supplementary question. Was a firm undertaking given by the United States company that it would use the Canadian enterprise mentioned in connection with this contract?


George Carlyle Marler: I think the answer is no, Mr. Speaker.

On the orders of the day:


John Borden Hamilton: May I direct a further supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. Is consideration given by his department in connection with letting these contracts for electronic equipment only to the question of price or has the department taken into consideration the additional factor of the "made in Canada" feature?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I think the department has given consideration to all of the pertinent factors that apply in the case of this order. Inasmuch as all of the Canadian tenderers contemplated the importation of some part of the equipment, I think our decision to award the contract to a firm which was going to produce the equipment for a price approximately $1,400,000 less than the next tenderer is something that will commend itself to the Canadian taxpayer.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the minister received a telegram from the superannuated civil servants of British Columbia asking when they may expect increases similar to those granted active civil servants? What is his answer to this telegram?


Walter Edward Harris: No, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: To which of my questions does the minister make that answer?


Mr. Coldwell:: One question at a time?


Walter Edward Harris: I just heard the first question, which was whether or not I had received a telegram, and I made the answer "no".



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, April 11, consideration of the motion of Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Macdonnell.
Mr. J. A. Simmons (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, the theme of what I wish to say today will differ from that of any other speaker in this debate. I do not propose to discuss any of the financial proposals contained in the budget 67509-1814
The Budget-Mr. Simmons but rather I wish to link my remarks to the trade aspects of the finance minister's statement, especially Canada-United States trade. If what I propose to advocate is carried into effect, I am satisfied that an improvement in trade relationships between Canada and the United States will result and that the economy of British Columbia, the Yukon Territory and the territory of Alaska will undoubtedly be substantially strengthened.
Sometimes hon. members in this house, intentionally or otherwise, place a road block across the traffic flow of government business. This results from their efforts to call attention to a certain situation or condition of affairs which, at least to them, constitutes a matter of urgent public importance. Today, sir, I want to draw the attention of the government, the house and the country to a matter which I believe all hon. members will admit truly merits the title of vital public business. What I wish to discuss is certainly vital to the future of Canada's northwest and, I think, to the future of the whole Canadian nation. In raising this matter I am not introducing it as a road block to the business of this house but rather as a stepping stone to progress. If the right kind of action is taken, it will result in the most important single advance in the history of economic development in the northwest and in Alaska.
The community of interests shared by the United States and Canada for more than a century has nourished and stimulated one of the most significant partnerships in the whole long history of international relationships. Not only have the two nations enjoyed long, unbroken political friendship, but their effective co-operation in the economic sphere has been a major factor in winning for North America world leadership in private enterprise achievements and in creating high standards of living for the people of this favoured continent. In the matter of fisheries control, St. Lawrence seaway, Canol pipeline, the Alaska highway, airport bases and radar systems-to mention a few of them-Canada and the United States have tackled thorny international problems and worked together to produce practical solutions that have been an example to the world in co-operation and compromise.
There is yet another complicated situation in which the spirit of give and take and of international teamwork will produce on this continent even more far-reaching benefits and results. A glance at the map will show the Alaska panhandle to be, to all intents and purposes, an economic island, its natural lines of land communication passing through Canadian territory. In the same way, Yukon territory and northern British Columbia are isolated in an economic sense because their
2854	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Simmons natural channels of water communication lead into harbours located along the Alaska panhandle at Skagway, Haines, Juneau, and Wrangell to mention four of them. It is to be hoped that common sense rather than sentiment will soon win out and unravel this complex and wholly unnecessary impasse so that means will be found to advance and expedite the progress and development of the Yukon, northern British Columbia and Alaska. It is in that spirit, Mr. Speaker, that I lay this matter before the house at this time for consideration.
There is perhaps no other part of the world where two nations have more closely similar problems, conditions and objectives than have Canada and the United States in their lands, in the northwest of this continent. The development of these extensive areas, so necessary in the broad national interests of both countries, depends primarly on efficient, unobstructed transportation. That primary condition does not exist today. Some early definite move looking toward co-operative action in this direction is urgently indicated.
At the base or root of the transportation problem is the long, narrow strip of coastal territory commonly known as the Alaska panhandle. This strip serves to shut off access to the Pacific coast as far south as 54 degrees north latitude so far as Yukon Territory and roughly one-half of the province of British Columbia are concerned. There is no question that the existence of this land barrier is restricting the economical development of the Canadian northwest and for the same reasons is not helpful to the growth and prosperity of the United States ports along the Alaska panhandle.
I wish to make it clear that Canadians are not the only ones asking for a solution to this restrictive situation. A number of United States mining companies operating at points and in areas adjacent to the panhandle want to be rid of unnecessary boundary complications.
In these remarks I do not intend to dwell in any great detail or at any length on the historical background to the present Alaska-Canada boundary arrangements. There is no point in reviving ancient and largely buried animosities or opening up old wounds. But certain relevant facts of history should be pointed out for the sake of a wider and better understanding of the problem and of possible remedies or solutions.
In 1825, years before the United States acquired any interest or ownership of the territory of Alaska, Britain and Russia entered into a treaty at St. Petersburg. This agreement defined the boundaries of their respective lands in northwest America.


Canada succeeded to Britain's claims and, in 1867, the United States succeeded to Russia's position through purchase of Alaska.
Section 6 of the 1825 treaty stated in part as follows:
It is understood that the subjects of His Britannic Majesty, from whatever quarter they may arrive, whether from the ocean, or from the interior of the continent, shall forever enjoy the right of navigating freely, and without any hindrance whatever, all the rivers and streams which, in their course towards the Pacific ocean, may cross the line of demarcation upon the line of coast described in article 3 of the present convention.
From time to time minor incidents arose to emphasize the need of a definite interpretation and application of this agreement, but in those days settlers were few and governments busy. Matters drifted until the Klondike discoveries compelled action. Negotiations commenced for such a settlement, but the status of Canada at the time was still that of a colony and London, England, handled negotiations with Washington, D.C., leading up to the appointment of the much-discussed and soundly-cussed Alaska boundary commission and its award in 1903.
Some years previously, in 1889 to be exact, Sir John A. Macdonald raised a definite protest against the United States occupation of territory bordering on the Lynn canal, a large and important inlet in the panhandle between Juneau and Skagway, Alaska. In those days the British foreign office disapproved of communications direct from Ottawa to Washington. So Sir John had Sir Charles Tupper ask the British foreign secretary to instruct the British minister to the United States to convey to the United States state department the protest over the Lynn canal action. The British minister, Sir Lionel Sackville-West, writing from a comfortable summer hotel veranda, informed the state department that some Canadians had raised some objection to some action of Americans about a charter somewhere in the Alaska region, to which the Americans naturally replied it was not so, and there the matter ended.
One good result, at least, that came of the unhappy Alaska boundary negotiations and award was a renewed determination by Canada to do its own negotiating with other nations. However, at the time of the appointment of the Alaska boundary commission, most opinions coincided with that of the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, namely, "that there was as much chance of convincing a tribunal, so constituted, of the soundness of the Canadian case as there was of a thaw in Hades."
Since the boundary award, national tempers have cooled and some of the local

pressures declined with lessening activity in the Yukon goldfields. But history has a habit of repeating itself. Once again we find widespread active interest in the natural resources of the northwest and once more there is a growing demand for free access by Canadians to port facilities on the Pacific coast.
In denying such access to Canadians in 1903, the boundary commission probably did not foresee that such denial would retard development of southern Alaska, as well as northwest Canada.
In a brief prepared for the Gordon royal commission on Canada's economic prospects, and dated at Vancouver, December 1, 1955, the British Columbia and Yukon chamber of mines declared:
It is strongly recommended that the Canadian government should approach the government of the United States to arrange a series of meetings to discuss this vitally important problem. Existence of the foreign-owned strip of land covering the northern coastline of British Columbia is restricting development of mineral resources in the northern section of the province and in the Yukon. It is very obvious the situation will become more aggravated as the north country develops, and becomes of greater importance. Consequently we consider that now is the time for Canada and the United States to get together and discuss, on the usual friendly basis that exists between these two important countries, the matter of arriving at a permanent solution to this problem. "Corridors" through the Alaska panhandle must be established if we are to bring about full development of mineral and other resources in northern areas.
Actually, back in November 1953, the executive committee of the British Columbia and Yukon chamber of mines had passed a resolution favouring a meeting at an early date between appropriate officials representing the province of British Columbia, the Yukon Territory and the territory of Alaska, to discuss the proposal that the territory of Alaska allow British Columbia and the Yukon access to the ocean by way of a number of narrow strips of land or corridors, cutting through the panhandle of Alaska, so that Canada can develop its own deep-sea ports and industries in these northern areas, which in no way should interfere with the rights of the people of Alaska or with existing terms, ports and other important settlements already established in that territory. It is felt that the establishment of these Canadian ports and subsequent development of hydro electric, mineral and other resources, will bring prosperity to all citizens of Canada and the United States living in those northern areas.
Again in May 1954, Mr. Frank Woodside, manager of the British Columbia and Yukon chamber of mines, writing to Hon. Hugh Butler, United States senator from Nebraska, and at the time chairman of the United States senate committee on interior and insular
The Budget-Mr. Simmons affairs, stated that the establishment of corridors will eliminate the nuisance of customs inspections, both coming in and going out- and the transferring of men and supplies- so that Canadian mine operators will not be subjected to United States and Canadian regulations in the free operation of their mining properties which, in a few years, will be very extensive.
That letter had followed a speech made in the United State senate on January 29, 1954, by Senator Butler. In his concluding remarks on that occasion, Senator Butler said:
Before I close, these is one problem troubling many Canadians on which I believe we could properly be of help to Canada. That is the question of Canadian access to the Pacific ocean across the Alaska panhandle. It happens that the Alaska panhandle extends down the coast, cutting off Canada's access to the sea as far down as 54 degrees north latitude. That is an unusual situation which might well give rise to conflict and bitterness between any two nations not on friendly terms with each other. Every member of the senate is familiar with the problems that have arisen in European history when a nation has found its access to the sea controlled by another, unfriendly nation. Certainly, no American would be disposed to take advantage of Canada merely because of our strategic position preventing he? access to the ocean. It is a situation where I feel we have a positive obligation to be sympathetic and generous to Canada's need. I am not sure just what kind of an arrangement Canadians might desire. It occurs to me, for example, that we might grant Canada one or more free ports at points along the Alaska coast. I can see no objection to such an arrangement. I do not believe we would consider permanently alienating any American territory to Canadian sovereignty. It is my feeling that both Alaska and the Canadian northwest offer a tremendous frontier for future development. Certainly the industrial development of Alaska should be a definite policy of our governments. I do not believe either Alaska or the Canadian northwest can be fully developed without the closest kind of co-operation between our two nations. I hope the appropriate officials of our government will give serious consideration to these problems so that we can proceed toward joint development of such projects with Canadians to the mutual benefit of both our countries.
It is on that theme and in that spirit that I ask the Minister of External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) now, without delay, to open negotiations with the United States government and with the government of British Columbia leading to a conference between their representatives and representatives of the Canadian government, and of the Yukon Territory and the territory of Alaska, to arrive at a permanent solution to this important and pressing international problem. And I believe it to be essential that the conference be composed of men familiar with the conditions in the area of the panhandle and the whole northwest.
There are several possible solutions and there are important individuals and organizations both in Canada and the United States
2856	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Simmons studying this situation and anxious to find a workable, feasible answer.
For example, United States Senator Richard L. Neuberger, in New Liberty magazine in May 1953, contributed an article on this problem entitled "Let's Swap!" His proposal was that Alaska cede to Canada the port of Skagway, Alaska, and a corridor extending for 21 miles along the White pass and Yukon railway to the boundary with Canada. In return, he suggested Alaska might receive a 119-mile strip bordering the Haines cut-off road through British Columbia and Yukon territory to give Americans access to the Alaska highway from Haines, Alaska, on tidewater.
Possibly a straight exchange of territories is the best answer. It presents some formidable difficulties, however. I lean towards the grant by the United States of strips of land cutting through the panhandle, along with free use of tidewater harbours.
I do not care for the term "corridor" used so much in discussions to date on this problem. The term has unfortunately acquired unhelpful European connotations. Ever since those tense days leading up to world war II the word has become associated in many minds with the idea of conflict and friction. If I may coin a word, I much prefer "accessways" as a description of the sort of 99-year lease or easement arrangement enabling Canadians to travel over portions of the panhandle to freely reach and freely use tidewater port facilities.
I have in mind at least four such accessways: First, traversing the 21 miles from Canadian territory along the White Pass and Yukon railway to Skagway, Alaska; second, from Canada along the Taku river to tidewater at or near the mouth of Taku river; third, from Canada along the Stikine river valley to the mouth of the Stikine river near Wrangell, Alaska; and, fourth, from Pleasant Camp along the Chilkat river valley to Haines, Alaska. None of these United States ports has flourished or prospered as it would do under the proposed plans. They would certainly develop greatly from the increased traffic they would handle from the opening up of the Yukon and northern portions of British Columbia.
I want to stress, Mr. Speaker, that this is not a question of asking favours; it is a matter of two friendly countries seeking a common-sense solution and a method of co-operating for their mutual advantage and benefit. Let us therefore stop fooling around with this problem and let us stop wasting precious time. Let us get an international committee


set up composed of men who know the northwest and know how to get to work with a will.
There are many imposing difficulties, but the problem is not insuperable. It is of interest, for example, to find in the general agreement on tariffs and trade, to which both Canada and the United States are parties, that article 5 on "Freedom of Transit" reads:
1.	Goods (including baggage) and also vessels and other means of transport, shall be deemed to be in transit across the territory of a contracting party when the passage across such territory, with or without trans-shipment, warehousing, breaking bulk, or change in the mode of transport, is only a portion of a complete journey beginning and terminating beyond the frontier of the contracting party across whose territory the traffic passes. Traffic of this nature is termed in this article 'traffic in transit'.
2.	There shall be freedom of transit through the territory of each contracting party, via the routes most convenient for international transit, for traffic in transit to or from the territory of other contracting parties. No destruction shall be made which is based on the flag of vessels, the place or origin, departure, entry, exit or destination, or on any circumstances relating to the ownership of goods, of vessels or of other means of transport.
That gives some idea, Mr. Speaker, of what can be agreed upon as between nations. The difficulties, as I say, are there and cannot be ignored, but as the Alaska Weekly stated in an editorial dated December 4, 1953, if negotiations concerning this problem of accessways are approached in the right spirit, a middle ground certainly will be found upon which agreements can be reached. Too much is at stake for failure on this proposition.
It is very obvious that the situation will become more aggravated as the north country develops and becomes of greater importance. A permanent solution can be made by creating the accessways and it should be done without further delay or inaction on the part of both governments.
The economic strength of Canada and the United States, from which stem our living standards as well as our cultural and material progress, has been a bulwark of the free world. The long period of peace, friendship and happy relations between the two nations represents an achievement and an example to the world.
What has been accomplished fortifies our faith that in this problem I have described today, as in other difficult situations, we can together in the right spirit resolve our differences and difficulties, and march together with mutual benefit and advantage, into the promising future.


Mr. R. W. Mitchell (London):: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in this debate I recognize and must state at the outset that the word debate is in itself a misnomer. The word

debate implies either a positive statement or a positive course of action which is the subject or which can be the subject of reasonable and logical discussion. The subject matter which is the subject of this debate is neither positive nor does it go anywhere. It is in fact negative; it is a nullity. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the speech made by the minister and the papers tabled by him are nothing more than nothing and they have been so described from coast to coast. It is a stand-pat and a do-nothing budget which is an insult to the intelligence of the Canadian people.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that no person or group of persons can take any interest in this budget except by way of condemnation unless you perhaps include the tax experts, and I imagine that even they are having their troubles finding very much to chew about. It is, I submit, purely and simply an effort to build a surplus which will be offered back to the long-suffering public one year hence on a silver platter. At that time those who have been slighted this year will be asked to return this machine to power on the basis of its magnanimous and greatly increased tax concessions.
One needs only to read the headlines to realize the effect which this budget has had across the country, an effect which produces only one question and that is: "Well, how much is the surplus going to be next year?"
The minister estimated that he would have a surplus of approximately $100 million and I submit that he based his estimates on present price levels and on a gross national product of $28 billion. I suggest to him that if present trends continue the gross national product will be considerably more than that and the bonanza which this government will have in its hands to deliver to the Canadian public will be considerably greater than the $100 million to which the minister has referred.
As I view the budget, it is designed for the purpose of raising the money that is reasonably necessary to conduct the business of government in an efficient and economical manner. A budget should take a broad view of the whole economy and it should take notice of change in times and conditions. It should be designed not only to permit but also to encourage the development of our natural resources and our industries wherever they may be found. I suggest that this budget cannot be so described by any standard or yardstick. It is purely and simply a ruminative statement which has become so typical of this government, which is content to go along with the stream and,
12, 1956
The Budget-Mr. R. W. Mitchell like a docile child, to reach out and hang on to the coat tails of that beneficent gentleman known as Uncle Sam.
The minister referred somewhat piously to certain weak spots in our economy. At page 2325 of Hansard he is reported as having said, and I quote:
Nevertheless, some sectors of industry and agriculture have not fully shared in this rate of progress.
The minister leaves it there and goes on to a platitudinous discussion of dominion-provincial relations. He does not attempt to deal with, to recognize or to accept any responsibility for the fact that there are weak sectors in our economy. He paid tribute to those who sit on the treasury benches with him. He listened to the plaudits of those who sit around him and keep their toes on the line. He offered nothing in the way of guidance, hope or assistance to the Canadian people. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that there has never been such a sham. Never has a budget been so obviously-and I am tempted to say, as the minister interjected during the course of the debate-never has it been "so well used", for purely political purposes.
Much has been said in this house, from all corners of the house, and much has been said and written across this country in recent years on the subject of United States-Cana-dian relations. Public opinion is growing, public opinion is beginning to become conscious, more conscious than ever before, of our birthright. There is a considerably increased demand on the part of Canadians everywhere that we in Canada take a greater responsibility and retain a greater share of control over the development and expansion of our Canadian economy.
There can be no question that capital investment from abroad, particularly from the United States, has contributed greatly to our growth and development in past years. I think in fact that is welcomed by all in every corner of this house. But that is no phenomenon, that is not unusual, that is typical of all young countries struggling to maturity. It was particularly true of the United States itself. It is not so very long ago that the economy of the United States was in fact controlled by the United Kingdom. For a variety of reasons, some of which might be said to be the natural growth and development of the country itself, the natural desire of its people to be masters in their own house and the financial effects on the United Kingdom of two great wars; for these reasons and others, the influence which was formerly so strong has now to all intents and purposes disappeared.

The Budget-Mr. R. W. Mitchell
The same process must take place in Canada and I suggest that that process will take place in two ways. First there will result a change of thinking on the part of citizens of the United States. That change of thinking was very ably and capably stated by the president of the University of Western Ontario, Dr. Hall, at the Boston conference on distribution which met last fall. In order to indicate it I shall quote two short paragraphs from that speech which he entitled "Taking Canada for Granted" and which are as follows:
The real problem, which can be hidden so readily behind the issue of United States capital investment in Canada, is to me not a problem necessarily of dollars and cents. It is a problem of human relations, a problem of respect for others, a problem of philosophy, a problem of understanding and mutual participation. The solution of this problem should not lie in controlling legislation aimed against foreign corporations operating in Canada. It should, I believe, be solved through a major change in the philosophy of "parent corporations" doing business in foreign countries. And specifically in Canada, foreign-owned or foreign-controlled subsidiaries or companies should be listed as Canadian companies, making at least the same type of financial disclosures as do truly Canadian companies, making available to Canadian investors stock in the Canadian subsidiary which reflects only the Canadian operation and making it possible, on the basis of capacity and ability, for top management positions to be filled by Canadians-who know Canada, who love Canada, and whose inherent loyalties are to Canada.
There is no question about the sympathy, understanding, and respect between those from Canada and those from the United States. We are all friends. We believe in the same things. We fight for the same causes. Why then cannot more of the foreign corporations doing business in Canada, making good profits on their Canadian investments, using Canadian materials and labour, selling goods to the Canadian consumer, recognize that the Canadian people not only desire to be, but are becoming determined to be active partners in Canadian enterprises?
With that statement I am in complete agreement. I suggest also that the title of that speech "Taking Canada for Granted" could be well applied to this government. Never have the people of Canada been so taken for granted.
What is the second influence to which I refer? It is an influence which in fact arises out of the remarks made by Dr. Hall. It is an influence which is on the conscience of each and every one of us. We read headlines in the papers such as "How Should we Work for Prosperity, by Selling off Assets to Foreign Investors" or "Dependence on U.S. Goes on Growing". Those are not isolated headlines, they are on the lips of Canadians from one coast to the other. Surely it lies within the realm of this government, and I would hope it would be by way of friendly conference rather than unilateral action, to make sure or at least to take steps to retain control
[Mr. Mitchell (London) .1

and obtain control to a greater extent of our own economy than is presently the case.
I need only refer to a summary of Canada's foreign investment position which appeared in the dominion bureau of statistics daily bulletin for Friday, April 6, the fourth paragraph of which reads as follows:
The importance of foreign capital to Canadian development has been an outstanding characteristic of Canadian economic history. In turn Canadian development has been a leading influence on the form and course which non-resident investments have taken. The report shows that much of this growth has recently been occurring in investments in Canadian equities which in many cases are accompanied by control. There has been a particularly notable rise in foreign-controlled concerns during the recent period of accelerated development in Canada.
I do not propose to refer to the pipe line except to suggest that that is a typical case, not only of selling out to foreign investors but of actually subsidizing foreign investments in order to enable them to develop and deliver one of our major national resources.
This government has to some extent recognized the problem to which I refer. At page 2332 of Hansard the minister dealt with the problem of Canadian subsidiaries of foreign companies. As is well known, United States firms pay a withholding tax of 15 per cent on dividends unless they are more than 95 per cent owned by the United States parent companies. If there is a minority interest of 5 per cent or less the withholding tax is only 5 per cent. In the case of other countries such as Sweden, Denmark and Eire, to which the minister referred, the preferred rate of 5 per cent on dividends applies if there is more than 50 per cent ownership in the Canadian company. There are other anomalies of a similar nature which were referred to yesterday. One case is the presentation by J. Grant Glassco to the Gordon commission in which he pointed out, and I quote:
There is a marked increase in foreign firms operating here without incorporating Canadian subsidiaries.
In some of these cases they are in fact carrying on their entire business in Canada. The profits so earned by this portion of corporations are dealt with in exactly the same way as Canadian corporations, and there is no withholding tax on the export of the dividends received.
Another problem that has been brought to light recently has to do with restrictions placed by United States corporations on exports by their Canadian subsidiaries. That problem was pointed up in the fall edition of the Business Quarterly, published by the University of Western Ontario school of business administration, in an article written by Mr. Eric Curwain. He said:
One of the most harmful restrictions imposed by U.S. parent companies is that of limiting the

exports of their Canadian subsidiaries to commonwealth countries, and this is now a common practice. When this measure was first put into effect there was in some cases very little disadvantage to the Canadian branch. Now, however, with dollar restrictions imposed on commonwealth buyers, and with the dividing of the world into hard and soft currency blocks, this limitation on Canadian exporters is a big blow to our economy. In making a survey of export potential, the most frequent and disheartening phase heard is: "We export to the commonwealth only-the rest of the world is looked after by our U S. factory." This reply comes from firms engaged in all types of manufacture. It reminds one of the couplet that was alleged to have been sung by humble villagers in England:
God bless the Squire and his relations
And keep us in our proper stations.
That couplet, I might say, seems to be fairly typical of the attitude which this government has taken towards the United States. These incidents are only some of the reasons for our problem. We are, in fact, encouraging minority participation in Canadian subsidiaries of United States firms. We should be going all out to invite those firms to come in on a proper withholding tax basis and thereby not only to permit them to accept Canadian investment but to invite their acceptance of Canadian investment.
All of us here in this house and elsewhere believe that Canada is on the threshold of one of the greatest developments of any country in modern times. However, it is most necessary that we remind ourselves that we are the trustees of it, and it behooves us not to permit this country to become a vassal state of any foreign power, no matter how friendly that power may be.
I submit that, with the increased understanding to which Dr. Hall referred, and of which I am certain there is going to be more, and with legislation to encourage rather than discourage Canadian investment, United States domination will wane. In the result, I suggest that a solution can be reached which will be mutually satisfactory not only to us Canadians, who wish to be the masters in our house, but also to the United States investors of the past and the present, whose assistance we have greatly appreciated and will continue to appreciate.
I now turn to what I would describe as the second crime of omission. It is a crime of omission which this self-satisfied and reluctant dragon has perpetrated in that apparently it considers its only duty to the Canadian people is to follow the lead of someone else or some other government. It does not encourage or offer the facilities for initiative and foresight which from our very inception have been the trademark of Canadianism.
I refer once again to the lack of interest displayed by the minister in the weak spots
The Budget-Mr. R. W. Mitchell of our economy, both industry-wise and area-wise. He said that they have not fully shared in the rate of progress. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. That there are weak links in our economy is indisputable. That nothing has been done about it, that they have not been forcefully dealt with, is undeniable. Apparently the government in its wisdom felt that the wheat farmer represented one of the weak links in our economy. Whilst I do not and cannot agree with the action that it took, I must at least admit that it did take some action. But now once again, having roused itself for one blustering moment, it has relapsed into its usual lethargic state and apparently is ignoring all the other problems with which this country is faced. I can only remind the minister of the warning contained in the brief filed with him on January 31 by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, wherein it is stated:
We are beginning the second decade of the postwar period and it is probable that conditions will differ considerably from what we have come to expect in the past ten years. That the atmosphere will be more competitive can probably be taken for granted. That the rate of technological progress will be even more rapid appears very likely. That there will be less inflation than in the past decade seems likely also, though we are starting off with a reminder that the forces of inflation can with some encouragement become quite active.
If the atmosphere is less inflationary and more competitive, our economy will be less able to shoulder the burden of high taxes. In an atmosphere of rising prices and rapid expansion, levels of taxation which would before the war have been regarded as impossibly high have appeared to have few serious consequences. Yet in a less expansive environment the consequences might well become serious. A young country dependent on enterprise and capital investment for its development can ill afford the kind of deadening of initiative and lack of adaptability which has been associated with unduly high taxation in other times and places. And this conclusion applies with special force in an environment of rapid technological progress where keeping up in the competitive race requires heavy capital investment and the willingness and ability to accept substantial risks.
Yet what has been done? Absolutely nothing. In a previous session of this parliament I referred to the problems which were confronting the textile industry and I suggested that perhaps there should be some changes in the stamping regulations and that they should be more effectively and efficiently enforced. With respect to the same industry, I referred also to certain inequities which had resulted from changing times, higher prices and higher costs. I do not attempt to take any credit for the fact that the government has taken some steps with respect to the stamping regulations which have in part met the problem. It has also resulted in an increased consciousness on the part of the Canadian people that it is good business to buy Canadian.
2860	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. R. W. Mitchell
There are steps that can be taken to assist areas and industries that are in trouble, steps which may involve that hated word "protection". Many briefs have been submitted, many articles have been written and many words have been spoken on this subject. Some recommend that major changes in policy are required; others suggest purely administrative changes to meet the problem. All confirm that we have not been keeping our policy up with the times.
In the present budget speech the minister, as usual, has made a typically timid approach to the problem. To say that we should reconsider tariff policies and tariff structures is not to say that we should immediately build cement walls around the boundaries of this country. Tariffs are living things. Tariffs require change with the times. To say that we should reconsider our tariffs is purely and simply to say that we should view the situation realistically, that we should view it on a broad consistent basis and not on the hit and miss basis with which the government has attempted to deal with the problem.
In referring, Mr. Speaker, to this sinful word, "tariff", I simply wish to put it that this word has been with us for many years, and I suggest that if we look around at some other countries with whom we deal we are going to realize here and now that this selfsame word is going to be with us for many years to come. One of the most horrible examples of the improper use of protection has to do with the 20 per cent tax on advertizing in Canadian issues of United States magazines. I do not intend to refer to that matter in any detail except to say that it is not only discriminatory in its worst sense but it will not accomplish the purpose which the minister predicted it would.
If we have a greater need for protection for our reading public, surely to goodness what we need to do is clear away some of the trash from our newstands which all of us see there in such a flood. Whether or not we like protection, whether or not we agree that all tariffs should be removed, we must not discriminate and we must accept the fact that the nations with whom we are trading have tariffs. We have been recognized as having one of the freest markets in the world and as a result we are getting the worst of the bargain. We are not selling abroad and we are permitting exporters from low cost countries and from some high cost countries to flood our market and disrupt areas and industries which are our first concern. It is high time that we took some positive, concerted action to retain a larger 

percentage of the Canadian marxet for Canadian products. As I said previously, Mr. Speaker, and now reiterate for purposes of emphasis, we have been going at this for too long on a hit and miss basis. Let us get back to the basic concept that our first duty, sitting here as members in this house, is not to the foreign exporter but to the Canadian producer and the Canadian worker.
To turn to another subject briefly, the minister has now had some experience of the result of minor tax concessions. He made certain predictions last year as to the amount of the gross national product. He based his predictions after having taken into account the minor tax concessions to which I have referred, and he missed the mark because, as he himself pointed out, the gross national product was greater than he had bargained for. I am surprised that he did not learn his lesson. If we Canadians desire, and I am satisfied that we do, to take our full share in the development of this country we have got to make money available for expansion and development, and there are only two ways in which that can be done. One is a reduction of taxes and the other is to exert greater economies in the business of government.
I wish to refer to another short paragraph in the same brief. They point out that if our business is to expand we must get away from the high cost economy which we have had, and must put more money back into the hands of the taxpayers. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that with a reduction in taxes this year rather than next year, which will perhaps be more politically expedient, the same results could be obtained by the minister as he purports to obtain in this present session. There are several places in which taxes could be reduced. I do not presume to tell the minister in what way it should be done. One would be a reduction in corporation taxes which would place in the hands of corporations money with which to expand. Another would be to reduce income taxes which would place in the hands of the people the ability to increase our expansion and development. Perhaps the fairest way would be to reduce the sales tax which would have approximately the same result. Any one of these ways would help the weak spots in our economy.
Finally, I simply wish to point out what is the biggest problem of the Canadian people at the moment, one which we have not been able to solve for some time. The biggest problem is to get the government to tackle the problem realistically rather than to keep nibbling at it like a rabbit.


Mr. A. R. Lusby (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the strictures passed upon the present budget by the last speaker, in which, of course, he was simply ringing variations on the criticisms put forward by various other opposition speakers who have taken part in the debate, it occurred to me that it was just about a year ago that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris), who was then practically a newcomer to the responsible and onerous position he holds, brought down his first budget in the house. In listening to many of these criticisms it seems to me that, making allowances of course for the inevitable great differences in detail, there is a general undercurrent of similarity between all the criticisms being offered this year and those put forward last year.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is still the same poor government.


Azel Randolph Lusby: It has been said this year that the budget did not do enough, that the minister did not use the budget effectively as an instrument for the benefit of the Canadian economy and that it was not adapted to the times. Those were the criticisms of a year ago. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that at the present time very few people believe that last year's budget was not ideally suited to the conditions which it had to meet. It is surprising how quickly those criticisms evaporated last year, and I am going to predict that the criticisms of the present budget being put forward this year-


Mr. Cardiff:: Will be overcome next year.


Azel Randolph Lusby: -will evaporate just as quickly as did those of last year. Today, with the budgetary emphasis shifted from the need to stimulate to the need to stabilize, I think we will find that the present budget is going to do exactly what it' was intended to do, that it is going to give that steadying touch which is required to enable our economy to roll forward at a satisfactory speed without acquiring the headlong and what would ultimately be the disastrous momentum of uncontrolled inflation.
Most of the speakers in this debate have quoted at length from various publications in support of opinions. I do not' intend to quote anything at length, but I did find what I consider fairly expert confirmation of my opinions about the budget in the columns of the Financial Times. That is a paper which, as far as my observation runs, is not unduly addicted to praise of any kind of this government. The other day some speaker referred, I believe, to an article which had appeared in the same paper concerning the budget. I think it was by Tempus. This is another writer with whom I am concerned and I am
The Budget-Mr. Lusby just going to quote what' his headline says: "The Budget Stands Pat as it Should at the Present Time". That article did not share the view that seems to be so widely held by members of the opposition that a budget is necessarily unsound because it does not bring about any marked change in the tax structure. There is in that article another thing that I might mention and that is that it stated that the present government party in Canada has been lucky in its finance ministers for many years now. I think that there, Mr. Speaker, we have a recognition of the level-headed and sensible manner in which the present minister, like his immediate predecessors, approached the annual problem of the budget. Iri his hands it is a financial instrument which I think is being wielded with skill for the protection of our national economy. On that instrument, it is true, he could have played a more popular tune. Tax reductions are always sweet music.


An hon. Member:: They will be made next year.


Azel Randolph Lusby: Some critics to my left, oddly enough, seem to construe out of the fact that there are no tax reductions this year, some sinister political motive. I should like to ask those gentlemen, Mr. Speaker, this question. If there had been sweeping tax reductions, would they have said there was no political motive in this action? I think not. It seems to me that if the minister had wished to play politics in this matter, he would have brought down tax reductions. It is all very well to say "Save them for next year". He could give some now and some next year if he wished to do so.


An hon. Member:: He did wish to.


Azel Randolph Lusby: I think the minister would have been delighted, both personally and politically, to have brought down some tax reductions this year if the situation had warranted it. Certainly there is no easier path to popularity. But between the dual necessities of stabilizing the economy and providing the necessary revenues, the situation did not warrant it. That, apart from all else, is demonstrated by the vast defence expenditures which we must continue to incur during 1956. At times during the past year it has seemed that perhaps the longed-for improvement in relations between the communist and non-communist world was approaching with its attendant prospect of a stable peace. But with the failure of the Geneva conference; the vicious and historically false verbal attack by Khrushchev on Britain and the United States during his tour of India, Pakistan and Burma; and the only too evident intention of the
2862	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Lusby U.S.S.R. to foment trouble in the Middle East and in Africa-in the face of such things as those-we have had to lay aside for the time being at least any hope that a stable peace is near.
Such doves of peace as are from time to time sent out from the somewhat leaky, though still seaworthy, ark of the United Nations can as yet find no secure resting place for the soles of their feet. While that ark floats we need not despair but, Mr. Speaker, at the present time there is no room for any substantial curtailment in our defence effort.
Some see brighter prospects for peace in the recent apparent repudiation in the U.S.S.R. of one-man dictatorship as exemplified' by the late and now universally unlamented Joseph Stalin, the apparent discrediting of one-man dictatorship in favour of rule by a group, even such a group as now appears to be in control in the Kremlin. I do not share any optimism in that regard. For the time being, it is true, junta rule seems to be the order of things in the U.S.S.R., and I think perhaps it is true to say that generally group or collective leadership may be expected to show at least some elements of moderation and caution. Perhaps this has had a considerable bearing upon the adoption of the present Kremlin policy of continuing the world struggle without manifest aggression.
But it seems to me that rule by a group, large or small, is not a natural, and is unlikely to be an enduring, attribute of any totalitarian state. Sooner or later the strong man, the authentic dictator-"tyrant" is a more forthright word-emerges, in whom, as supreme head, all real power is concentrated. The rule of several is replaced by the rule of one. Collective leadership resolves itself into the collecting by the strong man of the scalps of the other leaders. This is, I suggest, a general lesson of history in respect of junta rule, from Julius Caesar to Napoleon and even later. It is my growing belief that in Nikita Khrushchev, first secretary of the communist party, we have the future tyrant of Russia, absolute and merciless, the very avatar of that Joseph Stalin whom he now so bitterly denounces. If any one man is to emerge supreme from that group of Russian leaders-and one inevitably will-surely it is Khrushchev, the strongest and most malignant of them all.
How far the process of Khrushchev's aggrandizement has already gone it may be difficult to gauge, but certainly he is far on the climb to the summit. Although he has not yet thrown off the constitutional cloak-perhaps he may never need to do so-it is significant that the congress of the communist 

party in Moscow, in addition to re-electing Khrushchev as first secretary, recently added 53 new members, all known supporters of his, to the central committee which in turn re-elected, without change, the Praesidium, the supreme ruling group of eleven, including Khrushchev. The latter's elevation to the leadership of the committee which controls the Russian federation, most important of the republics of the Soviet union, is yet another indication that he is augmenting and consolidating his power.
When the process is complete, the group replaced by one man, and he such as I conceive Khrushchev to be, with absolute mastery of a mighty state, moderation and caution are likely to be set aside in favour of a policy of active armed aggression. This, too, is a lesson of history; sooner or later the tyrant, to bolster his own position, embarks or is driven to embark upon a career of foreign conquest by force of arms, even as Hitler did.
I do not suggest that today's strong man would court such a war as would call down a mutual rain of hydrogen bombs with its likelihood of utter destruction for either side. But I do suggest that his probable choice would be an unending series of localized conflicts, similar to that which we faced in Korea. Certainly we know to our sorrow that the opportunities to precipitate such conflicts in the world today are extremely numerous; and such a policy carries but little danger that the west would resort to the H-bomb so long as it appeared that our opponents did not intend to do so.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in the ominous shadow of the rising Khrushchev, we must maintain our conventional arms at a high level, whatever the budgetary or other burden entailed may be. It is true that the hydrogen bomb must continue to be our ultimate defence. But it is not a weapon adapted to meet all situations any more than dynamite is suitable to destroy rats in a cellar.
If we wished to use a slogan by which our national defence policy and our international policy should be guided at the present time, I think we could put it in three words: Khrushchev means mischief.
To the burden of arms must be added, as an essential means of combating the spread of communism, the extension of assistance to raise the standards of living, health and education in the impoverished countries of the world. Here the United Nations, through its many programs directed towards that end, renders inestimable service. But at this time I should like to emphasize rather the value of the Colombo plan as representing one of the finest opportunities we have to block the

growth of communist influence in fellow countries of the commonwealth. This government is greatly to be commended for its decision to increase Canadian participation in the Colombo plan. That is a decision which I strongly endorse.
I know that some Canadians, even many who fully approve our armament program, find it difficult to understand why we should spend large sums abroad for the economic benefit of other countries. I am glad to note, however, that there seems to be a steadily growing public appreciation of the value of such expenditures, both as a humanitarian measure and as a component of our national security. Both in conversations and in correspondence I have in recent months received from responsible and well-informed Canadian citizens-at least I consider them so-more and more expressions of approval of the Colombo plan and of our increasing participation in it. I am glad, Mr. Speaker, to bring this to the attention of the house at this time.
In touching upon matters of external and international import, Mr. Speaker, I do not forget that in any balanced program of government, internal and domestic affairs must bulk large. As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) stated in his budget address, the past year has been for Canada one of marked economic progress and expansion. But all sections of our economy have not shared equally in the advance, and this government can play no more important part than to endeavour within its own sphere, and with the means at its command, to redress any inequities thereby resulting.
I have often urged, in this house and elsewhere, the need to rectify the regional inequalities which exist in our economy, particularly with respect to the maritime provinces. But there are occupational as well as regional inequalities, and it sometimes happens that the two coincide, with a resulting double effect.
At this session of the house no subject, I think, has received more attention than the state of our agricultural industry. Fundamental though its prosperity is to the economic well-being of this country, it has fallen behind as compared with some other industries. If our present era of progress and expansion is to continue on a permanent basis, the farmer must be ensured his fair share of the national income. It happens that the province of Nova Scotia, with which I of course am more particularly concerned, was one of three in which farm income showed an increase during the past year; but nonetheless it is clear, even to those of us who cannot and do not pose as agricultural
The Budget-Mr. Lusby experts, that the farmer today, in Nova Scotia as elsewhere in Canada and, indeed, in most countries of the western world, has among his problems two which are fundamental. The problem is not peculiar to us. First, he must find sufficient markets for his products. Second, the prices he receives for those products must bear a reasonably favourable ratio to his cost of producing them. In short, prosperity for the farming industry, as in every other, is dependent upon being able to sell and to sell at a profit. That, you say, is obvious, and it is; and yet the solution for the farmer is not at all obvious under present conditions. But unless a solution is found the agricultural industry will not hold a position of reasonable prosperity in our economic structure. If it fails to do so we might liken the result to the crumbling of a foundation stone which will ultimately bring down the whole structure.
There has been no paucity of suggested remedies, Mr. Speaker, for the problem of farm markets and that of the unfavourable price-cost relationship in agriculture, and I certainly do not consider myself competent to advance any complicated remedies of my own. I rather wish just to bring the situation once more to the attention of the house. There is, however, one detail which may be comparatively minor, but which I think is not entirely unimportant, and which I should like to mention at this time. In my opinion, insufficient attention is being paid to the very definite shift in consumer preference in the matter of foodstuffs which is noticeably taking place.
Earlier in this session I heard the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Studer) fulminating against what he described as "rabbit food". Whatever the merit of his criticism may have been, I think it is true that a trend away from certain of our more substantial staple foods toward lighter foods has definitely set in, which neither this house nor any member of it can halt. As the machine increasingly supplants human muscle for the performance of heavy work, we might expect this trend to accelerate. And it seems to me that much more attention and research might profitably be paid to efforts to chart the probable course of this trend so as to forecast as accurately as can be done for the farmer the type of foodstuffs for which he may best hope to find an expanding market in the future.
There are, of course, many staple foods which show no decline in popularity. There is, for example, every indication that beef will continue in high favour with the eating public. I doubt whether many of us can find in
2864	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Lusby our appetites that there has yet been discovered any satisfactory substitute for a roast of beef or a good steak. I think there is no more promising avenue for agricultural progress in my province of Nova Scotia than the raising of beef cattle.
It is the view which has been expressed by officials of our provincial department of agriculture. They say that success of agriculture in Nova Scotia in the coming years will depend to a considerable degree upon the development of the livestock industry. And when we reflect that Nova Scotia imports something like $18 million worth of meat annually, it is evident that room exists for a marked expansion of beef-raising in the province as well as the production of other meats.
As the great marshlands reclamation project proceeds, thousands of fertile acres have become available for use, and they can be put to no better use, in my opinion, than the raising of beef. There is no doubt that they can sustain a large population of cattle. Many years ago beef-raising on the marshes was a profitable and important pursuit and today in various areas considerable progress has already been made again in this direction. There are certain problems which remain to be fully solved; one notable one is that of caring for the maximum number of cattle with a reasonable minimum of labour.
The dominion experimental farm at Nap-pan, on the fringe of the marshlands in my constituency, has devoted a great deal of attention to the solving of these problems, and has achieved, I would say, a very considerable degree of success. I should like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that such research and experimentation in this regard should be pursued with the utmost vigour. The promotion of a beef-raising industry on the marshlands ought to be considered a natural and integrated extension of the vast marshlands project itself, in which this government has played so leading a part. In this connection, Mr. Speaker, it is my view that a great deal more could be done to educate those farmers who own marshlands and who might, with the proper guidance, develop a very large beef-raising industry on those marshlands.
With regard to the disparity between farm prices and cost of production-I am leaving aside the question of any direct governmental intervention in the matter of prices-it is evident that any advance in the efficiency of farm operation which lowers the cost of production without increasing the amount of such production would tend to ease the problem. In this connection, it is my view, Mr. Speaker, that in many parts of the country there is much marginal and submarginal land now
[Mr. Lusby.1

unprofitably devoted to agricultural purposes which might better be turned to other uses, thereby increasing farming efficiency generally and lowering costs of production. I have in mind not so much poor or worn-out lands which might be built up for better agricultural use in the future. That is what I think the United States soil bank plan primarily envisages. But I have in mind rather lands which by their nature will never be well suited to efficient agricultural operations in a fiercely competitive era such as this one undoubtedly is.
In my province, the alternative to using such lands for agriculture, generally speaking, would be to let them revert to the growing of timber, which has a relatively rapid growth in the maritime provinces. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that it would be worth while to consider the feasibility of some joint provincial-federal plan of action whereby provision might be made to encourage the extensive diversion of such lands as I mention to reforestation. Although timber resources and reforestation projects are primarily matters of provincial concern, I do not think anyone would deny that today the state of our agricultural industry is a matter of national concern. A plan of action such as I have suggested for consideration would serve a dual purpose, not only promoting the efficiency of agricultural production generally but also, in the long view, adding to those forest reserves which are going to be of steadily increasing value and importance in our future economic life.
This government has already done much, of course, to better the position of our agricultural industry. I welcome those tariff and other changes effected by the present budget which have as their aim the improvement of the farmer's position. The assistance of the movement of feed grains from west to east has been of incalculable benefit to eastern farmers and I urge that this be raised to the level of a fixed national policy.
The price support program for butter has similarly benefited the dairy industry, and in my opinion the recent decision to extend the program for two years is a wise and sound one. None the less, it seems to me that price support for any particular commodity is a temporary rather than a permanent solution. In the United States a general policy of agricultural price support, by leading to the accumulation of enormous surpluses, threatens in the end to injure rather than aid the farming industry.
A long term solution for the agricultural problems of Canada, as I said earlier, depends upon encouraging the utmost efficiency of farm production without at the same time

increasing that production beyond the bounds of available markets. The problem is complicated by the need to preserve the independence and individuality of the small farmer. Here a greater degree of co-operative action among the small farmers themselves might well be encouraged; but whatever the best solution may prove to be, the problem of maintaining a reasonable degree of agricultural prosperity calls for the best efforts of all governments in this country.
A rapid increase in our national population, by promoting larger domestic consumption of foodstuffs, would go far toward solving the marketing problems which the Canadian farmer faces. Such an increase in population, of course, is closely linked to the continuance of the general economic expansion in this country which the policies of this government have done so much to foster.
The official opposition has of late been decrying the influx of United States capital into this country. The previous speaker devoted some time to this subject. In some respects I was able to agree with him but not in all respects. Vast capital expenditures are necessary to maintain the rapid pace of our Canadian development and it is obvious that only a part of the funds required can be supplied from Canadian sources. As an ideal, I grant that Canadian development through Canadian investment only has much to commend it, but I certainly do not think we should allow the economic development of this country to lag for a generation or two awaiting a sufficiency of Canadian capital for that development. I think that mine is the view of the Canadian people as a whole.
Looking to the future, I do not fear undue United States dominance of our economic life and resources. As the previous speaker mentioned, we are passing through a phase which I think is experienced by every young richly dowered, expanding, and relatively undeveloped country, when an influx of outside capital is essential for the full realization of its economic potentialities. At one time the United States itself was largely dependent upon English capital to speed its development, and no doubt many shortsighted fears were expressed concerning the dangers of British economic dominance.
I have no doubt that, as our population and national wealth increase we shall emerge from that stage even as the United States did. I do not think the solution is to endeavour to put impediments in the way of United States investments in this country. We should always remember that largely because of its stable government Canada is perhaps the most promising field for foreign investment in the world today. But it is not the only field. I would ask hon. members of the opposition to
The Budget-Mr. Jones consider the possibilities of South America, which is also a young, richly dowered, expanding and relatively undeveloped continent. It is quite reasonable to suppose that if it achieved stable government it would be very easy for the stream of United States investment to be turned from the north to the south and in time it would detract from the stream of United States investment in this country. To hamper United States investment in Canada and to make United States investors second-class investors might easily lead to the drying up of the stream of United States investment to Canada, and I think that would put Canada at a great disadvantage.


An hon. Member:: They have already tried it.


Azel Randolph Lusby: In the meantime 1 think we should let United States capital come in because, as I said, I have no fears concerning the future of this country. As our wealth increases I am convinced that we will eventually assume the proper control, the overwhelming control, of all our economic life. I do not think that to attempt to hamper United States investment at this time is a remedy. I believe that foreign investments generally, from the United States and elsewhere, will lead to the speedy achievement of the full national and economic stature which is our destiny. Mr. Speaker, let us achieve it in our time.


Mr. O. L. Jones (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I would like for a brief while to discuss one aspect of the budget that has been touched upon only lightly but which to me is of extreme importance. Like many other hon. members, I was very disappointed to find that the budget provided no relief for the municipalities. This disappointment was also expressed by people I met during my recent visit to British Columbia. During the time I am on my feet I hope to try and pass on to the government the thoughts that were expressed to me concerning this dissatisfaction.
To my personal knowledge the municipalities have been trying hard to penetrate the iron curtain surrounding this government as they have tried to do for many years through their reeves, mayors, organizations, delegations and resolutions. They have tried in every way to approach the government as an equal governing body, but so far, despite the fact that they attended one of the dominion-provincial conventions, they were brushed aside and are still not recognized. I therefore feel that someone should speak on their behalf at this time.
The municipalities are faced with mounting costs. Wages and materials have gone up.
2866	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Jones The municipalities have undertaken to take care of 50 per cent of the expenses in connection with civil defence. They also still bear an unfair share of the cost of unemployment which I think should be taken completely out of their hands. They continue to bear an unfair share of the social services, particularly in the rural areas of British Columbia.
On the other side of the picture their limited field of revenue has not been enlarged for generations; it still remains basically the same. Both federal and provincial governments receive the bulk of their income from municipal dwellers. These governments get several times more than the municipalities in the form of revenue. In my estimation income from these sources has increased during the last ten years by several hundred per cent, while the municipalities have been barely able to catch up with the increased costs of their operations. They must derive their income from what is left after the two senior governments are finished.
It has been pointed out to me that there is a limit to this, and many municipalities feel they have reached that limit. I know some are now in the position where they can no longer borrow legally; and therefore they must curtail many of the services that are essential for their welfare and development. The municipalities are faced with two alternatives because of the failure of the federal government to assist them. First, they can increase taxation and assessment within the municipal boundaries, but in many cases this would be unthinkable because taxation is so high at the present time. I do not think any taxpayer would stand for an increase. The other alternative is to reduce many of the services now rendered, but again the taxpayer would not agree.
We in British Columbia are proud of our municipalities, of what they have done, of how they have developed; we are proud of what they have done with regard to the building of new schools, roads, sidewalks; the development of parks, lighting and water systems; the providing of sewerage and social services; the building of hospitals and the way in which they have taken care of unemployment and civil defence. But all this has placed an extra burden upon these municipalities, because in recent years there has not been an increase in the boundary of any British Columbia municipality. Adjoining areas have grown up but they are afraid to come into the municipality because of the tremendously higher costs that would be involved, caused by the burdens I have referred to. So they remain outside of the municipal boundary as long as they can, which is not good for the district or the
fMr. Jones.]

people because it means essential services necessary for a healthy condition of life are not being provided.
Total municipal debt and the interest thereon has increased. Generally speaking the municipalities of British Columbia have been well governed and their resources and finances have been well administered. But in spite of this the over-all debt has been increasing and as a result essential improvements are being delayed, or as I have been told abandoned in some cases. Most of the municipalities in my riding have written urging federal assistance or the acceptance by the federal government of the municipality as an independent taxing body which would not be subject to taxation by a senior body, whether provincial or federal. Of course in this case it is the federal government.
I shall try to outline briefly how the federal government could help the municipalities by recognizing their obligations, inasmuch as the bulk of their revenue comes from that source. They cannot entirely shake off their responsibilities. They could help by becoming responsible property owners. They are now property owners in the municipality, but they are irresponsible property owners because they pay no taxes. Usually the post office or public building is located on the best site in town, and these federal government buildings are provided with fire and police protection, road and sewage services and everything else. They do not even say, "Thank you" by dropping the municipality a line in appreciation of the services they have obtained for nothing during the year.
It is time that they not only thanked the municipalities but assumed their rightful place as taxpayers within the municipality. Certainly the post office makes money out of its operations. I know that most municipalities appreciate what the government has done with regard to the taxation on public buildings, but even the new formula under which we are now operating does not seem to assist a great deal. In answer to a question I asked last month I was informed by the Minister of Finance that the total number of municipalities which have applied for assistance under this formula totalled only 11 per cent. Those municipalities think they have a chance of getting it and presumably most of them will get it, but 89 per cent of the municipalities in this dominion feel they have no claim on the government under the strict formula which has been worked out. It is on behalf of those municipalities which constitute 89 per cent of the total who cannot qualify that I urge the minister to reconsider the present position and have the government become a taxpayer in the true sense of the word in connection with all federally owned property

within municipal boundaries. It would not hurt the government and it would certainly create a nice taste in the mouths of municipal councils across Canada, who I think have good grounds for complaint.
Even with this formula, if the government had kept pace with the growth of our municipalities by building, more municipalities could have qualified; but they have not provided adequate buildings to house the various departments. Instead we find them scattered all over town, located in old stores or upstairs in buildings. In the Okanagan valley we find these departments located mostly in converted stores. It is time the government erected adequate buildings. I know in the case of Vernon one has been promised for many years, but it is still in the promise stage. In the case of Penticton we have been promised that the public building will be finished by 1960, but as yet the land has not been purchased. The building at Kelowna is still under consideration. These three towns happen to be in the district where I live, and I know their needs and circumstances.
There should be public buildings to take care of the various federal government departments. The fact that the municipalities cannot qualify under the formula shows that the public building is valued at a low figure. Otherwise it would not be hard to come within the formula of 2 per cent of the assessment of the municipality. In one case the present building is quite old and I understand it is about to be scrapped.
I urge the minister to abolish the present formula and pay a tax on all government property within municipal limits just as other taxpayers do.
My next suggestion is that the federal sales tax be removed from all municipal purchases, as is done in the case of hospitals. I know that the tax has been removed in the case of some large purchases by municipalities in Canada. In my opinion a sales tax on municipal purchases is unwarranted and unjust. It simply imposes another burden on the already heavily burdened municipal taxpayer. It is imposed in a rather bullying sort of way, in that the one tax-receiving body imposes it on the other tax-receiving body because it is bigger and in a better position to impose its authority.
Two municipalities in my riding, West Summerland and Penticton, operate irrigation systems. Some time ago these municipalities had occasion to buy pipe and other equipment for irrigation works within their municipal limits. On their behalf I applied to the government for a rebate of the sales tax paid on these purchases, but I was flatly turned
The Budget-Mr. Jones down on the ground that such purchases did not come within the provisions of the present act. I feel that when a municipality is prepared to help out its own citizens and its own farmers by providing an irrigation system it should receive a rebate of the sales tax. On behalf of these municipalities I would ask that when the government finally arrives at the point where they will allow a rebate of sales tax to municipalities, they consider including in such rebate provisions, purchases in connection with irrigation projects operated by municipalities.
About a year ago the Minister of Finance intimated that consideration would be given to the reopening of the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act if a desire for that action were expressed by the provincial governments during the federal-provincial convention. That desire was expressed. I understand the premier of British Columbia was one in favour of the proposal, and he told me that the matter would be brought up at that convention. The matter, having been brought up, was cold-shouldered. Nothing was done about it and nothing will foe done because, I understand, the government is not in favour of reopening this act. I am sorry about that, and I hope I am wrong. It would render great assistance to the municipalities if it were reopened.
As I have mentioned before this act, while it was in operation, was very successful, providing 2 per cent money for self-liquidating municipal projects. It helped, as far as British Columbia was concerned, to build up water works, lighting systems and hydroelectric and other types of municipal projects of that kind. We have them to this day, real tangible assets, at very little cost to the dominion government.
The municipalities today are urgently in need of cheap money for similar works, where towns have grown and where new towns have sprung up, and they are unable to get sufficient money owing to the high cost. They would all welcome this act. They have pleaded with me to do what I can to have it reopened. I cannot understand the government's indifference to this, because while it operated they made money. They did not lose money; they made money. Every cent borrowed and every cent of interest has been paid in full, and I think that is a remarkable achievement. On the other side, they can show with pride all the excellent projects that have been completed to the benefit of the Canadian people. Money at 2 per cent, as I point out, would add materially to our tangible assets, and without any financial embarrassment to the government or the municipality.
2868	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Jones
Another way to assist the municipality would be for the federal government to assume all costs resulting from unemployment. At present the municipalities still bear a substantial part of the cost, which I claim should be a federal responsibility, especially as far as British Columbia is concerned, because we have people migrating from every province in Canada to spend a warmer winter in British Columbia, and naturally many become a burden on the municipality. Because of the roving nature of Canada's unemployed, I feel the whole burden should be assumed by the federal government.
Another suggestion I am going to make is with regard to education. The bulk of municipal taxes today is devoured by educational costs. For years and years a desire has been expressed by the municipalities for some form of federal aid. It is difficult to arrive at what form that aid should take, but I am going to suggest that the simplest way would be to make a per capita grant to school districts, where school districts are in existence, or to municipal bodies. It could be done in some other way, but a per capita grant throughout the dominion would help to solve the problem.
Education actually is more of a federal problem than a municipal one. We are all anxious to get an equal standard throughout the whole dominion. One municipality may have a high standard and the next one a low standard, because of its revenue. So the only body that could truly lay claim to being able to have a universal dominion-wide standard would be the federal government. For that reason I think the federal government should step into that field with assistance, and this is a suggestion as to how this equality could be obtained. I believe all Canadians should have equal opportunities, but unfortunately if something is not done to meet the rising cost of education the authorities will be forced to cut down the educational curricula themselves.
I have made these suggestions, realizing that the government of Canada is a team proposition. The team is composed of the federal government, the provincial governments and the municipal governments, and each member of that team is entitled to a fair share of the common income. There is only the one common income, what the people of Canada earn from their labour, whether physical or mental. So far the municipalities have been ignored by the senior governments, especially the federal government, and it is time they realized the importance of the junior member of the team and gave it a break. Any or all of the suggestions I have just made could be implemented at little cost to the federal government but


with immense benefit to the municipalities. I trust the minister will give serious consideration to this before it is too late and we have trouble in the municipalities themselves.
There is one other subject I should like to mention; that is the care of our senior citizens. I had a letter from a group in Oliver, British Columbia, the other day. This group is trying to get federal assistance to build a home for senior citizens. The only type of home the government more or less sponsors is the small cottage built under the National Housing Act. These people have a scheme whereby 21 or more old people would live in one large home, which might be called a boarding house. This could be built for approximately $70,000, including accommodation for the staff and everything else. If you take the unit cost of taking care of a senior citizen under this scheme as compared with the unit cost of building a separate home, you will find it is considerably less. The care of senior citizens would be under proper management. In this case in Oliver it would be a co-operative effort by the citizens of the town. There is no means of getting a federal government grant. The provincial government is putting up one-third of the cost, and the suggestion is that the citizens of Oliver put up one-third and the federal government put up the other one-third. I think it is a fair and sound proposition which would benefit the federal government by allowing these people to live in decent circumstances.
Again I suggest the federal government has the responsibility, because many of these people have drifted to British Columbia on attaining the age at which they are eligible for old age pension. They have come there for the same reason that others drift in, for the climate. For the same reason I advanced before, I feel the government has the responsibility to see that these people are properly housed. Here is an opportunity to bear one-third of the cost of a worthy project. If the government would extend the facilities of the National Housing Act, if necessary, or act through some other means to encourage the building of such homes, I am satisfied that other centres in British Columbia would also come into the field of providing homes that are much needed by these older people. Again, in doing so it would help the municipalities which, in the absence of help from the federal government, must put up the difference and bear the cost of operating these homes. Therefore I hope the minister will give consideration to assisting such projects for the senior citizens of Canada.


Mr. H. P. Cavers (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to congratulate the Minister of Finance on the budget he has presented at this session of parliament. A year ago the

minister presented a budget which appeared to some to be too optimistic. However, by reason of the general development of the country and the increase in general business, Canada's gross national product reached a record level.
Before coming into the chamber I had occasion to read the current comment of the celebrated columnist, Mr. Bruce Hutchison. In his article Mr. Hutchison said that just as in the ordinary affairs of man, just as in the affairs of any business corporation, so in the affairs of the nation there is a time to pause and take stock and appraisal of the situation of that particular business or household. He went on to say that if he could read the mind of the Minister of Finance he would say that at this time he was taking that pause to determine Canada's position for the future. This is the second budget presented by the present Minister of Finance. I hope he will bring down further successful budgets as long as he has the honour of holding the portfolio he now holds.
On my return to the Niagara district during the Easter recess I found the fruit and vegetable growers not in any spirit of despair but rather in a spirit of anxiety over the fact that their gross incomes have been reduced below the level of the incomes of those persons who are employed in industry or who are engaged in mercantile or commercial business. They were pleased to know that Canada's economy was at a record high level, but they believed that they were entitled to a greater share of the prosperity at the present time.
In spite of conflicting reports that the rich alluvial fruit lands are being encroached upon by industrial concerns and commercial developments, there are still many fine agricultural acres in the Niagara peninsula to be developed and cultivated. The splendid, mild climate still prevails in that area, and the farmers there are as resourceful as ever. Nevertheless there are several problems which prevent the agriculturists from moving into an equal position with the industrial worker. I am one of those who believe that the agricultural worker, the fruit grower, the vegetable grower and their wives and families should not be asked to accept less for their toil than those who work in commercial business or in industrial pursuits. Every person is entitled to the fruits of his hire.
The problems of the farmer have been fairly accurately set forth in an address delivered by Mr. H. H. Hannam at the twentieth annual meeting of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture held in Hamilton on January 24, 1956. The situation being encountered in this country is not one that is
The Budget-Mr. Cavers peculiar to this country alone. I think the same problems are being met in the United States of America. In his address Mr. Hannam cites the problems of Canadian agriculture, and I can do no better than to quote his summation of the problem, which is in these words:
(a)	Markets are lagging behind farm output.
(b)	All-time high costs of production are being held rigid, or are rising, while farm prices have fallen.
(c)	Comparatively little progress is being made through intergovernmental co-operation in improving international distribution of food and agricultural products.
So far as the first item is concerned, the matter of markets lagging behind farm output, I think it is recognized that our output is far greater than our present consumption. There is a great need for more people in our country to use the great output of agricultural products. An increase in population will bring a greater consumption of our natural farm products. There is also a need, and I think a greater need, to market our farm products in a more attractive manner.
I refer particularly to the fruit and vegetable growers who live in the constituency which I represent. I believe they could dress up their produce in a much better manner than is the case at the present time. We see fruit and vegetables not grown in this country but which are brought here and sold not because their price is any less but because they are packaged in a more attractive container.
I think the formation of producer-controlled marketing boards is vital to the industry. The farmers of my area are not asking for handouts or subsidies. They wish to solve their own marketing and other problems, but they realize they have a need for an orderly program of selling their production. A marketing board or marketing scheme or system will bring with it a sales force for the distribution of natural farm products. It will provide a more adequate method of packaging the product which will appeal to the consumer. It will bring about a uniform high standard of quality over which there can be some supervision. It will also bring with it a medium of public advertising which can be sponsored by the particular marketing board.
But such marketing boards require effective legislation to give legal status to their regulations. In Ontario the farm products marketing act was passed in 1950. It appears in the revised statutes of Ontario, 1950, chapter 131. Subsequent amendments were introduced in the years 1953, 1954 and 1955. However, this legislation has been attacked as being indirect

The Budget-Mr. Cavers taxation and beyond the jurisdiction of a provincial legislature. The constitutional issues are embodied in a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada which will be heard this month.
It is expected that the justices of the Supreme Court of Canada who hear the reference will bring down a judgment some time this spring. If the legislation is held to be within the jurisdiction of the provincial legislature, then the act will enable the growers in our area to continue the progress they have made during the past year. Should the Supreme Court of Canada find that the legislation is lacking in some manner which can be repaired by a provincial legislature, then I suggest that it is within the scope and jurisdiction of the provincial legislature to provide the remedy in order to make that legislation effective.
But if the provincial legislation is found to be ultra vires or bad in some manner, and it cannot be cured by the provincial legislature, then I believe it would be necessary for this house to provide proper legislation in order to make the provincial legislation effective. In the interests of the fruit and vegetable growers whom I have the honour to represent, the hog producers, the cheese producers and all those persons who are engaged in the distribution of farm products, it seems to me that this course of action is advisable. If it is needed, the federal legislation should be drafted and ready. Delay in presentation, creating a hiatus during the summer months, would cause a serious situation in regard to the realistic marketing of farm products throughout the country.
I said that Mr. Hannam referred to the need for co-operation among interdepartmental agencies in order to improve international distribution of food and agricultural products. Mr. Hannam's words were "little progress is being made". If little progress is being made in this matter, which caused his complaint, I suggest that it is not the fault of the departments of this government.
In the fall of 1953, I felt that some assistance needed to be rendered to the growers of our district. I called together representative fruit and vegetable growers in my district to discuss this very problem. They formed a committee of five members. At the request of this committee an interdepartmental committee comprising representatives of the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Trade and Commerce, the Department of Finance, and the Department of Transport was formed with the help of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Agriculture, the then minister of finance and the then minister of transport. These two groups


-on the one hand specialists of the various departments of government and on the other hand practical producers who understood the problems with which they were confronted- came together here in Ottawa to discuss the problems of this industry. I can say, Mr. Speaker, that the results were beneficial and gratifying.
I desire to express the thanks of the fruit and vegetable growers of the Niagara district to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, to Mr. Richard Bower and to Mr. Bruce Marshall of his London office for the assistance they gave the growers of our district in getting our fruit and vegetables on the British market in 1954 and 1955. In 1954 the growers of our district sent Mr. W. C. Nickerson, a prominent fruit grower, to Britain. With the assistance of these men whom I have named they were able, working together, to arrange for the sale of our canned fruit and vegetables on the British market. It was a godsend to the growers of our area. They are expecting to continue to send the fine processed fruit and vegetables from our area to the British markets again this year. This effort was only a beginning and in a small way, but it reflects what can be done when a spirit of co-operation exists between the specialists in the various government departments and experienced agriculturists who know the problems with which they are confronted.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture should be complimented on setting up a committee on policy. The committee, headed by Mr. Jack Brodrick, an outstanding and capable agriculturist who resides in the county of Lincoln, have done much to help the agricultural policy of the country. Mr. Brodrick and his associates, after two years of effort, have brought down an eight-section report which, assembled, provides a national policy for Canadian agriculture. It indicates on the part of Canadian farmers a willingness to face their problems and to endeavour to provide a solution for their difficulties. In turn they desire and request the assistance and support of governments, both provincial and federal, to create a favourable climate in which agriculture can work. I am sure that assistance will be forthcoming, and that the lot of the Canadian farmer will be greatly improved, largely because of his own industry and initiative.
I would be remiss, Mr. Speaker, if before I sit down I did not mention one fact. On two occasions I have spoken in the interests of those citizens who are obliged to accept handicaps which we do not know. I refer to the blind citizens of this country. They suffer a great handicap. They bear their burden cheerfully, and in many cases they endeavour

through their own efforts to support themselves and their families. On previous occasions I have requested of the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Finance that the payments made to these blind persons should be made without a means test.
If it is not possible to provide these people with their assistance without a means test, the blind citizens of this country are asking for an additional cost of living allowance to provide for the additional assistance which they require. This includes helpers who must accompany them on trips which they are obliged to take. On many occasions they are obliged to provide themselves with taxis at their own expense. They are asking for a small supplementary payment that would assist them in this way. I am sure that a small payment of this kind to the blind people of this country would not cause too heavy a drain on the public purse, and that it would not provide too much difficulty for the taxpayers of this country. It would certainly be greatly appreciated by those who have difficulty in caring for themselves.


Mr. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, when the budget was brought down a short time ago I listened with rapt attention to what the minister had to say, and I must say that I was greatly disappointed when he concluded his address.


Walter Edward Harris: I am sorry.


John Angus MacLean: I was disappointed because several things which I hoped would be in the budget' were not included. I had hoped the minister would be in a position to give us an assurance that there is definite hope that some adjustment in the tariff can be made which will produce a more equitable situation as between the producers of potatoes in Canada and those in the United States. The same thing applies to a new product which holds considerable promise for the fishing industry, namely processed fish sticks. Unfortunately, at the present time Canadian processed fish sticks meet a very high tariff on going into the United States, and the hoped-for benefit to the fishing industry has not as yet materialized.
But a third thing was absent from the minister's remarks, namely a satisfactory recognition of the problems of the maritime provinces at the present time. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I feel it is my responsibility to again bring to the attention of the house, to the best of my ability, the difficulties under which the maritime provinces have found themselves for most of the time since they joined confederation.
The Budget-Mr. MacLean
Like the other provinces, the maritime provinces went into confederation on the assumption that they would be equals and would be treated as such. Theoretically, the colonies that joined together to form our present Dominion of Canada looked upon themselves as equals, and in fact they were within reason at least of the same relative importance; they fell roughly within the same category. However, at the present time the maritime provinces find that in fact they are not equal members of an association. That is only a theory. They find instead that they are the little fellows away off at the far end of the Canadian table, and when the platter gets to them they find that the best has been picked over, if not removed entirely. As a matter of fact we find that we are forced to refer to ourselves as the poor relatives in the Canadian family.
I should like to be in a position to congratulate the minister, to exchange some pleasantries and so forth, but owing to the situation in which I find myself I must run the risk of being possibly rather critical, and in any case my remarks may be received with some distaste. It is not because I have any wish to be objectionable; nor is it owing to the fact that any animosity may exist between this party and any other party. It is owing to the fact that we are poor relations, and I am speaking on their behalf at the present time. We have only to refer to Charles Lamb's essay on poor relations to see in what an unenviable position I find myself at the present time. He said:
A poor relation is the most irrelevant thing in nature-a haunting conscience-a preposterous shadow, lengthening in the noontide of our prosperity-an unwelcome reminder-a perpetually recurring mortification-a drain on your purse- a more intolerable dun upon your pride-a drawback upon success-a rebuke to your rising-a stain in your blood-a blot on your escutcheon- a rent in your garment-a death's head at your banquet.
There we have it. Sir, in order that my references to the position of the maritimes may be better understood I must refer back briefly to the history of confederation and the condition of the relations between the maritimes and the Dominion of Canada over the years. Only in that way can we hope to identify and correct the causes of the present condition.
In 1867 the maritimes had a fairly mature economy. They were growing rapidly. For example, for 10 years before confederation the colony of Nova Scotia was growing at a much more rapid rate than that of lower Canada. They prospered in an economy that had for its mainstays wood, wind and water. It was the day of sail, and the maritimes had become an important trading area in the

The Budget-Mr. MacLean world. They built wooden ships with which they traded to all parts of the world. They found themselves in a fairly booming economy. For example, at that time the city of Saint John was the fourth city in British North America. The colonies had negotiated trade agreements with the United States which were very beneficial to them. At that time New Brunswick was manufacturing 7-8 per cent of the Canadian production. The percentage has now dropped to 1-6.
When representatives of those colonies met in Charlottetown in 1864 their original idea was that they could become even more prosperous if the four Atlantic provinces united. This idea met with the favour of the then colonial secretary, who was the Duke of Newcastle. But owing to political reasons, Upper and Lower Canada found themselves in a political stalemate; and because of fear of the United States they sponsored and in the end had accepted the larger union.
The maritimes did not at any time receive this idea of a larger union with any great enthusiasm. The only colony that put it to the test of a popular vote was the Tilley government in New Brunswick, and they were soundly thrashed the first time they went to the people on the question of confederation. It was only at a later election when many other factors were involved which, according to some, muddied the waters, that a government in favour of the larger confederation was elected. After all, it may be only coincidental that the 1860's were the closing years of the golden age of the maritimes. It was an age when shipping was changing over from wooden ships and sail to steam and steel.
People will say that confederation was only coincidental with that, and there is no connection between the two. Nevertheless it would seem to me that since the maritimes had made such a success of things in the first field, they might have been able to compete successfully in the second as well under similar conditions.
Of course there were other reasons why confederation at that time was not especially popular. There was no great desire in the maritimes for union with the Canadas. There was little trade between them and almost no traffic. A Halifax paper of the day said:
We do not know each other. We are shut oS from each other geographically, commercially, politically and socially. Our interests are not identical but the very opposite.
As a matter of fact the colonies had almost nothing in common. When confederation took place the maritime provinces found themselves forced into an unnatural trade position.

The maritime economy had depended on shipping and trading north and south along the Atlantic seaboard. They found themselves forced into trading relations of an unnatural kind across barriers between themselves and the other colonies following confederation. They found, too, that as time went by their voice in the affairs of the new nation grew less and less. When the maritimes joined confederation they had a representation of 34 members out of 181 in this chamber. That representation has fallen to 26 members out of 265 at the present time. That gives one a clue to the lessening importance of the maritime provinces in Canada.
As I said before, these various colonies were something of the same order in size when confederation took place. At that time the maritimes had an area of about 50,000 square miles. Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba together had about six times that area, but it was not considered that the sizes were completely disproportionate as the maritimes was a more highly developed area with a denser population. We find today that the maritimes have the same area they had at confederation, whereas the other three provinces among them have increased their area by 738,000 square miles, bringing their total area at the present time to over one million square miles.
The extra area these provinces have added since confederation is one and a half times as great as the total area in Europe overrun by Russia since 1939. This, of course, is not a fair comparison, because the additional area was practically uninhabited when it was allotted to these provinces; however, its natural wealth is very great. It is the riches of these northern areas that are now keeping the cash registers of the industrial centres of Ontario and Quebec ringing.
It is not accidental that this state of affairs has come about. Upper and Lower Canada had scarcely entered confederation when they started a campaign to increase their boundaries until eventually they reached the size to which I have already referred. The tragedy of the matter is that the men of the day did not appear to realize what was taking place. No long or thoughtful debates took place on the subject when it came before this chamber at various times in 1908 and 1911.
In 1908 a resolution was passed approving of the entire area stretching north to Hudson bay being appended to the provinces of Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba. The act was actually passed in 1911. It is true that hon. members from the maritimes raised their voices in protest at that time. They pointed out that this would upset the unit of representation. It being at the time the population of Quebec divided by 65, since the area of

Quebec was to be increased that would make the unit of representation greater and thereby decrease the representation of the maritimes and other areas in this parliament. Very few people, however, appeared to recognize the true significance of what took place.
In reading over the debate I did notice that one man apparently recognized exactly what was taking place and forecast fairly accurately what would occur. I am pleased that this man happened to be a resident of my riding, who very capably represented in this house for many years the riding which I now have the honour to represent. This gentleman's name was Alexander Martin and on that occasion he said:
The province of Quebec at present is the size of a pretty large kingdom. Some years ago more than half its original area was added to that province, and by this proposal another kingdom in extent is to be given it. To whom do these lands belong that we so cheerfully give away? What right has this government or any government to alienate the property of Canada and give it to any province without a consideration in return?
Then he went on to say:
... I protest strongly against the public domain being given away to the other provinces without some quid pro quo to the maritime provinces which cannot have their areas extended. Look at the preponderating influence over the smaller provinces which this extension of area will give to the larger provinces in this parliament.
And finally he said this:
The Prime Minister told us that this territory would not be settled for years to come, but we do not know the value of these lands. There may be millions and millions of acres of mineral lands worth incalculable wealth there. Before the house proceeds in this we should know exactly what we are giving away and how much of the wealth of the country we are divesting ourselves of.
That is the situation with regard to this matter.


Mr. Macdonnell:: What was the date of that?


John Angus MacLean: I think it was July 13, 1908, and it is reported in column 12798 of Hansard.
Our object in the maritimes is to make confederation work if at all possible. We have been long suffering in the economic field. We have taken the attitude that we should turn the other cheek. As a matter of fact, by this time we have turned all four of them and we have been either slapped or kicked according to what seemed to be most appropriate at the moment.
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to create the impression that maritimers think the larger provinces are not scrupulously fair. Most maritimers take the attitude that the larger provinces and the dominion as such believe in the principle of share and share alike. The only catch is that when the shares are being d^alt out, maritimers feel the assets go to
The Budget-Mr. MacLean the larger provinces and the liabilities go to the maritimes. There has been no adequate restitution to the maritime provinces for these vast kingdoms that were rather blithely given to these three provinces in particular. It is true that commissions have been set up to deal with this problem, and the Duncan and White commissions did deal with it and arrived at a formula which for that day was quite fair. However, due to inflation and other considerations, the reports made by those commissions are now out of date and no longer deal with the situation.
I have dealt with the position of the maritimes as compared with the other provinces, and later I hope to deal with the position of the maritimes, as well as other provinces, in relation to the central government, the unfavourable position of the maritimes, especially in the field of taxation, as compared with the position of the central government. The maritimes find themselves the victims of both conditions and therefore are struggling along under a double load of injustice.
At the time of confederation certain demands were made by the provinces before they would agree to come into confederation. The central government took over provincial debts and where the per capita debt was low agreed to pay 5 per cent interest on the difference between such low debt and the average per capita debt. There was to be a subsidy of 80 cents per head paid each year, which still exists. Before certain fields of taxation were handed over by the colonies to the federal government there was an understanding that since they were handing over rights to impose tariff duties and other indirect taxes, they should receive certain benefits in return. Those benefits were calculated at that time, but now they seem to be looked upon by the central government as handouts to the various provinces rather than rights which were turned over by the provinces to the central government as one of the conditions of coming into confederation.
At the time of confederation the taxation fields were divided between the provincial and federal governments, but it turned out that the field given to the federal government developed into a more lucrative one than that which was retained by the provinces. Because of this in many cases the provinces find themselves in a condition of penury which reduces them to a sort of vassalage to the central government, a condition which was never intended to exist, which it was never intended by the fathers of confederation should ever be created. In this connection I should like to quote briefly from speeches made in the past in this chamber by various

The Budget-Mr. MacLean ministers. On March 25, 1907, Sir Wilfrid Laurier had this to say:
Lower Canada would not have entered confederation if, as a consequence, she had been obliged to resort to direct taxation to levy the revenues necessary to carry on her domestic affairs. What was true of Lower Canada was equally true of the maritime provinces. Nova Scotia. New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, would not have agreed to enter confederation if, as a consequence, direct taxation had to be resorted to . . . Therefore it is not to be wondered at that when the provinces represented at that conference agreed to surrender to the central government the exclusive power of taxation by way of customs and excise, they should at the same time have stipulated as a condition precedent that a certain portion of the revenue thus collected should be returned to them, and a portion sufficient to permit them, without having recourse to direct taxation, to carry on their provincial affairs.
That was the principle under which the provinces joined confederation. Another situation has grown up which makes the financial position of the provincial governments extremely difficult. I refer to the system of matching grants which the central government seems to consider as something in the form of a gift. At times the central government will suggest a program which entails matching grants, but it is quite obvious that what may look like equality is not equality. These matching grants should be based on some ratio which has a relationship to the taxing facilities of the province concerned as compared with those of the federal government. Many provinces find that they would like to carry on some of these programs, but their position is like the position I would be in if the Aga Khan offered to pay one-half of the cost of certain fancy things which I could not afford. It is quite obvious which one of us would go broke first. In other words, something that we cannot afford is not a bargain. I am glad to see that there has been some correction of this sort of thing with regard to the trans-Canada highway, but that does not go far enough.
There is an urgent need for action to meet the position in which the provinces, especially the maritime provinces, find themselves. There should be a revision of the grants paid to the maritimes in lieu of public lands. There should be an attempt to correct the position where there is a great difference in the size and importance of the provinces. Possibly we could contemplate the creation of a couple of new provinces in the vast areas of northern Ontario and Quebec, provided the residents of those areas were agreeable. I know that in northern Ontario there is an association working to that end, and in that connection I should like to quote briefly from a speech made in this house by Sir

Wilfrid Laurier on July 13, 1908, with regard to that very thing, when he said:
If the territory of Ungava, which includes 456,000 square miles, were of the same character as to soil and climate as the valley of the St. Lawrence, we would not ask to have it added to the province of Quebec, but would make it another province. The conditions, however, are such that it is not possible to expect any large influx of population into that country. In fact, we cannot expect any influx of population there at all unless there should be the discovery of very large mineral deposits.
These large mineral deposits have been discovered and have sustained a great influx of population. I feel confident that if Sir Wilfrid Laurier were looking over the situation today and it were as it existed in 1908, a separate province probably would have been created.
I think it is important that there should be a careful study of the possibility of a complete reallotment of taxing powers between the provinces on the one hand and the central government on the other, in line with the spirit of confederation. In line too with the spirit of confederation, consideration should be given to the fiscal needs of the provinces, and any subsidies given to them should have relation thereto. In this connection I should like to quote briefly from Mr. J. A. Mathieson who, as a member of the White commission dealing with this matter during the 1930's, wrote a memorandum of dissent in the report of the commission:
I may shortly state my opinion on the result, which is:	That vital questions referred to this
commission remain undetermined by this report, and that the increase of subsidy proposed will give but partial and temporary relief. The lapse of more than eight years since the Duncan report went into effect granting provisional subsidies only, has witnessed such necessary increase in government expenditures in the case of all the provinces as will quickly absorb the present proposed increases, and still leave them in a position to compel diminution of necessary expenditure on provincial services, or a further increase of provincial debt or of local taxation, or of all three combined.
That is exactly what has happened.
These old British colonies that formed the Atlantic bulwark of British North America, after bearing their full share of the cost of Canadian organization and development, should not be treated with less justice and consideration than is being accorded the provinces whose lands they helped to purchase, to protect and equip for settlement.
The evidence produced before this commission showed from early days a total absence of equality in the treatment of the different provinces in Canada, both in regard to money grants by way of subsidy and in the gifts of vast areas of dominion lands to some provinces without any uniform plan and without any compensation to provinces that did not share in the partition of the common property.
It was made clearly to appear on this inquiry that one of the major problems facing Canada today is the devising of some general plan for the adjustment of dominion and provincial financial relations.

I suggest that that problem still faces us. In the province to which I belong, for example, in 1921 the provincial debt was $858,000; in 1926, at the time of the Duncan commission, it was $1,800,000; at the time of the White commission it had risen to $3,900,000; and since that time it has risen to $21 million. It has increased by about five times.
I would suggest, too, that beneficial legislation that has been approved by this house for various parts of Canada should be made applicable to the whole country, if at all possible. Legislation coming under that category, of course, is the P.F.R.A. and other similar legislation. There should be a restoration of the effective maritime freight rates, the benefits of which have been reduced seriously by the manner of applying horizontal freight rate increases over the post-war years. There should be a decentralization of industry for economic, socialogical and defence reasons. It is true that there has been some relief in this direction, as for example the creation of the large military camp at Gagetown, certain public works in the maritimes and so on. But these things are palliatives; they are not cures. They do not get to the root of the trouble. There should be co-operation between the federal government and the provinces, where necessary, in the development of power sources, whether they be hydroelectric, atomic energy or other sources of power.
Recently a proposal was made at the interprovincial conference with regard to the necessity of reviewing the question of subsidies to the maritimes in lieu of northern land. It is not my intention to go into the details of this proposal made on behalf of the maritime provinces, except briefly to say that if the proposal were followed-and it appears to be a logical one-there would be a very considerable increase. The subsidy figures for New Brunswick under this scheme would be $7,200,000, as against $900,000 at the present time; for Nova Scotia $10,400,000 as compared with the present figure of $1,300,000; and for Prince Edward Island, $2,200,000 as against $273,000. The total additional cost of this proposal to the federal government would be only $17,327,000.
Owing to the limitation of time I have had to give a good deal of attention to the difficulties under which the maritimes labour, and that no doubt has created an unbalanced picture of the real facts. We in the maritimes, although we are conscious of these disadvantages, are also conscious of the possibility of a great future. In the economic field, there are new resources being discovered. New water power sources are being developed.
The Budget-Mr. Bourque There is a decrease in the differential between the cost of the production of hydroelectric power and that of power from other sources. As time goes on this will mean that our position relative to other parts of the country will improve. There is an increasing population in the country and in the world, which creates a larger market for our agricultural and fish products.
There is evidence of new interest on the part of maritimers themselves in improving their economic position. The Atlantic provinces economic council is an illustration of that. However, we in the maritimes realize that perhaps the greatest values in this world are intangible and that economic progress is only a prerequisite to real living and should not be an end in itself. We place great value on the privilege of living in the maritimes. We place great value on the type of society we have there. We place great value on higher education, which has been a tradition in the maritimes. We have a pride in our homeland and a pride in our traditions.


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


Mr. Romuald Bourque (Outremont-Si. .Jean):: Mr. Speaker, first may I add my congratulations to the Minister of Finance on his able presentation of the annual budget, one of the most important state documents of the year. The minister has proved to be a worthy successor to a long line of distinguished Canadians who have occupied this high post and who have presented to this chamber this annual summary of Canadian finances.
The Canadian budget is a document of vital importance to every citizen, to every business in this country and to every type of organization and association. Many people wait anxiously each year for the disclosure of the government's financial policies and decisions because their personal or business budgets in turn are affected by the tax and spending programs announced here in Ottawa.
It is important, then, that the Canadian budget be realistic, that it be practical and that it be so designed as not to upset or interfere with business expansion but rather contribute to it. The minister in his budget this year has taken into consideration the economic facts which lie behind this period of unprecedented prosperity, as well as the financial needs of government and probable developments in the future.
To the anxious taxpayer who constantly seeks reduction in taxation together with
2876	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Bourque increased public services, the 1956 budget may appear to be disappointing. It may also be disappointing to those political commentators and sensational news writers who constantly seek to provide their readers or listeners with controversial items. There is nothing controversial about the 1956 budget. It is a sound businessman's budget based on sound economic principles and shaped in accordance with economic facts. The minister has not introduced change for the sake of change or to make political capital. He has left business and individuals undisturbed except in those very few instances where new action or modification was essential. That is the basis of good budget making, and we on this side of the house are proud that it is the work of one of our most distinguished colleagues.
The sound and continuing policy of this government, stated many times by the Prime Minister, is exemplified in the new budget. The Prime Minister has continually sought to give the kind of leadership to this country that would result in a greater measure of prosperity for all our people, and that would combine with that prosperity an ever-increasing measure of security. The results of this national policy are plain to see. Canada has never enjoyed such prosperity. No , other country in the world is experiencing such a period of economic and social advancement. Canada today is the envy of nations. It has the most promising future. It is constantly attracting the capital and the manpower from other older and once richer countries because it has become the recognized land of opportunity.
Industry flourishes in lands where the government is stable, where taxation and government spending are realistic and based on actual needs, where there is no untidy experimenting with fiscal policies in a search for unattainable Utopias. This is not an experimental government; neither is it. an overcautious government. Over the years its policies, many of them reflected in the annual budgets, have been such as to encourage industrial and scientific development, the expansion of our towns and cities, more efficient agriculture and more and happier leisure time for our people. All those are the legitimate and wholesome aims of good government, and all those are reflected in this year's budget.
To those corporations and individuals who express disappointment because the budget does not contain substantial or important tax reductions, there is one very simple and logical answer.


Hazen Robert Argue: The coming election.


Romuald Bourque: Both companies and individuals are better off financially in Canada than in any other country in the world with the possible exception of the United States, and the steady flow of capital from that wealthy nation into Canada does not indicate that American management finds anything to complain about in Canada's tax structure.
Immigrants from other countries have come to Canada since the war and have achieved outstanding success. There are countless incidents which I could cite here today. Small businesses have been started by new Canadians with very limited capital and have soon expanded beyond the wildest dreams of their founders. Heads of families have come here and secured employment, and in an extremely short space of time have been able to bring out their families and provide them with what many of them considered to be luxurious housing and all the comforts of life. Just a few days ago I was told of a young woman from Great Britain who came here just six months ago, secured employment as a stenographer, and now with her savings is planning a holiday in her home country. She can scarcely believe that it is true. The heavy tax burden which we hear so much about has not injured her nor many others who have come here to live.


Hazen Robert Argue: It does not hurt the old age pensioners either.


Romuald Bourque: The budget reveals an understanding of the present economic situation and also the need for sound planning for the future. It is a foolish company which in good times spends all its capital. It would be a foolish government which in good times would dissipate its assets, reduce its revenues and let the future take care of itself. The financial policies of this government exemplified by the budget, should serve as a guide to business management and to individuals concerned about their own economic future.
Canada's prosperity is not an economic accident which a political party anxious for power can seize and exploit. It is something which, carefully tended and intelligently employed, can last for many years, increasing each year and adding more to our abundant life. Hearings before the Gordon commission during the past few weeks have indicated to all of us the great potentiality of this country and the fabulous future which is in store. The document that the Gordon commission will eventually produce will be of the greatest value to our businessmen and economists. It will also be a realistic tribute to the administration of this country under which such a solid foundation for future development has been laid.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is why you appointed it.


Romuald Bourque: The budget takes into account the prospect for continued expansion which will require expanded services. It refrains from introducing into the present economic system any measure of inflation which might be brought about by reduced taxation and increased spending. It preserves a proper balance between encouragement to industry and checks on unwarranted expenditures.


Hazen Robert Argue: You should have increased family allowances.


Romuald Bourque: At the same time the minister in his budget has taken into account the growing importance of the creative arts in Canada-


Hazen Robert Argue: What about old age pensions?


Romuald Bourque: -and has offered encouragement to those who seek to portray this country through artistic and editorial media.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Romuald Bourque: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying before the six o'clock adjournment, the minister in his budget has taken into account the growing importance of the creative arts in Canada and has offered encouragement to those who seek to portray this country through artistic and editorial media. A high standard of living is of supreme importance but recognition must also be given to the fact that there is more to life than the science of economics. Over the years this government has given support and encouragement to the national gallery, which will soon be housed in its new building. In the budget it takes a further step by making available to Canadian art students freer access to the great masters. The admission of works of art to this country is to be encouraged, and the cultural heritage of the country is to be enriched.
In the same way the government seeks to assist and encourage those who endeavour to give Canadians a picture of their own country, by encouraging the writing and illustrative arts through the publication of Canadian magazines. Good Canadian publications expressing Canadian ideas and devoted to Canadian subjects are essential. Yet because of our small population the circulation of such magazines is necessarily limited. Next door, in the United States, we have the vast circulation magazines whose publishers look upon Canada as a bonus market, an overflow area where extra profits are to be picked up at small cost.
The Budget-Mr. Bourque
Some of these American publishers have moved into this country and print their magazines, sometimes here from American plates and sometimes in the United States, with a maple leaf on the cover and call them Canadian editions. Their editorial and illustrative costs are already covered by their home circulation. They are able to produce these Canadian editions at a fraction of the cost which competing Canadian publishers must pay for their productions. They pay nothing here to writers or illustrators, to our printing house compositors or engravers; they use their own presses and save money on freight and postage.
This is not fair competition, but if it were only economically unfair, we might be content to leave the matter there. It is ideologically unfair because American ideas, some of which may be in conflict with Canadian thinking, are circulated widely with the support of Canadian advertisers whose business has been weaned away from the Canadian publishers. The publisher of one of these quasi-Canadian editions has protested that this new tax imposed on these publications is discriminatory, unfair and not in the public interest. In his own defence he points out that his magazines are printed in this country and thus provide employment for Canadian labour. In reply I might point out to him that the principal thing in his magazines that is not Canadian is the editorial content. In other words the ideas are foreign, masquerading as Canadian.
No one objects to the importation of American publications which are just what they say they are. People who prefer to read them may do so, knowing that what they read is of foreign origin. But those publications which portray themselves as Canadian editions, solicit Canadian advertising and then spread foreign ideas should legitimately be taxed. I have no hesitation in agreeing that this is discriminatory; most Canadians, I believe, would wish it to be so. We wish to discriminate in favour of our own people, in favour of our own artists, our own writers, and in favour of our own ideology. That much-discussed item in the minister's budget deserves our full support.
While no one in Canada would wish to quarrel with the United States or prevent their ideas and opinions from being heard in this country, we all recognize the need for established media through which the Canadian viewpoint can be expressed, and this expression must be allowed to compete with American ideas on a fairer basis in this country. We believe in the sincerity of American ideas but we also wish to express our own ideas freely and forcefully. I don't
2878	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Bourque believe any United States citizen would quarrel with our right to maintain in this way our Canadianism.
We are entering a period in Canadian history when able and intelligent leadership in economic, cultural and ideological matters is of the utmost importance. Ahead of us lies the new industrial revolution implied by the term "automation". The science of electronics promises to alter many of our present methods of production and promises also to create new problems for us on the industrial front.
Management in this country is facing a period of keen competition and sweeping changes in practices. In many large industries today the volume of activity is too great for existing capabilities. Industry must do some intensive planning for the years immediately ahead.
We must in the near future draw a parallel between the services of geologists and physicists in the development of our raw resources over the past quarter century and the skilled technical services which are required today. We in government and we in business must take the scientific approach to our new problems. We will have at our disposal electronic devices which will perform functions in forecasting, statistical recording and data processing. These are all practical aids to clear business thinking, if they are properly used.
It is not sufficient for this government to content itself with providing experts in many professions. Industry, too, must take positive steps to provide itself with experts in a great many fields if it is to be able to cope with the problems in our new industrial world. Automation must not be just an industrial gadget; it must, without injuring business and without upsetting our economic system, serve producers and consumers alike. We cannot permit automation to become a Frankenstein that will destroy all that we have created.
There will be fields for vast new investments, greater than any we have heard of in the past. Industry here must keep pace with that in other lands, yet it must proceed with intelligent caution. Overproduction made possible by automation may increase unemployment and thus reduce still further the consumer market for the products overproduced. New capital investments on a large scale may injure beyond repair industries now in operation.
While these may seem to be problems of industry alone, they are problems affecting the whole business of government. They are 

viewed with concern by our responsible ministers, and they are incorporated in the economic thinking behind the budget which is now before this house.
In Canada we are extremely fortunate in having a great many intelligent, patriotic businessmen who in numerous ways serve the interests of their country. To be successful in business or in a profession has never been labelled a crime in this country, and I hope it never will be. Nor has it ever been considered anything but desirable that men who have made a success in their calling should devote some of their time and talents to public service. Far too often we hear people suggest that politics is a dirty business. It will be a dirty business if we do everything in our power to prevent decent citizens from taking part in politics. That should surely not be the wish of any individual or group in this house.
It was therefore with surprise and disappointment that I listened to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam make a serious personal attack upon a gentleman known to many of us as an honourable man, a successful corporation lawyer, a man of good reputation who has consented to accept an office in a political party because he believes it is his duty to give some of this time to public affairs. I refer to Mr. Duncan Kenneth MacTavish.
Mr. MacTavish holds many responsible positions. We talk of the lack of opportunity for Canadians in this country and the need for bringing in foreigners with brains and know-how, yet Mr. MacTavish by his own career serves as an inspiration to many of our youth. He believes in this country and he believes that as a private citizen he has a right and an obligation to participate in its political activities. As such he has been honoured by the Liberal federation, which elected him chairman. I suppose that any other political group paying similar honour to one of its followers would think it was a privilege to do so, and I would agree that is true. It is certainly not a reason for slander.
This government welcomes an interest by all men and women of good will in public affairs. We greet those who devote serious attention to politics which, after all, is only the science of government. And we are happy as supporters of the present government to direct their attention to the present budget, which we believe incorporates all the features of sound business administration and good common sense.


Mr. G. W. McLeod (Okanagan-Revelsioke):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I shall not be quite so lavish with my compliments in the direction of the Minister of Finance as the speaker

who has just taken his seat. However, we shall devote some few minutes to some of the problems we think are worth bringing before this house. First, just to set the minds of the government at ease, I must tell them that we are going to vote in favour of the amendment, the first line of which reads:
This house regrets that the budget is empty.
I am sorry to say we find that the amendment is also a little bit empty. However, we are going to vote non-confidence in the government on account of their failure to implement fiscal and financial policies which we believe are necessary in the good administration of Canadian business.
There is one other thing that has worried me quite consistently, and that is to find just where Her Majesty's loyal opposition stands on certain principles which we hear quite a lot about. We hear them continuously recommending tax cuts and relief for those in the lower income brackets. Of course that is more pronounced this session than formerly, and I would just like to put a paragraph on the record again because I believe it contains some very fine words. It is found on page 2550 of Hansard, and is taken from the address given by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell):
I fear I have not been as forceful as I would have liked in speaking for the hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens who have been and continue to be. in so far as this government is concerned, forgotten men and women. I only wish that I could din my words into the ears of every serious, every generous, every responsible citizen of this country and that I might have the gift to persuade them that it is their duty to rise up and demand action.
I would just like to tell the hon. member for Greenwood I am afraid his words were not very well received by members of his own group, especially when we recall that just a couple of nights ago they voted against an amendment which condemned this government for not bringing tax relief to those in the low income bracket.
Let me come to the budget. We have heard it called by various names, and have read various articles dealing with it, but the one that appealed to me most was a heading in the Ottawa Journal, as follows: "Harris Comes With Little". To my mind this is about the most concise summing up of the budget that could have been given; and the little that is in the budget also makes it that much harder for us to find something to talk about.
Very little information was given to us that had not been available in the press and through other channels before the night of the budget speech, but again I am thinking possibly that is the policy of this government. Throughout this session and the two
The Budget-Mr. McLeod previous sessions that I have had the privilege to sit in the house, I have come to the conclusion that this government has developed to a high degree the art of withholding information from parliament, and comes up with little when questions are asked. At this stage I should like to mention the fact that you can take the order paper of today and you will find simple questions standing there for two months that still remain unanswered. Many times when the answers are given they are not just quite as full of information as we think they should be.
However, in this budget there was one thing I noticed on which I should like to comment, namely the fact that the sales and excise tax structure of this country will be referred to a commission with the idea of finding out the best level at which those taxes should be levied and collected. I brought this matter before the house a year ago in connection with car dealers. I feel that levying those taxes at the level of the manufacturer is discriminatory against those dealers.
I am glad to know that this is to be a subject for study; but I understand, again from the press, that the level that will be recommended is the wholesale level. I do not believe that is the proper level at which to levy this tax. I think the tax should be levied at the retail level. It will bring to the attention of the people the huge costs they are facing daily in the operation of this government, and it will also be quite a lot fairer, in that the tax is paid immediately by the party on whom it was intended to be levied, and it will be the actual tax that will reach the government.
Under the present system, because the tax is levied at the manufacturer's level, it is pyramided up by the price spreads until, when it reaches the consumer, in spite of being a tax of 8 per cent to 10 per cent, it is possibly increased from 75 per cent to 100 per cent. Therefore I am satisfied that if this tax were collected at the retail level the government could cut the tax by perhaps 50 per cent and realize the same amount of money, and the price of the goods to the consumer would be reduced accordingly.
The hon. member who has just taken his seat spoke very strongly in favour of the tax on advertising in the so-called Canadian issues of United States magazines. I must add my voice to those which strongly oppose this tax. I maintain that these companies which publish magazines in Canada are not different from branches of United States companies doing business here in the ordinary way, if I may express it in those terms. I am sure that if we were to levy any discriminatory tax against the products of such
2880	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. McLeod companies we would certainly be in a bad way. It is not only the ordinary fair-minded people of Canada who look upon this tax as being discriminatory; many publishers are also opposed to it. I think I would be safe in saying that most publishers hold this view. I trust that the minister will give this further consideration and will bow to the storm of disapproval that is rising from coast to coast.
There is one other subject in the budget, Mr. Speaker, which I believe has not been mentioned thus far by any speaker; I know that the minister made no reference to it. I am referring to the alarming increase in the national debt of this country and the cost of servicing this debt. I like to compare the government and its affairs to a large business organization, and truly it is the largest business enterprise in Canada. I am satisfied that the government, which I choose to liken to the board of directors of an industrial concern, and the Minister of Finance, who might be likened to its manager, would face serious questioning by the shareholders of the company if year after year the annual report presented to them showed increased debt, increased overhead and an increased cost for interest.
We find that for the year 1956-57 interest on our national debt is going to amount to over $500 million. I recently took a few minutes in which to figure this out, and I discovered that for every second the clock ticks during the next 12 months we are going to pay out money to the cost of servicing our national debt at the rate of $16.03; every second for 12 full months, day and night without let up.
We must take stock of that large amount of money and perhaps think in terms of welfare, our old age pensioners, our blind and disabled. Perhaps we should think of it in terms of hospital insurance, which I am glad to note will possibly be introduced in Canada. Whenever we in the opposition ask for increased grants for these worthwhile causes we are told quite plainly that the government does not have the money or we are met with the question, "Where will the money come from?"
Mr. Speaker, over $500 million is being spent needlessly in interest charges. We who have been frequently looked upon as crazy-money people and who have been described in similar terms advocate a system for creating debt-free money for the service of this country. We do not think this can be brought into effect overnight, but it can be brought about gradually as our bonds are retired and the obligations taken up. We maintain it is the right of this government to honour them. When that is done, new debts could be


financed with debt-free money and eventually we would eliminate the needless spending of this sum amounting to over $500 million. This money could be used for welfare purposes. Just think how happy the Minister of Health and Welfare would be if he had that amount of money to put into welfare plans for the benefit of the people of Canada. I sometimes wonder if those in our group are as crazy as is generally supposed.
As I said a moment ago I am pleased to note that a national plan of hospital insurance is being proposed. I have in my hand a Social Credit manifesto, a publication of which we are quite proud, and I would just like to read a section to you:
National Health Program
The most valuable resource in any nation is its citizens. The health of every individual citizen is therefore one of Canada's greatest national assets. The Social Credit Association of Canada believes that it is the constitutional responsibility of the Canadian government to provide the provinces with unconditional per capita grants for the following purposes:
1. To enable the provinces to establish an adequate system of health services accessible to all.
We in this group believe that the proper way to institute a service of this kind is under provincial administration. Although the proposed system of the federal government does not quite follow along those lines, I am greatly impressed by the tremendous spirit of co-operation which the Minister of National Health and Welfare assures us will be made evident in bringing this plan into effect. As I have said on other occasions, I believe that the less government we have at the top, the better things will be; and the closer we can bring the administration of welfare to the people themselves, the more effective it will be.
The plan proposed by the federal government is a step in the right direction, but it is only a step and it is not perfect. We know it will be enlarged, and we know that nothing begins in a state of perfection. As long as the department continues to show the spirit of co-operation which is being manifested at the present time I am satisfied that many of the difficulties that arise in the minds of the people will be overcome.
Perhaps one of the greatest reasons for opposition to the proposed scheme is that it does not cover tuberculosis and mental illness. I realize that this is only a start and we cannot look for perfection, but these are two forms of illness that are being pretty well taken care of in Canada today. It is true that a large part of the expense is being borne by the provinces. I must admit, and I do so gladly, that a large part of the funds for tuberculosis and mental illness control

and research comes from the federal department of health. The institutions to which victims of these diseases are committed will not become a part of our national health scheme. All cases of tuberculosis and mental illness that can be handled in the wards of our general hospitals will be covered by this plan. So it is not as bad as some people would think.
Since we are dealing with mental illness I think it might be wise to spend a couple of minutes more on this important subject. We hear about heart disease being a great killer; we hear about the terrible ravages of arthritis; we hear of the dread and dire effects of cancer. There is no one who is more aware than I of the dangers and terrors of these diseases, but when we stop to think that 50 per cent of the patients in Canada are mental patients then I think it is time we gave a few minutes to considering this great problem.
It is not only the patient himself who must suffer; there is the trouble and worry to the immediate family. It is true that today mental illness carries no stigma, that it is considered to be nothing more than an illness of a part of the body the same as any other; nevertheless there are broken homes, there is worry and heartsickness much more than would meet the naked eye.
As I said, I should like to pay a tribute to the department for what has been done in connection with mental illness. We are not ready for any great curative program because this is something we know very little about. We would really get the greatest benefits from every dollar spent if it were spent on research. It is quite easy to get up and say that we should spend more money on research, but there is no use making money available unless we have the trained personnel and the trained professional men and women who can make use of that money.
In this respect the government is doing quite a noble work. Under its mental health program it has made available large sums of money. This program was set up in 1948-49, when $4 million was made available for mental health work. A total of $1,142,318 was allocated in that year, but the facilities available were able to make use of only the small sum of $439,128. This has grown year by year, until last year there was made available for mental health $7,177,855. The amount allocated was $6,635,947, and of that total allotment there was used under the supervision of the provincial departments of health a total of $6,013,547.
In a sense we are able to see a marked improvement in the facilities available to carry on research and the psychiatric treatment and care which is necessary in fighting this
The Budget-Mr. McLeod dread disease, this great striker-down of the health of the people. However, it will be noticed that although $7,177,855 was made available, all that could be used was a little over $6,000,000. So we are not ready yet. We can holler for more money, but there is no use providing more money until we have the facilities and the trained personnel to use it wisely.
But there is a program under way to train the required personnel. In the period 19481955 this resulted in the training of 229 psychiatrists, 129 psychologists, 190 psychiatric social workers, 183 psychiatric nurses and 6 occupational therapists, a grand total of 1,283 trained personnel. That is what has been accomplished under the training program during the past seven years.
But we still have a long way to go. It is felt that at the present time this country requires 498 psychiatrists, and we have just 326. There is room in the established institutions for that many at the present time. A total of 189 psychologists could be used, and we have only 111. We need 290 social workers and there are only 195 available. We need 358 occupational therapists and there are only 107. Occupational therapists are needed not only in connection with mental illness but in the general care of children and for cerebral palsy cases. In the case of administrative nurses we require 214 and we have only 175. We require 118 teaching nurses and we have only 66.
I would commend to this house a very wide program of teaching and training in order to make use of the money and resources available through our present department of health. Rather than holding out for grants to take care of people in institutions I figure, and I am sincere in this, that we can spend our dollars to much better advantage in research and study in order to prevent this type of illness. As I said, the provincial governments with the aid of the federal government have the facilities and are doing a good job.
There are a couple of what I might call local problems which I should like to bring to the attention of the house. The riding which I represent is pretty well in the centre of the interior of British Columbia. As I have said before, it is one of the finest dairying districts in British Columbia. In that small area we have about 15,000 dairy cows. It is estimated that our farmers have over $2 million invested in herds and breeding stock, and over $4,500,000 in farms and equipment.
Like every other industry, the dairy industry today is facing serious problems because of rising costs of production, and some
2882	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. McLeod assistance should be given to our farmers so they may be able to produce better pasture and provide better housing for their dairy herds. The old fashioned stall and stanchion is giving way to loose housing, but whether that will be the type of housing best adapted to our rather rigorous climate up in the north Okanagan remains to be seen. Some experimental work should be done along these lines. Then there is the matter of producing feed. Our acreage is limited and we must produce the greatest number of tons it is possible to produce on every acre of our land.
The matter of disease is becoming quite serious in these herds, though they are not different from herds in other parts of Canada. Mastitis, brucellosis, vibrio fetus, milk fever, bloat; these are all of great worry to our dairy farmers. We are far removed from any pathological centre where treatment or diagnosis are available. I was talking to a dairyman just before I came east, and he told me that this vibrio fetus is a disease that is becoming quite prevalent and quite serious. Of course the immature calf which has been dropped dead has to be sent away for diagnosis. We have no facilities in the interior, and the only place where this can be done is at the university in Vancouver. By the time you get one of the samples sent away and it reaches the dissection tables at the laboratory of the University of British Columbia it is in such a state of decay that it is impossible to make a correct diagnosis.
So I would like to bring to the attention of this house the need for experimental farm services in northern Okanagan. We are not going so far as to ask for what might be called a complete experimental farm. At the present time at Summerland, a little over 100 miles to the south of us, in mainly fruit producing country, we have an experimental farm where, mostly as a sideline, a dairy herd is maintained. We believe that the proper place to have that dairy herd housed is in the North Okanagan or Shuswap area. I am sure some arrangement could be made without too great expense, perhaps on a co-operative basis with one of our leading dairymen in that area, whereby this herd could be housed and experiments could be carried on in cooperation with an official from the farm at Summerland. The whole institution could be carried on as a substation under Summerland jurisdiction.
I would be remiss in my duty if I did not have something to say about the P.F.R.A. Last fall the Minister of Agriculture, when he was in Vernon, touched on this and told


us, "We cannot have the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act in British Columbia. You know, this was just set up to take care of the Palliser triangle and so on in the prairies, and there is no further provision." But I should think if there were any genuine desire on the part of the Minister of Agriculture to apply similar provisions to British Columbia there is nothing to stop such action being taken. I am sure we are not anxious to have the handle of "prairie farm" attached to us across the mountains, where we do not know much about the prairies. Possibly the name could be changed to the "national farm rehabilitation act", if the name "prairie" eliminates the use of that act in a province that does not happen to be a prairie province.
Recently I noticed that the irrigationists of British Columbia presented a brief to the Gordon commission. I am sure the government will have those figures, but I should like to place them on the record here tonight. In the Okanagan-Similkameen irrigation districts there are 36,526 acres under irrigation at the present time, and there is an additional potential of 21,584 acres. Private projects in this area have 6,812 acres watered, and 8,114 acres could be so watered. The Fraser-Thompson area has 72,000 acres under irrigation, with a potential of 110,000 acres.
I am sure the hon. members for Fraser Valley and New Westminster and our hon. friends from Burnaby-Coquitlam and Burnaby-Richmond, would be glad to see these regulations applied to that part of British Columbia, thus bringing an additional 100,000 acres under water. In the Columbia-Kootenay district there are 29,000 acres under irrigation and there is a potential of 60,000 acres. That gives us a total potential in the province of British Columbia that could be placed under water of 299,698 acres. This means that 9,849 farms of 20 acres could be taken out of that acreage. With a family of approximately five on each farm, it would give us land which could support a further population of approximately 50,000 people, who would not only be able to provide for their own living, but would be able to provide more of that food which is necessary to meet the requirements of the people of Canada and the world.


Mr. J. M. Dechene (Alhabaska):: Mr. Speaker, when I came into the house a few moments ago in hopes that you would give me the privilege of the floor tonight, and I opened this bulky file, my young friend from Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) passed the remark that he hoped I was not going to read all this. Well, sir, I have not yet read a speech in this house, and I do not intend to begin tonight. My eyesight is not as good as

that of some hon. members who stand straight up and read every line of their speeches laid on the desk. I will admit that the style I use might not read so well in Hansard, but I assure you that it will be my own thoughts and the things I believe.
I hesitated to ask you for the privilege of speaking tonight and using the time of this house. Mr. R. B. Bennett, who knew something about figures, stated to my hon. friend the former member for Temiscouata, about 1931, that the cost of the sitting of parliament at that time was between $1,200 and $1,300 an hour, counting all the printing of Hansard, the notices and so on, the extra staff and everything else. Imagine what it would be today. Mr. Speaker, I must admit to you that in this session so far, although I have heard many fine speeches, I doubt that I have heard one that is worth $1,800 an hour.
But before I go any further I want to bring something to your attention, sir, which I think should have been raised as a question of privilege. My comments are those of a man who has sat in this assembly for many years, who for many years before sat in the legislative assembly of Alberta, whose direct ancestor on my mother's side was a member of the first assembly ever to sit in Canada under the Quebec Act. I wish to say that I have resented very much the accusation that has been made that we over here are just rubber stamps, that we are just followers.
In order to base my argument on the proper ground I should like to refer to the words of Montcalm, while still alive, to Brigadier Townshend, who commanded the English forces after the death of General Wolfe, with respect to what was understood at the time the so-called conquered race became.part of the British people. It is on record that Montcalm wrote:
Monsieur, the humanity of the English sets my mind at peace concerning the fate of the French prisoners, and the Canadians.
They were already a Canadian nation then. They understood him too.
Feel toward them as they have caused me to feel. Do not let them perceive that they have changed masters. Be their protector as I have been their father.
I believe, sir, those words of Montcalm should be placed on the records of this house because as a result of this attitude we have succeeded, through many years of struggle, in becoming a united and independent nation. We remember that some time ago the Minister of Agriculture made a speech at a convention. He said that he had read the speech of Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1904 in which he expressed the thought that there would be as many people west of the 07509-183
The tsudget-Mr. Dechene great lakes by 1950 as there would be east of the great lakes. Unfortunately, with all his vision and his genius Sir Wilfrid could not know that there would be two terrible conflicts in the meantime which would change the course of events and prevent this great growth of the western provinces.
Under Laurier we had as minister of finance one of the best men, a man who led his province for many years as premier, W. S. Fielding. Later we had Robb, Dunning, Ralston, Ilsley. What a tremendous job Ilsley did during the war! Then we had Abbott and now we have the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris). In spite of anything that had been said, and knowing the conditions under which the budget was brought down with, as every hon. member of the house knows, the danger of inflation, the Tory papers and the Tory politicians predicted exactly what the minister was going to do and once he did it they all criticized him bitterly because he had done so. I join his name with those of these other great ministers of finance. I do not hesitate to say that I am proud of him and we are all proud of him.


Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):: Buy a new hat, Walter.


Joseph Miville Dechene: The greatest sport I know is to spend the other fellow's money. It does not cost you anything. You can stand up and say: Why do you not spend money on this, why do you not do that, why do you not increase family allowances, why do you not increase old age pensions, why do you not make a grant for this and a grant for that? It is so nice to be in the opposition and not have to raise the funds with which to do these things.
We have been accused of being irresponsible. I have given some of my record. I think I know what responsibility means as a public man. In 1953 I had an example of how irresponsible some people can be in order to win votes and elect one member. You remember the great promise made by the Leader of the Opposition that if he were elected he would reduce expenditures immediately by half a billion dollars. There was a gentleman in Athabaska, a friend of mine whom I will not name, who knew he could not be elected but thought he might try to rally whatever Tory forces were left in that corner of the world. A week later he came to see me. He had read the paper and he said to me, "The man who is going to reduce taxation and expenditure by half a billion dollars has just gone into Saskatchewan and said that if he is elected he will immediately construct the South Saskatchewan river dam, estimated to cost $350 million, in order to
2884	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Dechene elect one fellow in Saskatchewan." He said, "I am not going to run. I cannot understand that. How can you cut down expenditure by half a billion and the next day spend $350 million more? Even a school child in the seventh grade would not swallow that."
As I entered the house the other day I read the motto engraved in the granite on the west side of the peace tower, that motto which is so true, "Where there is no vision the people perish." Sir, I wish to present this thought. I wish to argue, to recommend, to demand that the great railway companies of this country keep their word to the people of the northern part of Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, given at the time they entered into their agreements and received charters from this parliament. They promised to construct lines north of the Saskatchewan and Beaver rivers.
This may seem to be a local matter to most hon. members, but I say to you that there is a region 1,000 miles or more wide with unlimited possibilities. It is the gateway to the great northland through the Athabaska river. The region extends from Churchill through Prince Albert and my country into the Athabaska, Lac la Biche and the Peace river country. At Prince Albert you have the choice of two routes, one to the south leading to the great lakes and the new St. Lawrence seaway and the other one leading to Hudson bay and Churchill.
In Alberta in 1931 I seconded a motion to make Churchill a free port of entry. They thought I was a dreamer and that it was impossible. Yet if you look at the map for one moment you will realize the tremendous possibilities for the export of wheat, other cereals and cattle from western Canada through Churchill and there would be plenty of ships because they would come back loaded to a free port of entry and would be able to serve the prairies at cost. Today it comes by railroad and you have to pay through the nose, as it were, for this production. A free port of entry at Churchill would enable our farmers in the west to compete with the farmers in the east.
I was called a dreamer and visionary. I moved in this house and I moved in the house in Alberta that we should return the mineral rights to the owners of the soil. I got no support except from a few. Right at this moment, when everybody is up in arms, we are going back 45 years. It is reciprocity all over again; no truck or trade with the Yankees, the Yankees are going to conquer Canada, the Yankees are going to make us so rich that we will be unable to remain free. Forty-five years ago the same argument was used.

I took part in that election in 1911. If we had followed the suggestion I made, namely that the owners of the soil should be the owners of the mineral rights, there would have been a tremendous difference in the outcome of the administration of these vast mineral resources. In 66 per cent of the states those mineral resources belong to the owners of the soil. It did not stop the development, far from it. But it gave the settlers, the farmers, the local businessmen, a stake in this wealth so they got together and organized companies, and if there was a million dollars to be made it was not made by Imperial Oil but was made mostly by the people of the country, by the owners of the soil themselves.
I know it is too late now. Most of those resources have been alienated. But I am truly fed up with hearing about this fear of United States capital getting control of our country.
In 1923 I moved a motion. I speak about myself because I seem to be almost the only one left of the crowd of those days. I moved a motion in the Alberta house that in cooperation with the Canadian government we should offer help, give a prize of a considerable amount of money, to the first company, firm or individual which would bring in a 1,000-barrel oil well, and a $1,000 premium to the oil driller who drilled that well. We knew what happened in Calgary. We had discovered oil before anything you now have in Calgary. I hope the Calgary members are here. They have heard about the offer. Nobody took it up. If we listened to the opposition today we would wait forever until our Canadian friends, our real friends-I do not know where they are; they are certainly not in the Liberal party, or if they are they did not help me at election time-until these real men from Canada came along-


An hon. Member:: You have forgotten.


Joseph Miville Dechene: Did you say something?


An hon. Member:: You must have forgotten.


Joseph Miville Dechene: We should have to wait and today the oil would still be there; no development would have taken place.
Now I want to speak about those railroads. In 1909-that is a long time ago-the Liberal government in Alberta went into the railway construction business in this manner. We had a great wave of immigration under the Liberal government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. People were pouring into the western plains, breaking the virgin bosom of the wealthy prairies and beginning this great production which is the marvel of today even in a nation

as rich and as well organized as the United States. But those people needed communication. They needed transportation. The Liberal government of the day made a deal or an offer, guaranteeing the debentures of the railway companies up to $15,000 a mile, in order to bring branch lines from Edmonton and Calgary into this country into which the settlers were pouring. The result was that from Edmonton straight north to Atha-baska 100 miles, from Edmonton to St. Paul, from Edmonton to my own town of Bonny-ville, from Edmonton to Fort McMurray in the riding of Athabaska, Alberta railways were built1 to the Peace river. These guarantees brought those lines to give transportation facilities to these settlers, farmers, and businessmen living there for their production. I wish we had a map large enough. There is your map represented by my extended arms, these lines all going out like the arms of an octopus, bringing trade to Edmonton. But every farmer in my country had to pay the backhaul of 175 or 200 miles into Edmonton and back again if he wanted to reach Winnipeg or the eastern market.
Mr. Speaker, I wish more time were available. I have not watched the clock very closely. I have here resolutions accepted unanimously by the assembly of Alberta with regard to the connecting of these lines to the Saskatchewan and Beaver rivers. This is not just a plan, as I said, it means an outlet and route for all this vast country north of Saskatoon and Prince Albert, north of the Saskatchewan river across the prairie, across the northern part of the province giving access to the Pacific ocean at Prince Rupert.
This is not a dream. Charters were issued. The C.P.R., knowing by that time the value of that north country, came to this parliament and demanded a charter. It was proposed and they received it. They were to build west of Prince Albert through Meadow Lake-this is built now, as those who come from that country know-to near Goodsoil, a place in northwestern Saskatchewan, where they meet the Canadian National Railways line from Battleford-St. Walburg into Cold Lake. According to the regulations laid down by this parliament the C.P.R. received running rights over 55 miles of the Canadian National Railways line from Goodsoil or nearby into Cold Lake in the constituency of Athabaska and began to build.
I have here the dates of the charters and everything. I know time does not allow me to refer to them, but the records are readily available. In 1931 the whole thing was stopped. I see that the Minister of Agriculture is in the house. One of his secretaries at that time was in charge of the removal of the 67509-183J
The Budget-Mr. Dechene settlers from the dry belt in southern Saskatchewan into the interior of northwestern Saskatchewan and northeastern Alberta which were to be served by these railroads and where we had rain, growth and grass, where we had everything. Literally thousands of people came from the south.


Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: They were given $50 a family.


Joseph Miville Dechene: Did you say anything?


Edward George McCullough: I said they were given $50 a family to move-up from our settlement.


Joseph Miville Dechene: It is people like you that prevented this country from going ahead. The hon. member is a defeatist or a poltroon, one of those who, after the first world war, began to agitate and to tell the people how unhappy they were, that our country was no good, that we were all broke. That agitator, a man who has meagre political capital, has used this policy of discouragement to achieve his own end. He is one of the men who prevented those railroads from being built. But today I am still pleading for those railroads to be built.
The same argument was used in a letter to my hon. friend from Vegreville a few months ago; a line north of the Saskatchewan river would serve part of his constituency. It was stated that it had not been proved to the satisfaction of the Canadian National Railways that the building of that gap of 39 miles from Bonnyville to St. Walburg and from Heinsburg to Frenchman Butte in Saskatchewan would produce enough revenue to warrant its construction. Well, why did they not use that argument when they built that part of the Canadian National in northern Ontario, where you can travel for a whole day without even seeing a rabbit? If the argument was good with respect to this gap, surely it would be worth something in northern Ontario.
About a month ago two ministers of the crown in Alberta went for a trip on the Canadian Pacific Railway to a place called Marwayne. This will be interesting to the Minister of Transport and to the Canadian National Railways. They told the people of Marwayne that a new bridge was going to be built over the Saskatchewan river at Lea Park, about 35 miles down the river from Elk Point, to provide another bridge between Edmonton and the boundary of Saskatchewan for the transport of agricultural products. And, sir, they stated that in one year over 10,000 head of cattle had crossed the river by ferry to go to the Canadian Pacific Railway south of the Saskatchewan river. That

The Budget-Mr. Dechene business was lost to the Canadian National Railways, and that is only one example. All the grain must cross the river, and so must other products.
There is a line in the province of Alberta that went about half way between the river and what they considered was the productive part of Alberta. Later on the Canadian Pacific Railway came along and obtained a charter to build from the Cut Knife and Lloydminster country, in between the C.N.R. and the river, to Edmonton. I think I would be safe in saying they took 70 per cent of the trade or business in that part of the country. The Canadian National Railways are watching the whole thing getting away from them while we are appealing to the government to have this gap closed. They say that the closing of this gap of 39 miles would not prove to be a paying proposition.
I hold in my hand three resolutions, but I shall not read them all. At the time they were presented I was a member of the opposition, and hon. members know how easy it is for a motion from the opposition to carry in the house. These resolutions are dated 1932, 1934 and 1935. In order to save time I shall read the shortest one, which is dated 1932:
Moved by Mr. Dechene, seconded by Mr. Falconer:
He was the provincial member for Atha-baska. He is still living.
That this assembly regrets the decision of the dominion government not to proceed with the construction of the extension of the Bonnyville-St. Walburg and the Heinsburg-Frenchman Butte lines of the Canadian National Railway lines from Edmonton to St. Walburg and Edmonton to Turtle-ford;
That under existing conditions the farmers of all that great district north and east of Edmonton have no direct access to eastern markets and are compelled to pay a back-haul on all the products shipped out and on merchandise imported into that district;
That a large number of settlers induced to settle in the districts to be served by the proposed lines will find themselves in a precarious position, and a large percentage of them, in need of relief;
That we respectfully urge the dominion government to reconsider the matter and to proceed with the construction of the said lines during the coming season.
The debate continued.
The motion being proposed Mr. Speaker declared the motion carried.
Nothing was done, and I am still here pleading for those settlers. I assure the ministers, the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific authorities, that I am seeking no political benefit out of this request presented on behalf of those farmers and those pioneers. In spite of that, they made good. With the courage of the western people, with the pioneering spirit of those


men and women, they made good in spite of the fact that they were so far away from the railroads. They came from the dry belt, with nothing whatever when they came there except old, worn-out horses and some wagons and a few head of cattle that were hardly able to walk, and in spite of the fact that they were this distance from transportation facilities they made good. But they still need those transportation facilities for which, sir, I have the privilege tonight to plead.
I may not long be able to speak on behalf of these people in this parliament of Canada. However, as long as God lends me life I intend to continue the work I began, because I was one of the men who went to Edmonton and then came to Ottawa in order to induce the railways run by the government to act on behalf of this great country to the north, east and west of Edmonton. There is an empire in the making there.
The other day a man who should know-let me mention his name; it was Mr. Sweezey from Montreal-wrote an article in the press in which he pointed out that the tremendous coal resources out west were not going to remain idle. He is one of the experts in this line. He said that with the immense quantity of coal we have in the west and in Alberta, power could be produced cheaper at those mines than could even be produced with white hydro, and he should know. The Calgary Power Company is building one of its largest units west of Edmonton, at Lake Wabamun. It will be completed shortly and will eventually develop some 350,000 horsepower right on top of a coal mine, because they know that the coal available is so extensive that it will last almost forever, and such a plant is so much cheaper to build and operate.
I should now like to speak about gas. When the natural gas question comes up I may have something further to say on it. When I come from home to Edmonton I drive through the Redwater oil field, and almost as far as you can look you can see the gas burning. They have to do it. When they hit the oil they pipe the gas away from it in another pipe, and they have to burn the gas to get rid of it. They have no way of using it. Well, they are doing that. They are burning the gas while we are talking about bringing it to the people of the east who need it.
When I was a young fellow 52 years ago,
I went down the Athabaska river. It was a great trip. Old Captain Shott was the captain. His name was Fosseneuve, but because he was the first man ever to shoot the rapids of the Athabaska they called him Captain Shott. The name remains even to this

day. His children and his grandchildren are called Shott. We went down the McMurray. It looked as if you were at the end of the world. I never thought I would reach there, but I did, and I am the representative of those people in this house tonight. I think of Fitzgerald, McMurray and Waterways. There you will find the greatest reserve of oil in the world. I refer to a report of the United States bureau of mines and of our own bureau of mines in Ottawa.
The officials will tell you that this is not a dream, nor is it a guess. They have found bituminous sands all over the country. They estimate that at least 500 billion-not million-barrels of oil will be available when they have found the way to separate the sand from the oil. It can be done. I said in this house some years ago that if these reserves had been in Germany at the time of the second world war they would have used the oil for their war machinery. All this potential is just 350 miles from Edmonton.
There is also there enough tar available to pave every road, street and lane in Canada. We continue to import tar from Trinidad and other places. Billions of tons of tar are available. Do you wonder at my asking for the floor tonight in order to bring this matter once again to the attention of the people of Canada and their elected representatives? This is the dream of my youth, the prosperity of this great land to the north and to the west with its vast possibilities. This is the great challenge to our young people.
I remember talking over the radio a short time ago in answer to an agitator, a demagogue who told us we could not do anything. I said we had heard that story back in 1920 after the first great war, and we heard it after the second world war. I say to them now that you do not have to look to the east, west, north or south; you merely have to look at what is staring you in the face in this wonderful land of ours with its incredible resources and indescribable wealth. This is indeed a challenge to our young men and women. I wish I were young so I could devote some more years of my life to bringing about the completion of the railway lines and help to develop Canada's resources for the welfare of the whole country. God in his wisdom knows best.
The other day I picked up a great newspaper, the Toronto Star Weekly. I found an article written by Harold Hilliard. The author writes from Skagway, Alaska, following a tour through the northern part
The Budget-Mr. Stanton of Alberta. I should like to quote one paragraph from this article:
The railroad proposal closest to reality is one which the federal government and the Canadian Pacific Railway have under active consideration. It involves a 350-mile extension of an existing line which terminates at Waterways, Alberta.
That is in the constituency of Athabaska.
It will be pushed north to the shores of Great Slave lake in the Northwest Territories. Here Consolidated Smelters of Trail, B.C., a Canadian Pacific Railway company, is reputed to have proven what may be the world's greatest deposit of lead and zinc.
The railway to develop Great Slave lake should be built from no other place but Fort McMurray-Waterways, because that is the end of the navigable water on this route. I hope there is some truth in the plan as outlined in this paper.
I hope I was not wrong in asking for the floor tonight; I know I am speaking under a handicap. Hudson bay to the Pacific, Port Arthur and Fort William to the Pacific; that is the country to develop, 1,000 miles of it. Millions are waiting for this through transportation line which should have been built long ago. We are surprised that Americans come here; perhaps they will build the line if we are unable to do it.
I should like to conclude my remarks with a thought I expressed on a previous occasion, and which now comes to mind again, sir. My thought refers to the incredible wealth and beauty of the land and the lakes which will soon be free from their shroud of ice and snow under the smiling sun of Alberta. The province is frequently referred to as sunny Alberta. When the beneficent being who attended to the work of all creation, who cast the stars, the comets and planets into limitless space and created all earth, and who then created men and women to inhabit it came to rest on the seventh day and cast a look upon his work and declared himself satisfied, I am sure that at that moment he had a glimpse of the beauties of the Athabasca and Peace river country.


Mr. Hayden Stanion (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker I shall try not to be repetitious in the few remarks I wish to make in regard to the disappointments of the budget, but I do wish to bring to the attention of the government certain problems that are plaguing the people of Canada, and more particularly the people of eastern Ontario.
The budget may be classed as something old and nothing new; something old because apparently the minister reached into last year's bag and drew out the same old 1955 budget; nothing new, for no doubt he is following the tactics of his predecessor, to>
The Budget-Mr. Stanton enable him to open the cupboard door and bring out a nice, large, juicy bone for next year's election.
The provinces of Canada are disappointed, the municipalities are disappointed and the people are disappointed. Now that the gross national product is increasing each year, and in all probability will show a substantial increase in 1956-indeed it has been estimated by the minister that the gross national product for the year 1956 will be $2 billion more than in 1955-surely the taxpayers are entitled to an easing of taxes, if a moderate amount of economy were practised.
I believe that if taxes were eased a certain amount it would stimulate production to such an extent that revenues would be even greater. A good illustration of this was the reduction of 5 per cent in the excise tax on automobiles last year. The minister forecast that the decrease would lower the revenue by $26 million; instead it increased sales to such an extent that the excise revenue increased by $8 million. We must admit that taxation can be so high that it creates a damaging effect on the ability of the people to buy, and when that happens the prosperity of a country begins to slip. I contend that the more money the people have the more they will buy, and the more they buy the more revenues will be collected. I think the government would be well-advised not to tax the people beyond their ability to buy.
I should like to make a few remarks in regard to the income tax. We know that the income tax is here to stay. It is one medium the government has in order to collect revenue, and we accept it; but I do think all medical and hospital expenses should be deductible. It is not reasonable that a taxpayer with a medical bill up to a certain percentage of his net income, and which is absolutely unavoidable, should not be able to deduct it as an expense.
We hear all kinds of complaints, especially from the small towns and rural districts, regarding the tax inspectors chasing the people for years back before they can obtain a clear receipt for taxes paid.
I contend that this should not be. Surely the staff is large enough now to process the tax returns within a reasonable length of time and give the taxpayer a clear receipt except in the case of fraud. The people are getting sick and tired of having a couple of inspectors calling on them long after they have either lost their receipts or forgotten the information they are asked for. If only one inspector called perhaps they would not mind it so much, but when the department

The Budget-Division came into Canada, much below the price of Canadian cheddar cheese, did the consumer receive the benefit of a lower price tag on the cheese they bought at the grocery? No.
I should like at this time to give figures concerning one of the milk plants in my constituency. We have three milk plants in the county of Leeds, together with many cheese factories, and I should like to give these figures to show the members of this house, and I hope the people of Canada, the decreased revenue of the farmers. In this one plant in 1951 the average price of milk was $3.15 per hundredweight; in 1952 it was $2.75; in 1953 it was $2.33.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Clerk having informed me it is 9.45 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put the question on the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment 1	
the main motion lost.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, we shall take the estimates of the Department of Public Works tomorrow. On Monday we shall take the resolution with respect to the trans-Canada highway, the resolution with respect to the St. Lawrence seaway and any other resolution standing in the name of the Minister of Transport. On Tuesday we shall, I hope, conclude this debate.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
APRIL 12. 1956 2891 Questions ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS Answer by: Mr. Marler: The following answers, deposited with the 62. Clerk of the house, are printed in the official 2. Accounting records of operation and report of debates pursuant to standing maintenance costs are not maintained on a order 39: break-down basis for individual stations. 3. 5. NAVIGATIONAL SIGNALS, ST. LAWRENCE RIVER 4 Answered by No 2 AND HALIFAX HARBOUR ' J * 
Question No. 224-Mr. Balcom: Indian affairs-loans to bands 1.	How many navigational light and fog signals 
Question No. 317-Mr. Bryson: are in operation on the gulf of St. Lawrence, . including the river St. Lawrence? ![DOT] What are the names and location of bands or 2.	What was the cost of operations and mainten- groups of Indians that have received loans under ance during the fiscal year 1954-55? section 69 of the Indian Act? 3.	How many navigational light and fog signals What is the total amount of such loans out-are in operation off the Atlantic coast in the standing at the present time? vicinity of Halifax harbour? Answer bir Mr Pickprsaill- 4.	What was the cost of operations and mainten- /inswer °V- Mr* dickersgill. ance? 1 and 2:	Name of band	Agency	Province	Amount of loan	Amount outstandingLennox Island band	P.E.I.	P.E.I.	$ 3,000.00	$ NilLennox Island band	P.E.I	P.E.I.	3,500.00	NilEskasoni band	Eskasoni	N.S.	2,000.00	NilShubenacadie band	Shubenacadie	N.S.	5,000.00	NilRiver Desert band	Maniwaki	Quebec	5,000.00	NilAbenakis of St. Francis band	Pierreville	Quebec	5,000.00	NilAbenakis of St. Francis band	Pierreville	Quebec	5,000.00	NilMontagnais of Seven Islands band	Seven Islands	Quebec	3,000.00	NilMontagnais of Seven Islands band	Seven Islands	Quebec	3,000.00	NilChippewas of Beausoleil	Christian Island	Ont.	4,000.00	3,090.11Algonkins of Golden Lake band	Golden Lake	Ont.	3,000.00	30.32Rupert House band	James Bay	Ont.	5,000.00	NilEastmain band	James Bay	Ont.	7,500.00	NilDeer Lake band	Sioux Lookout	Ont.	10,000.00	6,000.00Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte band...	Tyendinaga	Ont.	1,000.00	939.91Valley River band	Dauphin	Man.	7,500.00	3,186.98Sandy Bay band	Dauphin	Man.	10,000.00	9,322.54Birdtail Sioux band	Portage la Prairie	Man.	600.00	NilKeeseekoowenin band	Portage la Prairie	Man.	800.00	NilRolling River band	Portage la Prairie	Man.	800.00	NilWaywayseecapDO band	Portage la Prairie	Man.	1,000.00	NilOak River band	Portage la Prairie	Man.	1,650.00	NilOak Lake band	Portage la Prairie	Man.	1,050.00	NilSweetgrass band	Battleford	Sask.	3,809.00	NilLittle Pine band	Battleford	Sask.	3,809.00	NilLittle Pine band	Battleford	Sask.	4,350.00	NilMuskeg Lake band	Duck Lake	Sask.	2,750.00	NilSandy Lake band	Duck Lake	Sask.	3,000.00	NilJohn Smith band	Duck Lake	Sask.	3,500.00	NilOne Arrows band	Duck Lake	Sask.	4,176.00	NilBeardy's band	Duck Lake	Sask.	5,000.00	NilWitcheken Lake band	Duck Lake	Sask.	7,500.00	NilCarry-The-Kettle band	File Hills-Qu'Appelle	Sask.	4,100.00	NilStanding Buffalo band	File Hills-Qu'Appelle	Sask.	510.00	NilPeepeekisis band	File Hills-Qu'Appelle	Sask.	2,725.00	NilPiapot band	File Hills-Qu'Appelle	Sask.	400.00	NilCarry-The-Kettle band	File Hills-Qu'Appelle	Sask.	5,000.00	NilMeadow Lake band	Meadow Lake	Sask.	5,000.00	NilOnion Lake band	Meadow Lake	Sask.	5,000.00	NilOnion Lake band	Meadow Lake	Sask.	2,500.00	NilMeadow Lake band	Meadow Lake	Sask.	5,000.00	NilJoseph Bighead band	Meadow Lake	Sask.	5,000.00	2,950.30Joseph Bighead band	Meadow Lake	Sask.	2,500.00	1,314.04
Questions
			Amount	Amount
Name of band	Agency	Province	of loan	outstandingOnion Lake band	Sask.	2,686.45	NilSturgeon Lake band	
Carlton	Sask.	5,775.25	NilKeesekoose band	
Felly	Sask.	2,615.00	NilNut Lake band	Sask.	3,500.00	NilKinistino band	
Touchwood	Sask.	3,900.00	NilNut Lake band	
Touchwood	Sask.	5,000.00	NilN ut Lake band	Sask.	2,500.00	NilPoorman band	
Touchwood	Sask.	4,000.00	NilAlexander band	
Edmonton	Alta.	1,500.00	NilMontana band	
Hobbema	Alta.	1,545.00	NilCold Lake band	
Saddle Lake	Alta.	2,600.00	NilKeeheewin band	
Saddle Lake	Alta.	2,500.00	1,469.99Kispiox band	
Babine	B.C.	2,500.00	NilKitamaat band	B.C.	2,000.00	NilBella Coola band	
Bella Coola	B.C.	10.000.00	NilGitlakdamix band	B.C.	1,500.00	NilKincolith band	
Skeena River	B.C.	2,500.00	2,100.00Canyon City band	B.C. .	1,500.00	1,260.16Greenville band	B.C.	5,000.00	NilMusqueam band	B.C.	3,000.00	NilWilliams Lake band	
Williams Lake	B.C.	2,500.00	NilTotal	
232,650.70	31,664.35FERRY "WILLIAM	CARSON"	maintenance and	servicing of the	said WilliamCarson?	Question No. 355-Mr. Nowlan:	Answer by: Mr.	Marler:	1. During the calendar year	1955, how many (a)	1. (a) None;	(b) None; (c)	(i) 19,192;passengers; (b) automobiles;	(c) tons of freight,	(ii) 3,015.	
were transported by the ferry, William Carson, (i) from Nova Scotia to Newfoundland; (ii) from Newfoundland to Nova Scotia?
2. What was the total amount of money paid out during the calendar year 1955, for the operation,
2. During the calendar year 1955 total expenses for the operation, maintenance and servicing of the M. V. William Carson were $435,367.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, April 13, 1956