1956-04-09

WELCOME TO HON. MEMBER FOR PEACE RIVER ON HIS RETURN FOLLOWING ILLNESS

Mr. Speaker:: Welcome to all, of course, but a very special welcome to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low). We are glad to see him back with us.



REVISION OF SALARIES OF TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES

Mr. Speaker:: I wish to inform the house that the commissioners of internal economy have reviewed the salaries of temporary employees of the House of Commons. It is my pleasure to report that they have authorized a revision of salaries in line with the increases being granted to civil servants. This decision conforms with our practice to the effect that in the past when general salary revisions have been granted to public service employees the salaries of our temporary employees have been adjusted, effective from the same date as that which has been announced for the coming into effect of the increased salaries of the civil servants.



THE LATE J. W. NOSEWORTHY

Right Hon. L. S. Si. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members of the house were saddened at the news we received during the Easter recess of the death of one of our colleagues, Mr. Joseph Noseworthy. The news came to us as a particularly startling shock, for only a few weeks before we had been happy to witness what seemed to be his successful and rapid recovery from an ailment which had kept him away from his desk for a few days earlier this session.
Mr. Noseworthy's career was one of many victories against heavy odds. He was in the true sense a self-made man who quietly and persistently overcame the obstacles that lay before him. The son of a Newfoundland fisherman, it was not until after he migrated to Canada in 1910 that he was able to work his way through college and university and complete the higher education which had always been his aim. Thereafter his rise in his profession as a teacher was rapid.
Within a few years he became the head of a department of a large collegiate in north Toronto. It was while serving in that post that his fellow teachers showed their appreciation of his professional and personal qualities by electing him president of the Ontario secondary school teachers federation, a position he held for nine years.
His very election to this house in a famous by-election in 1942 gave striking evidence of the way in which Mr. Noseworthy met and overcame difficulties. Since coming to this house he applied the full force of his talents in the promotion of the political and social principles in which he believed and he made many able contributions to a wide variety of debates in this chamber. Those of us who did not always agree with him in what he said nevertheless respected him for the sincerity with which he spoke and for the kindliness and courtesy of his relations with his fellow members.
To Mrs. Noseworthy and the members of the family who have lost a beloved husband and father and to the leader and members of his party who have lost a valued colleague, Mr. Speaker, we all extend, I am sure, our deepest sympathy.


Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in joining with the Prime Minister in the expression of regret and sympathy in the loss of a friend who was known to everyone here as a kind, gentle and very devoted member of this house, I feel that I should also repeat what the Prime Minister has said with regard to Mr. Noseworthy's return to this house earlier. The very fact that he did come back to the House of Commons after an earlier illness suggested the certainty that the damage of the attack he had suffered had not been too severe. I think every one of us looked with confidence to his continued good health.
Mr. Noseworthy brought to this house the warm, personal interest in the affairs of his own community that grew out of his service as a teacher in that community. On educational matters he spoke with authority; on other matters he spoke with the interests of those he served at heart.
I think it can be said that there was not a single member of this house who did not hold him in high, personal regard. I know that all of us are going to miss his contributions very greatly and will miss from
2724	HOUSE OF
The late J. W. Noseworthy our ranks in this house a man who had given long years of public service in many fields. On behalf of the party I have the honour to lead I join with the Prime Minister in expressing our profound sympathy to the members of Mr. Noseworthy's family in his untimely death. I also extend to his associates in the party to which he gave such devoted service our sympathy in their loss.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace Rivei):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to be associated with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in paying tribute to our late colleague, Mr. Noseworthy. When I contemplate the empty seat beside me which formerly was occupied by Mr. Noseworthy, and when I think of my own recent experience, I cannot help noting the appalling way in which heart disease is taking its toll of the Canadian people, and all too frequently of the members of this house. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that under the circumstances we ought to be redoubling our efforts to find out the cause of this appalling loss of life and impairment of health being caused by Canada's No. 1 killer. Perhaps no greater tribute could be paid to Mr. Noseworthy than to set up some sort of memorial fund for the study of heart disease because that is the thing which, if not directly certainly indirectly, took his life.
I want to pay my tribute to Mr. Nose worthy as a sincere and kindly gentleman whom I always enjoyed meeting and who always treated me very well. He was a fighter for the betterment of those people who most need help in our country, and he was always working on their behalf.
I want to join with the others in extending my sympathy to the members of his family in their irreparable loss and also to extend to the leader of the C.C.F. party and his colleagues our sympathy in their loss of a devoted colleague.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, would you allow me to express to you and to the members of the house my sincere thanks and gratitude for the warm welcome extended to me today. May I tell you how happy I am to be back in my place in the House of Commons. I have always felt that the greatest blessing that can come to any man is to be able to work all his days. I am glad to say that my doctors have given me encouragement. They say that it will be possible for me now to ease into the work gradually, and I hope I shall be able to take my full responsibility before long.
During the time I was in hospital in Calgary I received thousands of messages of encouragement, understanding and good will IMr. Drew.]

from people all across Canada. Amongst those were many from this house and from my colleagues here. Those messages gave me great encouragement and a lift that was much like a transfusion. They contributed in no mean way to the speed with which I was able to recover. I want to thank all hon. members for their kindness to me and for the kindness they have extended to my family while I was absent and impaired. I am glad to be back and wish to express my sincere thanks to all.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I first express my appreciation for the kindly references that have been made to the party which I have the honour to lead in this house in the loss that we have sustained in the death of a good friend and colleague. Joe Noseworthy's life was devoted to good causes throughout the whole of it. As the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has said, he was born under humble circumstances in a fisherman's home in Newfoundland. He literally had to fight his way through school. Then he devoted his life for some time to the Grenfell mission in Labrador where he worked for the health and the welfare of the people of that part of Newfoundland which is now also a part of this country.
He came to Canada in 1910, making up his mind that he would complete his university course. He worked his way through university by taking all kinds of work in the summer to enable him to get through. There he specialized in English and in history, becoming later on, as the Prime Minister has said, a teacher in one of the Ontario high schools where he remained for a number of years, indeed until he was elected as a member of the House of Commons. May I just say in passing that one of the assets he had when he was seeking election to this house in 1942 was that he had made great friends of the students of Vaughan collegiate where he was a teacher, and they wholeheartedly went out to support him in that election, a fact which I think was a great tribute to him as a teacher and friend of the young people in that community.
I knew him long before he came to this house. When I was the president of the Canadian Teachers' Federation he was associated with the secondary school teachers of Ontario. He contributed greatly to the welfare of the teaching profession of this country. The excellent brief which was presented to the Rowell-Sirois commission when it sat in this city some years ago was largely the work of the late Joseph Noseworthy, and the teachers of the country are grateful to him and appreciative of the work that he did for them in that regard.

He was elected to this parliament in 1942. As the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister and the leader of the Social Credit party have said, in this house we found him to be a great friend, a great representative of his constituency and a fine personality. We shall miss him from this place. To his colleagues and to myself, he was always a loyal friend. I feel personally that in the passing of Joseph Noseworthy I have lost one with whom I have been associated for some 30 years in the teaching profession and the House of Commons, and that is a very real and personal loss as well as a loss to the party which I represent.
We too join in expressing our deepest sympathy to his widow, his daughters, his son and other members of the family in their sad and sudden bereavement.
Sometimes we can find in the literature of our language something which appropriately describes an individual. Robert Browning, in one of his poems, wrote these words:
One who never turned his back but marched breast forward,
Never doubted clouds would break,
Never dreamed, though right were worsted, wrong would triumph,
Held we fall to rise, are baffled to fight better, Sleep to wake.
I know of no words more appropriate than those to describe the life and work of Joseph Noseworthy.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: I should like to say a brief word, Mr. Speaker. Because our colleague belonged to the same branch of the church as I do, I felt it was my duty, as well as my privilege, to call on him when he was ill. I was cheered because I found he was not afraid of death, and what we know as death was to him a release to a greater life and larger liberty: not dead but living.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: I wish to make a statement concerning the transport of supplies out of Eagle, Alaska, in connection with the construction by the United States of the distant early warning line.
The agreement between Canada and the United States for the construction of the D.E.W. line in Canada provides that Canadian carriers will to the fullest extent practicable be afforded the opportunity to participate in D.E.W. 'line transportation in Canada; and as hon. members know, the greater part of the airlift for the D.E.W. line has been carried out by Canadian air carriers. The transport of 67509-173i
National Defence-D.E.W. line construction materials to D.E.W. line sites offers many difficulties and has necessitated the use of different routes and different modes of transportation.
During the winter of 1954-55 Alaska Freight Lines-a United States company which operates barges between Seattle and Alaska and trucks and tractors in Alaska, and which has, I understand, a Canadian subsidiary-moved certain materials for the D.E.W. line by means of a snow train from Circle, Alaska, almost due north to Shingle Point on the Arctic coast in the Yukon. From there it hauled the freight eastward along the coast to certain D.E.W. line sites in Canada.
During the summer of 1955 information from United States sources indicated that it was expected that the same facilities would be used in the winter of 1955-1956 over the same route between Circle and Shingle Point. After examining the matter, the Canadian authorities were satisfied that these snow-train services out of Alaska would be needed during the winter of 1955-1956 for the purpose of the construction of the D.E.W. line. Failure to move the material would have resulted in a serious delay in the shipments urgently required for the D.E.W. line work this winter, but it was pointed out to the United States authorities that any extensive and continuing use of snow trains in Canada should be based upon the use of Canadian operators. I am informed that at least one Canadian company was approached by the construction contractor in that sector, but that company indicated that it could not be ready in time for operations this winter. This is not surprising because not only are considerable organization and extensive equipment necessary, but the route northward from Circle, Alaska, is not in an area in which Canadian operators are normally interested.
In developing its plans for operations in the winter of 1955-56, Alaska Freight Lines found it desirable to cut a winter road from Eagle, Alaska, eastward to Norman Wells and thence northeastward to the Arctic coast. This change of route was made without consultation with the Canadian government, and accordingly final permission for the operation was withheld by the Canadian authorities until the company had supplied full details as to the operation and had satisfied Canadian officials that it would comply with all applicable Canadian laws and regulations.
May I now, Mr. Speaker, deal with the subject of complaints. A joint complaint from two Canadian charter air carriers, one at Whitehorse and the other at Dawson, alleging that Alaska Freight Lines was improperly using United States aircraft to assist the snow-train operations in Canadian territory,

Proposed Legislation
was received by the air transport board. Upon investigation it was found that though Alaska Freight Lines may, in its earlier operations to which I have referred, have made use of United States aircraft, it was, at the time of the complaint, using the services of one Canadian and one United States light aircraft.
No other complaint has been received by the departments of national defence, transport and national revenue.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that what I have just said replies fully to the question which the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker) addressed to the Prime Minister on the orders of the day on March 23.
I understand that the Whitehorse board of trade did prepare a brief criticizing the operations in Canadian territory of Alaska Freight Lines and suggesting that it was not conforming with Canadian laws and regulations. This brief was addressed not to the government but to the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Simmons), who communicated its contents to the departments concerned. These departments report that the laws and regulations administered by them have been complied with and that the necessary steps have been taken to ensure that they will continue to be complied with. The hon. member for Yukon has informed me that the principal object which the Whitehorse board of trade had in mind was the operations next winter, 1956-57, and I hope that it will be possible to satisfy them on this point.



CANADA GRAIN ACT


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 210, to amend the Canada Grain Act (distribution of box cars).


Mr. Knowles:: Explain.


Hazen Robert Argue: The purpose of this bill, Mr. Speaker, as usual, is to provide a new method for the allocation of box cars at each marketing point so that producers will be enabled to deliver their grain to the elevator of their choice.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


Stanley Howard Knowles: for leave to introduce Bill No. 211, to provide for annual holidays with pay for employees.


Hazen Robert Argue: Explain.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide by law that all employees in Canada who come under federal labour jurisdiction be granted at least two weeks' holidays with pay after one year's employment. This bill would thus write into federal law a provision already on the statute books of some of the provinces, the provision of at least two weeks' holidays after one year being the best of any such provisions.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 49-Mr. Knowles (for Mr. Mac-
Innis):
For a copy of all letters, telegrams and other communications, from August 1, 1955 to February 24, 1956, between any person in the Post Office Department and any person or persons in Vancouver, British Columbia, relative to the change of location of the sub-post office Vancouver-Joyce (No. 9795), and the change of postmaster at the said sub-post office.
Mr. Pickersgill:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would let this motion stand until the Postmaster General is here?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.
Motion stands.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 57-Mr. Knowles:
For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Prime Minister and any organizations representing federal civil servants (including postal employees and any others), dated at any time since January 1, 1955, with reference to the question of collective bargaining between such employees and the federal government.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Prime Minister if he will inform the hon. members of this house in regard to what was discussed, and, in so far as that is possible, what was achieved at the meeting in Virginia which he attended just before Easter.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I anticipated that there might be such a question and I prepared a rather brief statement of what took place there which otherwise I would not have inflicted upon the house ten or twelve days after the visit that has been so fully, although

not always as accurately as fully, reported in the newspapers of both countries.
This visit took place at White Sulphur Springs on March 26 and 27 between the heads of governments of the United States, Mexico and Canada. The host at this meeting was the President of the United States who in his invitation and subsequently emphasized that it would be of an informal character without agenda for the purpose of exchanging views on matters of mutual interest and of getting to know each other better.
In view of the character of the meeting, no decisions were reached and none was expected. It was, however, from my point of view, both helpful and agreeable to be in a position to discuss current international affairs with the presidents of the United States and Mexico in this informal way. There was also an opportunity to bring up one or two subjects of specific Canadian-United States concern with President Eisenhower and Mr. Dulles.
The general discussion centred largely upon the comprehensive report which Mr. Dulles made on his recent visit to Asia. It has been stated in the press that in the subsequent exchange of views there was an emphatic expression of policy difference between the United States and Canada in respect of communist China. The reports in that form are without foundation. It is quite true that both President Eisenhower and Mr. Dulles explained very frankly the reasons why recognition of the communist government at Peking could not be contemplated under present circumstances and why they felt their support should be continued to the government of Chiang Kai-shek. However, there was nothing said about the Canadian position which would suggest any change whatsoever from that stated in the house by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) on January 31 either in respect of recognition or of our attitude toward the islands of Quemoy and Matsu off the coast of China.
Each government is fully aware of the position of the other in these matters, as indeed they were before the meeting at White Sulphur Springs. It is true, however, and this was recognized at our recent meeting, that there are many countries which have recognized the Peking regime, and that this has created a problem as to which regime should represent China at the United Nations, a problem which may be expected to grow more acute as time goes on.
There was considerable discussion over the position in the Middle East, the seriousness of which, of course, everyone recognized. It was agreed that, while all possible steps to
Inquiries of the Ministry reduce immediate tension should be taken, peace could only be secured there by an agreed political settlement between Israel and its neighbours. In this connection, the three governments welcomed the expected intervention of the United Nations at this time, since formalized through the resolution which has just been passed unanimously by the security council. I am sure that the Secretary General of the United Nations has our best wishes for success in the very important mission on which he is now engaged in consequence of this resolution.
There was also general discussion of the possible consequences of recent communist party developments in Russia. I got the impression that it was felt that any firm conclusion in regard to the long-range importance of these changes would be premature but that, in any event, they would not warrant any relaxation of effort on our part, either in defence or diplomacy or negotiation.
Consideration was also given to the problems arising out of the emergence of new states in Asia and Africa, states which are as sensitive about their national independence as they are insistent on greater human welfare for their people. In this connection there was an exchange of views as to the desirability of continuing international economic assistance to materially underdeveloped countries, and especially as to the importance of removing any feeling that such assistance on the part of western countries had any ulterior motive or was inspired by any other spirit than good will and understanding. On the Canadian side, we expressed the view that it might help to remove any suspicions of ulterior motives if the United Nations were brought more into the picture than it had been, at least from the point of view of using the organization as a clearing house for plans and policies and information in regard to international assistance schemes. We felt that this had been done with good results in the annual meetings of the ministerial committee of the Colombo plan, and that possibly this practice could be usefully extended to the wider field of the United Nations, so that it would become clear to the whole world community what various countries were doing in this matter and why they were doing it.
In our bilateral talks, I emphasized once again to the President the importance of better-balanced trade between our two countries. I referred to the existing unfavourable balance in our visible trade, and I mentioned that the compensation or correction of this imbalance by capital movements occasionally was the cause of some concern in this country
2728	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry lest the control of our economic development, which should remain in Canadian hands, might be prejudiced thereby.
I also suggested to the President that the time seemed to have come when problems regarding the use of water power on rivers crossing the international boundary might well be studied at a conference between representatives of the two governments. Here I might perhaps extend this a little to answer a question of which notice was telephoned to my office by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton). There was no discussion of the problem, but merely the suggestion that it would probably be desirable at this time to have it studied by a joint conference representing the two governments, to try to get at something which would make for the possibility of expeditious use of these water powers to the best possible advantage of the people who might derive advantage from their use. It was left at that, with the understanding that the subject would be further pursued in discussions between our Department of External Affairs and the Secretary of State of the United States.
Needless to say, the President expressed a very warm feeling for this country and gratification at the way in which relations between our two peoples were based on mutual respect and friendship and frank statement of diverging views, when there were diverging views. He took advantage of the opportunity to mention some concern over the proposed 20 per cent advertising tax on Canadian editions of United States magazines. My explanation to him of the nature and purpose of this proposal will serve, I hope, to lessen his concern about it.
Having to make this statement, I would not want to end it without expressing once again my grateful thanks to the President and the government of the United States for the kindness and friendly hospitality which they showed us during our visit. I would also like to express my sincere appreciation of the opportunity thus afforded to me to become acquainted with the President of Mexico and to renew my acquaintance with the foreign minister of Mexico. It should be a source of real gratification to all Canadians that the relations between Canada and Mexico are developing in such an important and satisfactory way.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Prime Minister would tell us if the government of the United States shared the view, expressed by this government just before the Easter recess, that the situation in the Middle East has been easing.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not
know that that word was used. The views that were expressed and discussed there were in general to the effect that there were still good grounds to hope that there would be no serious conflict there and that this intervention of the United Nations might have satisfactory results and bring about an agreed political solution which, it seemed to be recognized, was the only way in which peace could be assured in that part of the world.


George Alexander Drew: My question was directed to the fact that there is an obvious difference between the actions taken by the two governments and that this government expressed a definite opinion that the easing situation in the Middle East justified the shipment of the further aircraft to Egypt, and other action that was taken at that time. I wondered if that subject had been discussed on that occasion.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The fact that shipments had been made was alluded to. It was alluded to not in the general meeting with the two Presidents and the Canadian representatives but in our bilateral meeting, and there was expression of satisfaction that we had released those small shipments to Israel.


George Alexander Drew: I referred specifically to the shipment of aircraft to Egypt.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That was not referred to at all.


Mr. Fulton:: May I ask the Prime Minister whether his statement that it has been suggested that the problems of the control of the Columbia river should now be discussed directly between representatives of the governments of the two countries means that the Prime Minister or the government feel that the situation has got to the point where it is not likely to be solved under the agency of the international joint commission and that it should therefore be discussed at the higher level by direct negotiation between governments?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I would not like to say this was a higher level but there was a feeling that the chairmen of the two sections had publicly expressed views so diametrically opposed to each other that there was little probability of their being able to make the kind of progress we would hope would be made in arriving at a solution of these problems.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If I may ask one further question, has a date, either definite or tentative, been set yet for the meetings?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No. I would not even wish to convey the impression that the President had agreed that there would be meetings. He seemed interested in the suggestion and it was left that the matter would be further discussed between our Department of External Affairs and the department of the secretary of state.

On the orders of the day:


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask a further question with relation to the matter of the Columbia river development that was referred to earlier? Can the Prime Minister give the house assurance that the surveys and plans for the development of Columbia river power in Canada will not be interfered with in any way because of the prospect of these negotiations, and that no such undertaking was implicit in the discussions?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There was no undertaking implicit whatsoever. It was merely a suggestion that it might be desirable at this time to have the matter looked into, and the Columbia river was not referred to particularly. It was the rivers that cross the international boundary. The Columbia is one of them, the Yukon is another and the Saint John in the east is another. There are several of these rivers. The matter was just referred to. The whole thing probably did not take more than three minutes, not as much time as it has taken in the house to answer the questions.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is no reason why surveys and studies in Canada should not proceed as before?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: My conversation with the President is not a reason why they should not proceed.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Before the Easter recess the hon. member for Oxford asked whether any Russian airfields were established on ice floes at the present time in Canadian Arctic waters. There are two ice islands, Mr. Speaker, known to be occupied by Soviet personnel and drifting in Arctic waters. They appear to be used as weather stations and for other scientific purposes. They have landing strips enabling them to be supplied by transport aircraft and they also make use of helicopters. Neither of these ice islands is in Canadian Arctic waters.
Inquiries of the Ministry

On the orders of the day:


Mr. W. B. Nesbitl- (Oxford):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs arising out of the statement he has just made. Did the minister say in the last part of his statement that there are none of these Russian ice airfields in Canadian Arctic waters at present or that there have not been?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I said, Mr. Speaker, that neither of the Arctic stations referred to was in Canadian waters. I cannot say offhand whether there ever has been such a station in Canadian Arctic waters in the past, but I have no knowledge of one.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Will the minister re-examine the income tax files of the breweries of Manitoba to ascertain whether any of them claimed income tax deductibility for the contributions they made, as revealed in Winnipeg last week, to the Liberal, Conservative and Social Credit parties of Manitoba?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: I can comply with the request of the hon. gentleman but I doubt very much whether I can give him information about other people's business.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I make it clear that I did not ask the minister to give publicity to information that is secret by law. I asked him if he would examine the files to ascertain for the benefit of the treasury whether or not such deductibility was claimed by the breweries of Manitoba. May I assume the minister will conduct such an examination?


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, I understand the question and will take it into consideration.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. F. S. Zaplitny (Dauphin):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of recent developments in Manitoba, would the minister state whether he, while premier of Manitoba or at any time since then, received any financial contributions from the breweries of Manitoba?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: That is an easy question to answer. The answer is no.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Speaker, may I direct
a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice. Is the minister aware of any financial contributions made by the breweries to the party with which he is associated?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice. Is the minister aware that the breweries made contributions to the Liberal party in Manitoba during the time he was leader of that party?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the minister now aware
of it since I have told him?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Only on my hon. friend's
authority.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will send my hon. friend
a copy of the Winnipeg Free Press.



REPORTED RECORDINGS OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS WITH TAXPAYERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Has the income tax branch made any recordings of telephone conversations with taxpayers or has it requested that any such recordings be made, as reported in Saturday's issue of the Windsor Daily Star?


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. E. Robinson (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of personal privilege, I have in my hand a Bruce county brochure. You, sir, will receive one, together with all hon. members of the House of Commons. I wish to say that if any of you can find the time to visit Bruce you have a cordial invitation to look us up at Kincardine.



NATURAL GAS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: In the absence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, may I ask the Prime Minister if any information can be given to the house with respect to the extended reports which appeared in the press during the Easter recess regarding discussions that have taken place as to possible alternative pipe-line projects to carry gas to eastern Canada?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry, but I was away in Quebec during the Easter recess and no communication was made to me of any possible alternative plan in that respect.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister say what the purpose is of the recent increase in the Bank of Canada discount rate and can he assure the house that it will not lead to any general increase in bank interest rates?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minisler of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the banking and commerce committee is meeting. The governor of the bank will be available for questioning.


Hazen Robert Argue: Do I take it from the minister's answer that he is giving up his responsibility to make a reply in the house on a very important question of public policy?


Walter Edward Harris: Of course not, Mr. Speaker. TELEVISION



REPLY TO REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF FACILITIES TO MANITOBA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, on March 26 the hon. member for Dauphin asked the following question:
Does the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation intend to extend its television facilities to the province of Manitoba in the near future and, if so, at what points?
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation advises that it is not at present planning to extend its television facilities to cover any additional points in the province of Manitoba in the near future.



REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE OF SUPPLY OF GARRY 27

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['wish, Mr. Speaker, in these, my opening remarks, to offer my most sincere thanks to the electors of the county of Quebec South for the confidence they manifested in me and in the principles of the Liberal party under the distinguished leadership of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). My election was also, in large measure, a tribute on the part of the electorate to the innumerable and important services rendered to them over the years by my father and predecessor, Senator the Hon. C. G. Power, in whose eminent footsteps I hope to prove a worthy follower. The tradition which he has left me is one of unstinting and devoted service in the interests of the electors of Quebec South, of the city and province of Quebec and of Canada. It is also a tradition of party loyalty and service tempered with clearness and independence of thought. Indeed, it is a tradition which he continues to maintain in his new legislative function, and which I will also endeavour, to the best of my ability, to continue in and out of this house.\nAnd now, Mr. Speaker, I crave your kind indulgence while I say a few brief words about the constituency which I have the honour of representing here and while I discuss certain problems of local interest.\nThe constituency of Quebec South comprises generally speaking that part of the city of Quebec where the Palais station, the harbour, the Battlefields park, the walled town and upper town are located. It also includes the. city of Sillery which is undergoing a rapid growth. Within its limits is to be', "The Budget-Mr. F. G. Power found the first permanent European settlement in Canada. It has felt the tread of the most illustrious figures of Canadian history: Champlain, Maisonneuve,-whose house in Sillery still stands today-Frontenac, Laval, Montcalm and Wolfe, Cartier, Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier, to name but a few. The riding has been the site of the capital of French Canada and of the United Provinces of Canada. The Quebec conference preceding confederation was held there. And within its limits are to be found the provincial parliament buildings. In brief, my constituency is the birthplace of Canada and of Quebec.\nWhile I am on that subject, Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest to the government that because of the historical importance of that city and consequently of the attraction it has for Canadians and Americans, consideration might be given to some financial assistance to the municipality in the form of subsidies or otherwise, especially if we take into account the value of untaxed crown property in the city. In this way the municipal government would be in a position to discharge its heavy responsibilities and to increase the beauty and attractiveness of the city.\nBut the constituency of Quebec South has more than a historical interest. It also is part of modern Quebec whose progress since 1941 has been truly marvellous. Quebec offers unique advantages from the point of view of the establishment of new industries.\nQuebec is one of the main shoe manufacturing districts in Canada. There you find more than 500 industries including bookbinding, tobacco, cigar and cigarettes, ladies' wear, agricultural products, food, furs, iron works, breweries, clothing, wood, pulp and paper.\nThe town of Sillery which is going to commemorate this year, between the 2nd and the 11th of June, the centenary of the incorporation of its municipality and of its school board, is a pleasant residential town which has grown rapidly since 1945 and of which my forefathers have been among the first settlers.\nNow I would like to say a few words relating to some problems with which we are particularly concerned. One of the most important factors in the economic life of my constituency and of the city and district of Quebec is the harbour of Quebec.\nThe harbour of Quebec, as well as those of Halifax, Saint John, Chicoutimi, Montreal,\nfMr. Power (Quebec South).]", "Three Rivers, Churchill and Vancouver, is administered by the national harbours board, an institution which was established under chapter 42 of the Statutes of Canada for the year 1936.\nBefore the adoption of this legislation, the harbour of Quebec was state property and was administered by three government officials called the Quebec harbour commission. The change in the administration was made following Sir Alexander Gibb's recommendations, which he formulated after carrying on, at the request of the government, an inquiry into Canada's national harbours. His conclusions' were to the effect that the administrative system used was not satisfactory.\nConsequently, the setting up of a central authority was proposed in order to co-ordinate direction and to supervise finance and works of a technical nature. Besides the central authority, the recommendation was also made to substitute for the harbour commissioners a local civil servant who would be called port manager. This official would have the direction of each harbour under the central authority. The National Harbours Board Act, chapter 42, statutes of 1936, gave effect to the above proposals.\nAnother recommendation, subordinate to the one above but which, unfortunately, was not put into effect, called for the setting up of a local harbour board which was to represent local interests and those that used the harbour, and would also help out the harbour master in matters of purely local concern.\nThe partial implementation of the Gibb report, as I have just indicated, resulted in a centralization which evoked almost unanimous criticism throughout the country, criticism which took the form of speeches and resolutions recorded from time to time in the orders of the day of this house.\nThe policy implemented as a result of the very nature of this act administered by the national harbours board has prevented the adoption of any corrective measure which could have been brought forward so as to stimulate the export of goods through the port of Quebec.\nConsequently, Quebec harbour, though showing a balance sheet which is favourable in appearance, is not as widely used and known as it should be. We must not forget that the Quebec harbour commissioners did much to attract business to Quebec and that they fought to obtain concessions such as the preferential tariff on grain carried from Fort William to Quebec on the national transcontinental railway in 1921 and 1926. Since the disappearance of this harbour commission,", "its functions of promoting trade in Quebec city have, to a certain extent, been assumed by the Quebec city chamber of commerce. Be that as it may, promotion carried out by that organization is obviously not as wide in scope as it would be if it were carried out by an authority having direct connections with the harbour.\nThe inherent weakness of the National Harbours Board Act as' it now stands is to be found in the fact that it is not within the terms of reference of the board, nor even of the local port manager, to promote competition between harbours. With regard to Quebec, it would seem that the harbour authorities are completely indifferent to any encouragement or stimulation of local business or to promotion or growth of regional and foreign trade. Indeed, the material assets of Quebec harbour have been so sadly neglected that they have deteriorated in an alarming way. Yet, recently, and as a result of representations made by the chamber of commerce, and supported by all federal members for that area in this house, an impressive program of reconstruction and improvements has been launched and it appears that, following instructions by the government, the national harbour board intends to recondition Quebec harbour. Though such action would be of great help, it would not be enough to ensure the prosperity of this port. It is essential that the recommendations of the Gibb report which I mentioned before, and which have not yet been passed-or some similar legislation-be added to the act so as to improve our domestic and foreign trade and to promote the development of the city by giving the harbour administration a more complete autonomy in co-operation with local business, industrial and labour interests.\n(Text):\nI wish, Mr. Speaker, in these my opening remarks to offer my most sincere thanks to the electors of the county of Quebec South for the confidence they manifested in me and in the principles of the Liberal party under the distinguished leadership of the right hon. Prime Minister. My election was also in large measure a tribute on the part of the electorate to the innumerable and important services rendered to them over the years by my father and predecessor, Senator C. G. Power, in whose eminent footsteps I hope to prove a worthy follower. The tradition he has left me is one of unstinting and devoted service in the interests of the electors of Quebec South, of the city and province of Quebec and of Canada. It is also a tradition of party loyalty and service tempered with fairness and independence of thought. Indeed,\n9, 1956\nThe Budget-Mr. F. G. Power it is a tradition which he continues to maintain in his new legislative function, and which I shall also endeavour to the best of my ability to maintain both in this house and outside of it.\nMr. Speaker, I crave your kind indulgence while I say a few brief words about my constituency, Quebec South. It comprises, generally speaking, the harbour of Quebec, the walled town and the upper town. It also contains the modern city of Sillery. Its population is composed of about 85 per cent French speaking Canadians and 15 per cent English speaking Canadians, and of the 15 per cent half are Protestant and half Roman Catholic.\nIt is a marvellously beautiful county, as have testified the thousands and thousands of tourists who visit this section of Quebec and district every year. It has felt the tread of the most illustrious figures in Canadian history, such as Champlain, its founder; Maisonneuve, the founder of Montreal, whose house in Sillery still stands today; Laval, the founder of the oldest university on the continent; Frontenac, one of the greatest of its governors; Montcalm and Wolfe, whose glorious deaths are commemorated by the battlefields park and by numerous monuments and statues; Macdonald, Cartier and Sir Wilfrid Laurier, to name but a few. It is the site of the first permanent European settlement in Canada; in essence it is the cradle of Canada and the repository of a major part of its history. It is not surprising therefore, that I am deeply honoured and proud of the fact that I have been chosen to represent it in this house.\nMr. Speaker, whilst I am a newly arrived member of this house I am not a stranger to politics. Although I would not by any stretch of the imagination describe myself as an expert politician, for I have a great deal to learn, I have had some seven years of practical political experience as my father's assistant, and since adolescence I have been exposed more or less to the pratical and theoretical aspects of politics. As a result there has been developed in me the following, and possibly not surprising, theory with regard to my conduct as a member of this house and of the Liberal party.\nI believe very strongly in the general political principles and objects of the Liberal party and in the practical manner in which they have been and are generally applied. In consequence of this, and of the fact that I was elected as a supporter of the Liberal party and of this government under the distinguished leadership of the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, I owe loyalty to our party and to my chief. However, I do not believe that", "The Budget-Mr. F. G. Power this loyalty should be either blind or unquestioning, nor has the Liberal party or its chief ever so held.\nJust as this government, as a Liberal government, has a dual responsibility, on the one hand to the party for the carrying out of the party platform when the occasion presents itself, and on the other hand and more importantly to the people of Canada toward whom it has a responsibility to discharge its functions irrespective of and despite its political commitments, so also I believe that I and every other hon. member of this house has a dual responsibility to the party whose principles he upholds and a responsibility as a member of this house for judging and passing on legislation which is brought down by the government. As in the case of father and son or brother and brother, I feel that any disagreement or criticism which in the discharge of my parliamentary obligations I may be obliged to express should not, or would not, in any way affect my standing as a member, of the Liberal party.\nIn this connection I would like to cite a paragraph from one of my last campaign speeches in which I expressed essentially the same thought:\nIn the course of my various discussions with you I have endeavoured to place before you the point of view of one who whilst strongly attached to the party to which he belongs, believes that no candidate should pledge himself in advance to the extent that he be precluded from exercising full liberty of action and the best of his judgment and discretion for the attitude which he will take in\nall or any public question which may be presented to him during the course of his mandate as representative of the people.\nMr. Speaker, I have thought it best to avoid in this section of my speech discussion of particular issues of the day for which more appropriate occasions will arise. However, there is one subject now before this house in the form of two bills which I would like to touch upon before I close. I refer to the matter of bilingualism. Representing as I do a constituency which is by a large majority French speaking, and being myself bilingual, although there is room for improvement, I most strongly urge that this house should, as a principle, adopt the extension of bilingualism in the public service and public printing of Canada.\nI do not mean that all English speaking or French speaking Canadians should be forced to speak each other's language, but I do feel that a French or English Canadian citizen should be able to obtain information or service from government publications or from selected civil service personnel wherever he may happen to be in Canada. I think this would go a long way toward increasing our sense of national unity.\nShall I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?\nOn motion of Mr. Power (Quebec South) the debate was adjourned."]
Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, on the last sitting day the hon. member for Bruce asked a question of me in my absence and referred it to the Minister of Finance. The question has been referred back to me. His question was as follows:
Will the minister inquire as to the number of bushels of Garry 27 oats being exported to the United States, and make sure that there is sufficient supply left in Canada for our farmers' needs?
Statistics of oat exports are not maintained by varieties. There is, therefore, no record of the quantity of Garry oats which has been exported to the United States.
The estimated production of Garry oats in Canada in 1955 eligible for grading as registered or certified seed was 750,000 bushels. A total of 369,082 bushels have been graded and inspected as registered or certified seed to February 29, 1956. Seed from this stock has been offered freely on the Canadian market and there are still substantial quantities available.
It is understood that all Canadian demands have been taken care of. In fact, with the season for the sale of seed drawing to a close, it now appears that there may be some unsold surplus of Garry oat seed from the 1955 crop.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister recently received any requests from provincial ministers of agriculture that farm organizations should have representatives at the coming federal-provincial conference? If so, will such invitations to such farm organizations be extended?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I suppose it depends somewhat on what my hon. friend has in his mind whether the answer will be yes or no. When I was in Saskatchewan I noted in the press in Regina that there had been a discussion of the matter in the legislature in the province of Saskatchewan and that the minister of agriculture in that province said that a request had been made to me. I will have to look the matter up and see whether or not there was such a request made recently.
The Budget-Mr. Dupuis


Hazen Robert Argue: Will the minister make a reply at a later date?


James Garfield Gardiner: I might make a reply now that it is not the intention to extend invitations to the farm organizations to be there.


Hazen Robert Argue: Another big mistake.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, the answer given by the minister is an interesting one. From the minister's answer do I take it that his reply will depend upon what he thinks the hon. member wants?


James Garfield Gardiner: No. I think my second answer made it quite clear that it does not depend on that. The statement has already been made in this house on a number of occasions that the question was fully discussed, with the provincial ministers of agriculture present and all of the representatives of the farm organizations present at the conference last December. The nature of the meeting and those to be present was agreed to then. The call has been put out. We do not intend to enlarge upon it.


THE BUDGET
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, March 28, consideration of the motion of Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Macdonnell, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. Hector Dupuis (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, in the first part of my speech that I had to interrupt on the adjournment on March 28 last for the Easter recess, I was just asking the members on the opposite side of this house to be a little bit more logical and to stop asking for a decrease in taxes while at the same time asking for an increase of government expenditures in different fields covering the administration of the various departments of this country. On that occasion I also made a suggestion that the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) should talk to the premier of Alberta and ask him to start to distribute the dividend which was promised to Albertans 20 years ago by Mr. Aberhart who just 20 years ago, within a few days, said that he was not able to fulfil the promises he had made to the citizens of that particular province. I wonder if my hon. friend has started yet to act on that suggestion? I still call upon him urgently to go ahead and give the Alberta dividend for the benefit of that particular province in order that the citizens should at least after 20 years get the dividend
2732	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Dupuis that was promised by the Social Credit party. At the same time while I am making suggestions and before I go into the second part of my speech which I will make in French, I would also suggest to two of the hon. members of my own province to get in touch with the premier, with whom they are on such friendly relations, in order to ask him to increase the old age pensions in the province of Quebec. This particular suggestion is addressed to the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) and also to the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Dufresne) so that Quebec, with the $400 million budget which they have this year, should be in a position to increase the old age pension for the residents of our respective province as was done in the other provinces, and just lately in the province of Ontario.
Before terminating my remarks in English may I say that I am sure-I repeat myself again and may I express the hope-that when the international situation shall have been cleared up-that means to say that when the conditions are such that there is no immediate fear of war activities-this government will be in a position first of all to decrease the taxes which are a heavy burden on the shoulders of Canadians and at the same time to increase the welfare allocations which are granted generously to the various classes of our population. Everyone must realize, however, that in the welfare department alone we are spending over $1J billion for the purpose of helping our citizens in different ways. I refer to hospitalization grants, old age pensions and all kinds of welfare measures that were adopted for the benefit of our citizens. One of the most effective social measures ever adopted by this government was the Unemployment Insurance Act which has given such highly appreciated benefits to those who, for one reason or another, are forced to be idle for some time. I particularly wish to congratulate the Minister of Labour for having followed the situation month by month and year by year in order to increase, according to the conditions existing, the rate which is allowed to the man who is unemployed and is receiving an allowance from the unemployment insurance commission.
I shall now revert to my own language, Mr. Speaker. If I took a long time speaking in English, it is owing to the fact that my hon. friends on the other side of the house put words in my mouth by the questions they asked me.
(Translation) ;
Mr. Speaker, there are two points which I would like to discuss, first as the member


for St. Mary, and also simply as a representative from the province of Quebec. My hon. friend, the member for Terrebonne (Mr. Bertrand), recently mentioned a subject which deserves the particular attention of the federal authorities; I mean the rubberized footwear industry in our province. I think it is my duty to stress the point with the greatest firmness, because in my own riding the Dominion Rubber Company is operating a plant which, according to its management, is unfortunately bound to close down if competition due to the importation of those foreign and commonwealth products continues to increase.
Like several other members of this house, I received from the management a brief on the position of this particular industry, and I think I should insist and draw to the attention of the house certain figures which will doubtlessly give some food for thought to those whose responsibility it is to look after our trade balance. I would moreover draw the government's attention to the necessity of reviewing our policy with regard to the importation of certain goods, which is proving very damaging to the industry I just mentioned.
The hon. member for Terrebonne described the position very clearly, and I commend him for doing so. It is indeed not the first time that we benefit from his experience; he is one of those who are concerned with all questions of vital interest to our country. Of course, he also more especially looks after the interests of his own county.
The Dominion Rubber Company also operates a factory in the county of Terrebonne, and the employees risk losing their jobs because of the conditions he has so well described and on which I would like to comment for a moment. Because of a preferential trade agreement which goes back to 1932, I believe, at which time the late Right Hon. R. B. Bennett was prime minister of this country, certain commonwealth industrialists, such as those in Hong Kong, were allowed to take advantage of our preferential tariff and to export certain goods to this country, notably rubberized footwear. I definitely share the view of those who say that this treaty is out of date. Not only is it out of date as far as that industry is concerned, but perhaps also in other cases as well.
In 1949, for instance, we imported 2,000 pairs of rubberized footwear, while in 1954 this figure had risen to one million pairs imported from various places such as Hong Kong.

For the ten first months of the year 1955, 2,186,928 pairs of rubberized footwear were imported from various places. These figures immediately show the seriousness of the competition with which our local industry is faced.
But that is not all. We must remember that, in that same period, our exports were substantially reduced, since we are in no position to compete with a market like Hong Kong's for instance, where workers are paid about 10 cents an hour, whereas the average hourly wage of a Canadian worker is about $1.45. We can therefore not expect to export this product to Europe or elsewhere since we cannot meet the competition of such cheap labour. To my mind the main factor in the price differential is not the cost of the material, but rather the labour costs. Until 1949 we were able to manufacture these products very profitably, but at this time competition has become highly dangerous and threatens to snuff out the local market.
I am no expert on the matter, Mr. Speaker, but it does seem to me that a thirty-two year old treaty should be revised. To my mind, not only should the suggestion made by the hon. member for Terrebonne be given serious consideration, but import quotas should be established. As the hon. member for Terrebonne so aptly stated, such an attitude would allow the canvas and rubber shoe industry to stabilize its situation, to see where it is going, because the leaders of this industry are really alarmed. In fact, judging from the brief they submitted to us, they do not beat around the bush about it. To them, the situation is so critical that they summarize this report by stating that there are only three alternatives. Either go out of business completely, or else import these products themselves and resell them, taking into account the very low price at which they could secure them from abroad because of the extremely lower level of salaries paid in these countries exporting canvas and rubber shoes, as I pointed out a while ago. Or else, they could close down in this country and set themselves in business in those countries where they could obtain labour at rates of 8 to 10 cents an hour.
So, Mr. Speaker, I thought it a good thing to add my humble observations to those of the hon. member for Terrebonne. If I did not speak at length on this subject, it was because it was dealt with in a masterly way by my hon. friend, but I think it my duty to insist in order that the government consider
The Budget-Mr. Dupuis this matter seriously and help the canvas and rubber shoe industry of this country.
Now, the second point I should like to deal with, in the time left at my disposal is one of local interest and one which I bring up at each session. It is the matter of toll bridges. Many a subject has been often discussed in this house, and by raising them repeatedly their sponsors finally reached their goals. I wish that the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) would listen to, or read if he is not here, the few remarks I have to make on this subject.
This is not just a purely local matter. If I bring it up it is not because the bridge begins or ends-according to where you come from, in my riding. Nevertheless, I believe that this discussion will help set a pattern all across Canada as far as toll bridges are concerned, if they continue to exist.
According to the request of an association in my riding, I wish to suggest that the tolls be made uniform. If they cannot be made uniform in all provinces, I suggest then that they should be standardized at least in the same province, or, as far as I am concerned, in the province of Quebec, at the very least.
To my mind, Mr. Speaker, tolls should be charged on cars only, and not on passengers, if it is indeed necessary to maintain these tolls, which-I cannot emphasize that too strongly-I still find very hard to understand.
Is my time nearly over, Mr. Speaker? Well, you have to make allowance for the fact that I was interrupted for a few minutes.
So I would suggest that tolls be uniform. Then, as far as Jacques Cartier bridge is concerned, I think that the toll-gates should be on the south shore so that the people of Montreal could get to Ste. Helene island- which belongs to the city of Montreal-without paying the toll. I never heard in any city, in any country, that a citizen had to pay a toll to cross a bridge in his own city. I have seen citizens pay something to cross over to another country, to another city or to another province, but I have never seen any place where a citizen had to pay a toll to get to his own property. If the collection booths were moved to the south side, my fellow citizens could, go to Ste. Helene island where the city of Montreal has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to turn it into a most attractive public park. I feel that the national harbours board which administers the bridge should grant all the citizens of Montreal the privilege of travelling free of charge to their

The Budget-Mr. Hees own property on Ste. Helene island! which, as I said a moment ago, has been improved to the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars by the city of Montreal which, in the past, has largely contributed to the payment of the Jacques Cartier bridge deficits. Now that the bridge brings in considerable revenues, it should be obvious that any citizen of Montreal must be given at least the privilege of going around within his own city without having to pay for moving from one street to another or from one side of the river to the other.
I have made these two suggestions. I shall come back to this same subject anyway when the estimates of the Department of Transport are called. I regret not to have more time at my disposal to explain the many reasons why tolls on those bridges should be abolished. However, if this cannot be done, let there be a toll for vehicles only and not for passengers; let there be a standard rate for all bridges so that tickets may be used anywhere, at least within a province, and so that the citizens of Montreal may go to Ste. Helene island without having to pay for using a bridge for which the city of Montreal has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars.
(Text):


Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, in travelling around the country and talking to one's constituents and people in other parts of the country, the first thing that strikes one is the intense disappointment on the part of the people in the budget which the government brought down three weeks ago. People consider this is a cynical, political budget, brought in for one purpose and one purpose only, namely, to provide a kind of psychological buildup which this government obviously believes is necessary as a curtain-raiser to next year's election budget. There are no tax reductions this year. There will be small tax reductions, or perhaps reasonably large tax reductions, next year. People will feel happy and the government hopes they will go to the polls and vote Liberal. This is nothing more or less than a straight political budget. Tax reductions could have been made easily, and the government is very much to be criticized, and is being very severely criticized by people from one end of the country to the other, for indulging in no more nor less than a cynical political budget at this time.
What this country needs, Mr. Speaker, among many other things, is the introduction


of budgetary measures which will create an economic atmosphere which will induce a far more rapid industrial expansion in this country than we are having at the present time or have had for many years past.
The United Nations statistical bureau issued figures in January which showed that the rate of industrial expansion in Canada has been far slower than that of any of our main industrial competitors. By refusing to introduce measures which will correct this sorry state of affairs the government is making it very clear that it is perfectly willing for Canada to continue to be primarily a producer of raw materials, to feed the machines of the United States and of other industrial countries.
Of course, these countries are delighted to use our raw materials to create profits for their industries and employment for their people. They find it very hard to understand why a country like Canada should be so willing to go on making its raw materials available to them and allowing them to have the profits and greater employment while we seem to be quite content to accept the lesser end of the bargain. However, of course, they say, "if you are willing to go on doing that it suits our purpose very well, but we cannot understand why you are willing to do it."
The government's latest move to help United States industry is its proposal to use public funds to enable United States interests to take over the control of the transportation and marketing of a large proportion of one of our most important natural resources, namely, natural gas. This action has mobilized Canadian public opinion as perhaps nothing else could have done, and it has made us realize that for some time past we have been handing over more and more of our resources to the people of the United States. When the people of Canada see the government using public funds to accelerate this process it makes them realize to what extraordinary lengths this process has gone and the degree to which this government has fallen under the domination of United States financial interests. Unless this present process is stopped, Canadians are going to become merely economic vassals of the United States, supplying their factories with raw materials and their people with jobs.
A further example of the government allowing Americans to move in and take over control of operations which should be handled by Canadians was the information which we received a few weeks ago that a United States contractor is to have the control and operation of our distant early warning radar line. We have in our armed forces the

technical personnel necessary to handle this operation. Any shortage in training at the moment could be made up within a period of three months. The government's action in handing over control of the operations of our D.E.W. line is simply further evidence of this government's supine submission to United States pressure.
What is happening is that we have been selling more and more of the ownership of our enterprises to attempt to balance our current account deficit with the United States. Recently, the dominion bureau of statistics published figures which show that during the past year this was the principal means we used to try to balance our record $665 million current account deficit with the United States.
This sort of thing must stop, Mr. Speaker, and the first step we should take is to balance our current account with the United States. The best way to do that is to start manufacturing here in Canada many more of the manufactured articles which we are buying at the present time from that country. For some unexplained reason we seem to be perfectly content, as I said a few minutes ago, to ship most of our primary products to the United States and other industrial countries, and then buy back much of this raw material in its finished form.
By exporting our resources in their raw state, we are simply taking the easy way to make a dollar instead of making $4 or $5 or more by carrying our manufacturing process through to its conclusion here in Canada. For every hour of employment which we gain by exporting our resources in their raw state, we would gain many hours of employment by carrying production through to its finished stage.
The new plants that would be required to make this possible are going to be built only if industries become convinced that it is to their advantage to manufacture in Canada. The most important factor, of course, is cost of production. We must show potential industry that their cost of production will be lower in order to attract them to establish plants here and start manufacturing. In the past, ambitious and alert municipalities have offered potential industry all sorts of concessions to attract them to their locality. These concessions have included such things as free grants of land, cheap water and hydro rates, reduced taxes for an initial period, and the provision of roads, docks, sidings and other necessary transportation facilities. These municipalities have been repaid many times over in the form of increased employment and trade, and the taxes that accrue from both.
I believe that such a program to attract potential industry to all parts of Canada should be pursued with system and vigour
The Budget-Mr. Hees from one end of this country to the other. To see that this is done I believe there should be established in Canada a Canadian industrial development board composed of topflight personnel who would work with the provinces, and through them with the municipalities, in order to find out what concessions could be made to potential industry. With that information available, the board could act as a clearing house and could approach potential industry in order that as much industry as possible, in the shortest possible time, could be established in this country.
An industrial development board such as I envisage would work with provincial governments and through them with municipal governments to explore all possible concessions which these bodies would be willing to make in order to attract industry to their areas. This board would also work with transportation companies to find out what transportation facilities in the way of docks and railway sidings and the like they would be willing to provide for the extra business which would result from the establishment of new plants in the various localities.
If a program of this kind is pursued with imagination and vigour it will greatly assist us in setting in motion a rate of industrial expansion which can equal or exceed that of our industrial competitors. If they can reach the rate of expansion they have reached, there is no reason in the world why a country such as Canada with its tremendous wealth of power and natural resources cannot have as great or a greater rate of industrial expansion.
In addition to the concessions which the provincial and municipal governments could be persuaded to offer, concessions which I believe will be paid back many times over in the form of increased employment and trade, and tax revenues which will accrue from both, the federal government can also offer inducements in eight forms.
First of all it could offer a graduated corporation income tax spread over the period it is estimated a new industry requires to get on its feet. If, for example, such a period is estimated to be 15 years, the tax for the first year would be one-fifteenth of the normal rate and would increase steadily until after 15 years the company would be paying the full rate. The important thing is that there would be no loss to the government by the introduction of such a program because these new industries do not exist at the present time and of course they are not paying taxes. I believe they will not exist unless the federal, provincial and municipal governments are willing to make concessions which will persuade industries that it is to
2736	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Hees their advantage to process in Canada. After this is done, the Canadian government will benefit from those taxes, but until those industries are induced to establish plants here, there will be no industries and no taxes. In making a concession of this kind, therefore, the federal government would be losing nothing in the form of taxes, but would gain by the ultimate taxes which would result from such a move.
Secondly, the government can make a material reduction in its sales and excise taxes without loss of tax revenue. By lowering sales and excise taxes the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) would be making it possible to lower the selling price of many of our products which are today being priced out of the market. By helping our products to become more competitive, the minister would be stimulating sales, and these increased sales multiplied by a lower unit tax, may very easily equal or exceed our present tax totals.
An example was given to the minister during the past year of just how true this can be. In his previous budget, after considerable pressure had been brought to bear upon him by the automotive industry and the official opposition, he reduced the excise tax on automobiles from 15 per cent to 10 per cent. He estimated in his budget-the budget before last-that this would cost him a considerable amount in loss of tax revenue, but the actual result was that lower prices, made possible by the lower tax, greatly stimulated sales and taxes as well. An increased number of car sales, multiplied by the lower excise tax, resulted in an increase of $8 million in excise taxes paid on new automobiles.
The third thing that the government can do is to reduce today's high income tax. Again I believe that this can be done without loss of tax revenue, because by reducing income taxes the minister is simply going to make it possible for more people to spend more of their incomes on the things they need. That would make it possible for more goods and services to be sold, and more people would become employed producing these additional goods and services. They will be paying income taxes instead of drawing on the government for unemployment insurance or direct relief. There would also be many additional products carrying sales and excise taxes in the future.
Fourthly, I believe that the government can encourage small industries to expand and become big industries by introducing a graduated corporation tax on corporation incomes between $20,000 and, say, $50,000 a year. At the present time a corporation pays 20 per cent on an income of up to $20,000 a year, and on the next $1,000 of income it pays 47 per cent. This provides very little inducement


to expand to a firm that is doing a comfortable business of $20,000 a year and paying a 20 per cent tax, because as soon as it does so, half of its additional income is taken in taxes. If the rate of increase between $20,000 and $50,000 a year is graduated, many industries that are small industries today will be induced to enlarge and take on the added responsibilities and worries which go with an industrial expansion.
Any initial tax losses which the government will experience, I believe, will be more than made up in the very near future by the additional sales, excise, and income taxes, which will accrue from the additional sales and employment resulting from the expansion which such a measure will induce.
Fifthly, the government can help to improve the competitive position of industry through enabling industry to undertake a greatly expanded research program, if the minister will allow a more reasonable tax write-off for expenditures made on research. At the present time the government allows only five per cent of the taxable income of the previous year, unless special permission is obtained from the minister. That means that a company which wishes to undertake a research program that will cost in excess of five per cent of the income of the previous year must wait until approximately half the current year is over, and then the decision of the Minister of National Revenue may be an unfavourable one. As any businessman knows, a decision to undertake a research program must be made well in advance of the beginning of the year, and cannot wait until the previous year's figures have been first audited and then given to the Department of National Revenue for that department to put the figures through its usual procedure of red tape.
Another factor which militates against undertaking an expanded research program at the present time is that expanded research is most needed after a bad year, when the amount allowable for tax deductions would be least. This points up the present unreality of the government's approach to the need for expanded research in this country at the present time. In Great Britain, a company is allowed to write off completely all expenses-both current expenses and capital expenses-that it undertakes for research purposes, and I believe that this government would do well to follow the same plan. I do not think that it will suffer any tax loss by so doing, because the increased employment and sales that would be made possible through additional research and the taxes they will carry in the future would more than make up for any initial tax loss which the government might suffer.

Sixthly, the government could help new industry through an accelerated depreciation program, which would permit new industries to write off their investment far more quickly than they do at the present time. This would not cost the government one penny when it is spread over the present depreciation period.
Seventhly, the government could assist gas and oil companies materially by allowing them a more generous depletion allowance on oil and gas wells. This would greatly encourage exploration and development, and would put them on a basis more comparable with their United States competitors. At the present time the United States allows a depletion allowance of 27J per cent of gross income, not to exceed 50 per cent of net income. This policy has encouraged the United States oil and gas companies to undertake very important exploration and development programs, with extremely beneficial results to the industry. I believe that this government would do well to adopt a similarly generous program for Canadian oil and gas companies.
Finally, I believe that the government should introduce a policy on public investment to assist the provinces to develop their power and other natural resources. It is public investment of this kind that is needed to help stimulate the private investment which we need to speed our economic expansion, which today is lagging so far behind that of our competitors. It is on the firm basis of seaways, highways, natural gas, electric power, irrigation and reclamation, that people build homes and offices and factories. If the people of Canada will lend their government $12 billion to shoot up in smoke, as they did during the second world war, surely they will lend it a billion dollars or so to be invested in self-liquidating public works which will make possible more jobs and higher more stable, tax revenues.
Now I should like to deal briefly with the 20 per cent tax that has been imposed by this government on Canadian advertising sold by United States periodicals that publish Canadian editions.


Walter Edward Harris: Not Canadian, all advertising.


George Harris Hees: All advertising. First of all, why was this tax imposed? It certainly was not imposed at the request of any Canadian publication. They know perfectly well that this measure will not reduce by a single copy the number of United States periodicals sold in Canada. People are going to go on buying these American magazines because they provide a type of presentation of news and views which is not provided by any Canadian publication at the present time. They are going
The Budget-Mr. Hees to continue to buy these magazines until comparable publications are produced in Canada.
This tax, Mr. Speaker, is nothing more or less than a punitive tax imposed for a purely political reason. That reason is that the government has been severely embarrassed by the widespread criticism it has so justly received because of its willingness to use public funds to make easier the acquisition of Canadian resources by United States interests. I believe that the imposition of this tax is nothing more than a frantic and very futile attempt to show that the government is not really as meekly submissive to United States pressure as its pipe line proposal has very clearly demonstrated it to be. Unfortunately, however, it has chosen an attempt to hinder the sale of United States publications that publish news and views not available in a similar form in Canada, as its means of doing so.
If the government wants to help Canadian publications to increase their circulation at the expense of United States periodicals, then let it adopt a positive and constructive, instead of a negative and destructive, approach to the problem. Such an approach could well take the form of a reduction in postal rates for Canadian publications. To encourage foreign publications to increase their percentage of Canadian content, the government could allow the same percentage reduction in postal rates as their Canadian content bears to the remainder of the publication. Such a measure would be easy to introduce and administer, and it would serve the dual purpose of helping Canadian publications and encouraging foreign publications to increase their percentage of Canadian content.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what about the effect that this tax has had on our relations with the United States? It is obvious that it has had a very bad effect indeed. In view of what the United States has done recently to maintain good relations by refusing to allow restrictive legislation to be passed against a Canadian company, I believe we should examine this whole measure very carefully indeed. When the senate and legislature of the state of Maryland, by overwhelming majorities in each house, passed a bill denying the Carling Brewing Company of Canada the right to build a plant in Maryland, the United States state department wrote a very strong letter to Governor Mc-Keldin urging him to veto the measure because it was felt that it would create an unfriendly attitude towards Canada. Because the bill had been passed by overwhelming majorities in both Maryland houses, it was very difficult

The Budget-Mr. Balcom for the governor to veto the measure, but in response to a personal call by the President of the United States, Governor McKel-din did so.
If the President of the United States thought that the Carling affair was of sufficient importance for him personally to ask Governor McKeldin to face the severe criticism he would have to face in his state by vetoing the measure, then surely the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) must take the maintenance of international relations as seriously, and he has no course left open to him except to reciprocate and do what the President and Secretary of State of the United States obviously requested him to do when he saw them at White Sulphur Springs, namely, withdraw this punitive and ill-considered measure.
If the Prime Minister is unwilling to do so, he will be making it very obvious that he considers the maintenance of good international relations between Canada and the United States to be merely a one-way street. I hope that he will show that he, as well as the President of the United States, is capable of taking farsighted action, and I strongly urge him to withdraw this punitive and ill-considered measure at the very earliest moment.


Mr. S. R. Balcom (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, today, April 9, is the 39th anniversary of the battle of Vimy Ridge. I was reminded of it this morning when walking around the western part of the building and seeing the small inscription there. I thought we should perhaps be reminded of that great battle for it was the first battle in which the Canadian corps fought as a unit under the leadership of then Lieutenant General Sir Julian Byng. At that time some 97,000 Canadian soldiers in the corps took part in the battle. Unfortunately there were 11,297 courageous young men killed in that battle.
In speaking of Vimy Ridge I thought it might be a good opportunity to mention that we should now be thinking of a really national cenotaph, one that would do for the soldiers who have fallen in all wars. The cenotaph in Confederation square commemorating our soldiers who lost their lives in the war of 1914-18 is very good so far as that purpose is concerned, but it does not cover a broad enough field. I hope a national cenotaph will be built on parliament hill this year or next year on the site suggested by the Canadian Legion, namely, on the walk from Wellington street up to the peace tower. I think it will be a very fitting location.
I should like to be able to make a 15 minute speech but unfortunately I have many


local problems which I think should be aired in the house and brought to the attention of the various departments, the public generally and in many cases the people of Halifax. The budget speech and the accompanying papers tabled by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) have given as usual a very complete review of the business of the nation. This year the picture is very encouraging and, indeed, there is some danger of overoptimism and inflation. It seems to me that we just get one kind of problem solved when a different one confronts us. However, we are very fortunate that they are problems with which we can cope. In other parts of the world where life is just one crisis after another there is often a great deal more at stake. We can be thankful that our economic problems are mainly those of development and distribution rather than a struggle for survival.
Speaking of distribution, may I say that we have heard a great deal both in the House of Commons and elsewhere about the problem of surpluses. Many proposals have been advanced and much advice has been offered on what should be done to dispose of our surplus apples, wheat, fish and potatoes. I think it will take something even more complicated than parity prices to provide an equitable disposal plan.
In addition to the wealth of material in the budget speech on the nation's business, there has been an abundance of information on Canada's growth and prospects presented to another august body. A spate of facts, figures and arguments has been brought out in connection with the Gordon commission. It is not only the abundance of material that is overwhelming. What is even more confusing is the strength of conviction with which diametrically opposite views on policy have been presented, backed as well by a substantial array of facts and arguments. How does the lowly politician or the ordinary voter find his way through this perplexing problem? At the risk of appearing to sermonize I am going to suggest some guide posts.
First, our human resources are our most important resources and the objectives that this suggests should be the ones we serve first. Second, we have a great Canadian heritage of both human and material resources of which we are in a sense only custodians for coming generations. Sometimes I am inclined to think that promoters imagine that Canada is a great big apple pie and that we should gorge ourselves on it.
As to human resources, I want to speak first about immigration. Immediately that one raises the subject, one is classed as being either for or against immigration. But it is not as simple as Calvin Coolidge's famous dictum on sin.

I wish it were that simple. But when you are dealing with people, things are never simple. As was pointed out in a recent statement by a labour leader, immigrants are not component parts that can be stored until needed.
A new approach is called for in respect of our immigration procedures. An excellent opportunity is now here to state clearly the objectives of our immigration policy and to set up the standards that will apply. The basic question is this: Do we want a rapidly growing population irrespective of the traditional basis of our culture? We have answered this question in part by our exclusion of certain races or rather by our obvious preference in the selection of immigrants. But it has seemed to be a negative answer rather than a positive policy.
I shall not presume to suggest the procedure that should apply but I would urge that the preservation of a Canadian nation and the democratic condition be the paramount consideration. We should recognize further that the democratic system, whatever its weaknesses, draws its vitality from the principle of the sanctity of the individual. This fact we are sometimes, I think, prone to forget. Devotion to that principle is not something learned overnight. Mere numbers are not enough to assure the preservation of a Canadian nation that represents a strong moral force in the world. We must have citizens who are prepared to accept the discipline and the responsibilities as well as the rights of a democratic society.
The case for large-scale immigration has been presented forcibly by many people. There is no doubt that Canada can and should have immigration-how much will depend on changing circumstances-and our policy should be flexible. It should vary in accordance with the best interests of both native-born citizens and prospective new immigrants. The demands for a larger labour force and a larger domestic market should be recognized but should not take priority over social considerations or concern for our absorptive capacity.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I should like to mention something that I consider to be important, namely the possibility of making some reciprocal arrangement with the commonwealth countries-in particular the British isles-whereby immigrants coming to Canada might be given a shorter period in which to qualify as citizens. A man of 60 years of age who comes to this country is too old to qualify for social security. I wish arrangements could be made with the British isles and the other commonwealth countries whereby that man would receive credit for what he has paid in the old country. I think
The Budget-Mr. Balcom that is an important matter. I think we all agree that we should have more people here from the British isles. There are in my own riding several cases in which people are concerned in this problem.
On this same subject of human resources I want to quote the words of a noted economist, J. K. Galbraith, who recently appeared before the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects in support of a plea made to this house earlier this session for aid to universities and students. Mr. Galbraith said this:
Far more urgent than resource development, as just implied, is the problem of human development. It is vital that this keep abreast of the technical and scientific requirements of growth and that it stimulate growth along this dimension. Here-I speak for the United States and, I think, also for Canada-is our most serious failure. We have left the training of scientists, engineers, and highly skilled technicians largely to chance. We have suffered an enormous wastage of talent by making higher education dependent not on ability but on ability to pay. The present scramble for highly qualified people is a measure of our failure. We must plan to spend generously to correct our mistakes in this area.
I am not going to labour at this time my personal views on this matter, other than to say briefly that I firmly believe that a more generous federal policy on university finance is of vital national importance. Further, I want to emphasize the fact that it is of more than ordinary importance to Nova Scotia and the other Atlantic provinces. We are limited in the opportunities and training we can offer to our youth by our relatively small tax base. Thus in our most precious national asset, our youth, has been denied the opportunity of full development in this land flowing with honey and other sources of wealth.
We have heard with satisfaction the minister's outline of developments, past and present, which make up the picture of a booming economy with bright prospects for the future. It is important to note also that in spite of the rapid growth and spectacular changes that have taken place in our way of life, transportation and communication still remain our fundamental problems. It is natural that they should loom large in the affairs to be dealt with by parliament this session. Their garb is somewhat different from 1867, but their fundamental nature is the same. The dominant factors in the nation's business life are the enormous distances between important points and the relatively small population compared with the total land area. These are the things that dictated the formation of the publicly owned national broadcasting system, the creation of Trans-Canada Air Lines, pu,blic participation in the railway system, in the St.

The Budget-Mr. Balcom Lawrence seaway and now the proposed participation by the federal government and the province of Ontario in a gas pipe line.
A vital role in our national transportation is played by our national harbours. I want to speak particularly about the port of Halifax. I want to emphasize that the port comprises not only the waterfront of the city of Halifax and Dartmouth but also the shore of Bedford basin and the northwest arm in Halifax county. The property includes grain elevators, a cold storage plant, freight sheds, piers and all the equipment that goes with these. Great improvements have been made in these in the past number of years. In talking about the physical changes, I might mention that there has been a marked improvement in administration, better facilities and better services.
You might think these words of praise could be dismissed as those of an interested party, but I believe you will have them confirmed by those who use the port, such as ship operators and shippers, who know from experience and whose knowledge is important in determining the port of call and the direction of shipping business. Through the combined efforts of longshoremen, freight handlers, shipping companies, insurance firms and other marine service establishments, as well as the federal government, a great industry has been established. The government is to be commended for its recognition of the importance of our ports in the national interest.
Yet in spite of the increases and extensions of facilities by the national harbours board, from time to time ships are tied up in the stream waiting for space to dock. Port business would be even better if our manufactured products were shipped via Canadian ports. For example, in 1953 almost 85 per cent of the Canadian-made automobiles exported, some 37,844, were shipped via United States ports, compared with a little more than 15 per cent through Canadian ports. The picture is roughly the same in so far as farm implements and machinery exports are concerned; in the same year 80 per cent went through United States ports. In my opinion, manufacturers should be bending over to use our ports, for surely we bend backwards in giving them protection and other subsidies.
There is obviously a heavy selling job to be done if we are to attract more of the business that is going. The national harbours board has done an excellent job within the limits set by available funds. The administrative work of this board in Halifax has been assisted, supported and supplemented by the promotional work of the port of Halifax commission. The effectiveness of this organization


is indicated by the plan now under way to organize such a commission for the port of Montreal. The contribution of waterfront workers and the shipping companies has already been mentioned, but in my opinion more remains to be done.
Perhaps I need not labour the well known fact of the strategic importance of Halifax and its invaluable contribution to the defence of the free world in time of war. I think most of those in authority are well aware of that fact, but I wonder whether sufficient thought has been given to what might happen in a future catastrophe. I doubt very much whether we would have time to plan and build the additional port facilities so necessary to our survival.
I should like to make one specific suggestion as part of the long-term build-up, and that is that the national harbours board do a complete job now on pier 1-A. The plan, as I understand it, is to build about half the required length in 1956. We feel that this unit should be completed to the same length as pier B, and for various reasons. While the work is under way it would be cheaper to complete the job. Further, there is a rock pile jutting out from the centre of what will be the new pier, and this will be a hazard both for vessels coming into the new pier and vessels berthing on the north side of pier B.
While there has been steady improvement in the harbours board facilities, I cannot say that the reports are equally encouraging respecting our railway and related services. Let me say here that the Canadian National Railways have greatly improved their passenger service during the last year or so, and having done that you would imagine they would have a very forward-looking program for freight. But this does not seem to me to be the case. Halifax is served by the publicly owned Canadian National, but the management of that railway seems to take a very hard, cold look before embarking on any new developments in that area. As it is a crown corporation, decision on such matters as capital expenditures for express and freight facilities rests with the management and not with the government. The Canadian Pacific Railway does not run into Halifax, other than via the Dominion Atlantic Railway, so the incentives ordinarily provided by competition are lacking. It is quite apparent that the Canadian Pacific, as a private company, makes its own decision on whether or not it should have a line into Halifax. I cannot but wonder what the result would be if such competition existed. How much more cargo would go over Halifax piers destined for Newfoundland, for example, if there were alternative transportation?

Consider, for example, the bottleneck in cargo shipments to St. John's, Newfoundland. I have no wish to see business drawn away from North Sydney that can be properly handled on that route. However, if greater efficiency could be attained by using the existing steamship services to St. John's via Halifax, are not the residents of Newfoundland entitled to those benefits? These services via Halifax and via North Sydney should surely be complementary, not competitive. Then, too, the shortage of box cars and yardage, and the limitations of the railway facilities in Halifax have hindered the full use of the port this year.
This is hard to reconcile with the forwardlooking policies of the government in the development of national harbours board facilities. The physical facilities and the labour force were available to handle much more freight than was going through. The exports this winter, outside of wheat, have not been very good. I suppose that bottlenecks in one form or another have prevented as much going through as we would like, but I would urge upon the Minister of Transport that greater attention be given to the co-ordination of development in Halifax and Dartmouth to make the best use of what we have. If the accusation is correct that the C.N.R. is giving better service to Saint John, New Brunswick, than to Halifax, it should be investigated and the service brought in line immediately. I see the hon. member for Saint John-Albert smiling. It makes me most unhappy to think the C.N.R. would do such a thing; but it would please us even more if the railroad management adjusted traffic to the level of the importance of the respective ports.
I speak now on a different note. We are pleased at the foresight and energy that have gone into the Canadian National Steamships service to the West Indies. Because of the growing importance of the West Indies and the Caribbean area as a market for Canadian produce this is constructive public action. The traditional importance of this area to the Atlantic provinces is based on solid ground, and the economic advance that is bound to come in that area and in South America is a promising factor for future growth in the Atlantic region. We should take very positive steps in aiding this development.
In Canada glamour seems to attach to the new places, especially if they are far away from the centres of population. It seems so much easier to recognize the need for developmental expenditure in the far north, for example, than in the more settled areas of Canada. I have in mind the development of our forest potential in Halifax county and
The Budget-Mr. Balcom in eastern Nova Scotia. Several paper companies have shown interest in a site in this part of the province. A mill is now operating at Sheet Harbour which offers possibilities for further processing. Will the development division of the C.N.R. give serious study to this matter to see whether an economic proposition is hindered mainly by the lack of rail service? If that is the case, the extension of rail facilities from Musquodobit Harbour to Sheet Harbour should be thoroughly examined.
At this point perhaps I should like to say how pleased we were to read in the press information about the increase in salaries of the civil service, the navy, the army and the air force, and other branches of government. This means in the Halifax area the distribution of at least another $3 million, and I know the people of Halifax are very grateful.
There is another item I should like to mention at this time, namely the encouragement of our young people to become interested at an early age in the army, navy and air force, in the matter of enlistment or getting into the reserve. But to do this, facilities should be provided in which they can train, in which they can study and meet. I am referring to armouries in Halifax and Dartmouth. The facilities in Halifax now are inadequate, and in Dartmouth there are no such facilities. To do any training they have to go as far as eight miles, and anyone knows this is not very encouraging to people who are interested in the armed services.
Reference has been made to the St. Lawrence seaway. Great interest has been shown in this development and in its possibilities. Particularly we notice, both inside and outside the public service, great energy devoted to ways and means of keeping the waterway open in the winter. The pressure on the federal government to spend enormous sums of money on this objective will mount. Those who have a large investment in Labrador, the owners and workers in the steel mills hungry for iron ore, as well as numerous others who will use the seaway as a means of transportation will raise their voices.
It is desirable that a great national asset be used as fully as possible, but let us keep account of the cost. When we are looking at the total moneys paid out under the Maritime Freight Rates Act-this year the estimates provide for over $11 million-let us realize how very minor this is compared with the costs contemplated for ice breakers, reconnaissance planes, research and all the hidden expenses which will go into the St. Lawrence enterprise, or just that part of it pertaining to winter- navigation.

The Budget-Mr. Balcom
To refer again to the Maritime Freight Rates Act, I note with interest that the president of the C.N.R. feels, as many others do, that a close look at our transportation problems is in order. I would suggest that particular attention be paid to the Maritime Freight Rates Act, its purpose, its basis and its present achievement in relation to its objectives.
To revert to a statement made earlier, I should like to repeat my belief that we living Canadians are custodians of a great heritage. Just as important as the development of our natural resources is the need for proper conservation measures that will preserve, and indeed enhance, what we pass on to the next generations. While federal action in this field is limited to some extent by the sharing of authority with the provinces, notable steps have been taken. In forestry, jointly sponsored forest inventory work will pay off, it is to be hoped, in better forest management. Research on improved utilization of wood is making a valuable contribution to the better use of our forests. In agriculture the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act in the west and marshlands reclamation in the maritimes are adding to our capital assets. But we are really only making a beginning in this whole field.
Based on my own constituency, I can cite some situations which call for action. Along the Musquodobit river valley there is a problem of flooding which is almost perennial in the winter and spring. There must be some way in which the periodic wastage from flooding can be prevented. Some scheme of fresh water control should be feasible that would perhaps involve both agricultural and forest conservation. The particular area I speak of is located close to the large metropolitan area of Halifax and Dartmouth.
In the fisheries, good progress has been made in conservation measures to the continuing benefit of the individual fisherman as well as the whole industry. And here I should like to discuss what has become a very controversial matter in Nova Scotia, namely the protection of the inshore fisherman from the inroads of the trawlers. The Canadian law which prevents our trawlers from coming within 12 miles of the shore seems unfair to the trawler fisherman when vessels from other countries can come in to within three miles. On the other hand, it is no solution in the eyes of the inshore fisherman to let all trawlers come within three miles of shore.
The ideal solution lies in obtaining agreement among the several countries involved on a limit to which all would adhere. Theoretically we could change the law affecting our own ships, or take unilateral action to bar

foreign ships. However, we have to remember that our dealings with other countries, particularly the United States, involve a great many very important matters. One which is of vital significance to the fisheries is the United States tariff on fish products. If we should be excluded from the United States market by higher tariffs, in many parts of Nova Scotia it would not matter what was the trawler limit. It is useless to deplore our dependence on that market, for it is the place where we get a price sufficient to make it worth while for our fishermen to produce. On the other hand, this surely should not condemn us to a continuation of the present unsatisfactory regulations for much longer. I would urge the Minister of Fisheries, who understands and has discussed this situation and wishes to do something about it, to regard this question as one of very real urgency.
We have in Halifax an excellent example of international co-operation in fisheries conservation. I refer to the northwest Atlantic fisheries council with headquarters at Dal-housie University. I am sure this organization and what it represents would receive much more ardent support from the industry if we could have tangible evidence of cooperation on this matter of the trawler limit.
The budget has been described in many quarters as empty, negative and partisan. I think all three of those adjectives are ruled out if we take just one part of the budget speech and cast out all the rest. I refer to the proposed arrangements with the provinces to replace the tax rental agreements. I believe these represent a statesmanlike approach to a most difficult problem.
On the one hand the federal government must keep in mind that there is only one group of taxpayers, and whether we live in Ontario, Nova Scotia or the Yukon we must collectively provide the revenues for public services. With that in mind the total taxes collected by the dominion government, no matter how fairly they are distributed, must be kept within realistic proportions.
On the other hand the federal government has recognized the need for a certain minimum standard of Canadian services. The equalization payments will go a considerable distance in providing that minimum. At the same time, the development needs of the more rapidly growing parts of Canada must not be neglected in a share the wealth program. The federal government has shown a most commendable spirit and ingenuity in reconciling these three purposes.


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, the first comment I would like to make is that the lighting in this chamber seems to have improved considerably during the recess-


Mr. Rowe:: The heat has increased, too.


Clarence Gillis: -and it makes it a bit more difficult to beat the government, because we can see them too clearly now.


An hon. Member:: We can see the whites of their eyes.


An hon. Member:: The same is true of the opposition.


Clarence Gillis: When they were in the shadows and we could not see them too clearly it was not too difficult to throw bricks at them.
It is about two weeks since this debate adjourned. In listening to the speeches that have been made I have reached the conclusion that if I were outside the house and not reading Hansard I would be rather doubtful as to what we were debating. I had to sit and think for a while and reread our amendment in order to be sure what it was about.
I make that observation in view of the statement by the hon. member for Broadview concerning the great interest that is shown throughout the country in debates that occur in the house. That has not been my experience. The hon. member is not nearly as good a psychologist as the government, because the government realized that in bringing down a completely different kind of budget immediately prior to the federal election it had chosen the proper psychological moment. Of course one cannot quarrel too much with that because if the Conservative party were on that side of the house it would have done exactly the same thing-


Walter Edward Harris: But not as well.


Clarence Gillis: Well, the minister has admitted that he has done it. The amazing thing is that if the Liberal party were on this side of the house it would be making exactly the same criticisms as those being made by the Conservative party at this time, and would perhaps be doing it a little better.


An hon. Member:: Thanks for the compliment.


Clarence Gillis: We should not be too surprised at this time at the kind of budget we have. It is rather difficult to pick it apart because there is nothing to pick, and the minister in making his speech on the budget did not leave very many loopholes. The minister went along very quietly in outlining the budget. When the government is in the position of throwing the shots and then sitting
The Budget-Mr. Gillis back on the defensive and allowing the opposition to carry on the war practically all by itself, it is not an easy job to criticize the budget because as long as the rules of the game are as they are, this is the way the game will be played.
I think the two groups in this corner of the house are the only groups that can make any valid criticism of the budget as it is at this time, because no one knows what we would do if we were sitting over there.


An hon. Member:: That is all too true.


Clarence Gillis: We might have done a much better job than the Minister of Finance did in the face of an election, but of course no one can accuse us of that because we have no record. The other two parties have records. They have established the rules of the game, and although the game has been played for a good many years the rules have not changed. The whole subject will continue to be regarded as a game until such time as the rules are changed.
I listened to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, who made practically all the criticism that could be made of the budget in the light of our amendment. It may not be a bad idea, in view of the fact that there has been a two weeks lapse of time, to put our amendment on the record again at this time as a guide to those who may read Hansard, in order that they may know to what the debate relates.
The section of the amendment that we added to the Conservative amendment reads as follows:
That the amendment be amended by inserting therein immediately after the words "United States interest" the following words:
"that it has failed to reduce the burden of sales and income taxes on those in the lower income groups, while continuing to favour privileged interests and those with unearned incomes by maintaining the 20 per cent dividend tax credit and by refusing to impose a tax on capital gains".
During the course of this session we have had several discussions on resolutions and other matters which have come before the house, which have enabled most hon. members to place their economic and financial views on record. I have taken the opportunity of doing so on a couple of occasions during the session with respect to the part of the country from which I come. At this time, however, I shall endeavour to stick as close as possible in what I have to say to the subject of the budget.
We deplore the fact that there has not been any tax relief in the low income brackets. The amendment of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar made our point quite clear and I want to reiterate what he said, because I agree with him. He said that in so far as he was
2744	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Gillis concerned, if there were no tax relief given at all; if the money realized by continuing the tax structure as it is were applied to the establishment of a national health program which would bring medical aid right across the country to the hundreds of thousands of people who cannot afford any, and relieve the fear and the burden of those who may need it in the future-if the money were used for that purpose, then as far as I am concerned I agree with the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar that the tax structure should remain as it is, providing the money gathered in is used for that purpose. I think that is one oi the greatest needs of this country today and one of the ways in which the average person in this country would benefit to the greatest extent.
I know that the subject of a national health program is still a controversial one in this country. I know there was not a great deal of progress made on it at the dominion-provincial conference. I know that some of the premiers, particularly in the central provinces, are still quibbling over formulas of their own, and I do not think all the people in the country understand the matter as it really is.
One of the main arguments I have heard advanced in this house, in the country and in the press particularly, over the years, is that Britain established a national health program and it does not work. It is said that it is all haywire and the doctors do not want it. That has been a line of propaganda that has been carried on all over the United States and Canada, particularly in the press, and I have heard it repeated in the house. The present British government set up a committee to make an inquiry into the administration of the national health service in Britain, as to whether it was working, whether there was waste and extravagance and whether the doctor-patient relationship had been disturbed.
Of course the present government does not believe in national health insurance to the extent that the government which established it did. When that committee was appointed, because the personnel were people who certainly were not socialists, I was of the opinion that they were appointed to try to justify the line of propaganda that was being spread about it. I have a clipping here that I took from one of the local newspapers. It sets out the fact that while that committee sat and examined the whole question thoroughly, when they brought in their report it was completely the reverse of what was expected.
I Mr. Gillis.]

I am just going to read the heading of the newspaper report I have seen about it. It says this:
A remarkable defence and vindication of the British national health service, introduced by the Labour government, has been published by an independent official committee of inquiry. The committee describes the record of the service as "one of real achievement", denies charges of extravagance, approves the general set-up of the service, and recommends that charges to patients should be lowered rather than raised.
Then the story goes on to stress the fact that all the propaganda we have heard in the past has been just so much propaganda and that this independent committee, which reported directly to the government, completely reversed everything that was said over here about that national health program in Britain.
I hope that in the future, whether it be in Ontario, in Quebec or in Nova Scotia, when pronouncements are made on this question of a national health program, they do not still continue to drag that old red herring over the trail, of the failure of the national health program in Britain. It is anything but that. That committee report, according to this press report, completely waves aside all that propaganda.
I mention that because I think it is still a controversial issue. It has to be taken care of in this country. I believe the federal government is convinced today that the provinces, when they make their set-ups, are prepared to go ahead with a national health program. I am sure most of the members of the house realize that this is one of the most important issues in this country today. It is a way in which our people can be helped to the greatest extent. I think it would offset any tax reductions.
Another matter that I think we should stress very strongly is one that was also introduced by the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar; that is trying to have the social security legislation in Canada and the rest of the commonwealth countries made reciprocal, if it is possible to do so. There are many people living in this country who come from different parts of the commonwealth. They receive the old age pension. If they could take that old age pension and go back and live in Australia or New Zealand or Great Britain or Ireland that pension of $40 a month, in their places of origin to which they would like to return, would mean three times the purchasing power that it means to them here in this country. Whilst it is something that would have to be worked out and thought about carefully, the time has come when much of our legislation in the social

security field should embrace all the commonwealth countries. I agree absolutely with the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar on this particular point.
There are many little things the minister could have done to bring relief to the lower income groups. I want to mention this fact. Take the pay envelope of the average industrial worker-I do not care whether he is in the automobile, steel, or coal industry or what he is in-and look at his weekly deductions, including income tax. You will find how these weekly deductions shown on the envelope of a worker, which reduce his take-home pay considerably, are in effect a tax that is already there for certain purposes. They are charged against his wages. I have looked at some of them and worked out a kind of average. I would say that today the average industrial worker of this country is paying at least $5.35 a week in ordinary deductions for hospital plans, pension plans and that kind of thing. In addition to that, the average income tax that is paid would be approximately $10 a week.
Worked out on a yearly basis, that amounts to a tax of $735.60 a year. The average worker has his income reduced to that extent by items that are already shown on his envelope and that are just as much a tax as his income tax. He has to carry them by virtue of his employment. You may say that it is a form of insurance and that he is going to receive benefit from it at some time. Nevertheless it is a condition of employment that these obligations must be met before his take-home pay is computed. This is a group of people who argue all the time and send us resolutions to the effect that the basic exemptions should be stepped up, that a single person should get an exemption of $2,000 a year and that a married person should have his exemption raised to $3,000 a year. In view of the fact that they are already paying a tax of some $735 a year I think they are on sound ground in asking that the exemptions be raised to the levels I have already mentioned, so as to relieve them of some of the burden they are already carrying as the result of indirect taxes.
There is another item at which I think the minister should have taken a look, the matter of household appliances. When the average young couple get married today they have to buy a refrigerator, a toaster, a little electric range and so on. I believe the excise tax on such items should have been eliminated. It is quite a burden for the average young couple starting housekeeping today when you consider the cost of building a home, if you build one, and then the cost of equipping it.
The Budget-Mr. Gillis


Walter Edward Harris: Is my hon. friend talking about excise taxes?


Clarence Gillis: Sales tax and excise tax. I
think these taxes should have been modified considerably. I am talking about the sales tax on household appliances.


Walter Edward Harris: Sales tax, not excise tax.


Clarence Gillis: I think something should have been done in that regard. I was in a home last night where a young couple are struggling to get along, and I have seen the same thing a good many times. They are both working and are trying to get a home together. They have mortgage payments to meet and they want to equip their kitchen. Take a look at what the sales tax means on the items that are required for such a kitchen.
Of course it is too late now to do anything. The budget has been prepared and presented. It is before the house. It is government policy. It is going to go through because the voters of Canada have seen to it that the government has a sufficient number of members in the house to put it through. The only effect our arguments can have is with regard to the super-budget the minister is going to bring in next time. We can provoke his thoughts with regard to cases where he should give some relief if he wants to get votes.


William Earl Rowe: An election every year would help.


Clarence Gillis: I suggest that the minister take a square look at the question of the sales tax on household appliances when he is bringing in his next budget. There is another item about which the minister and I have had a lot of correspondence. I refer to the soft drink industry. There are several small operators in my part of the country who are just struggling along on a shoestring. The difference between the taxes they are carrying and bankruptcy is just as little as that. They have been hanging on hoping the minister would remove the tax, but it has not happened.
If the minister wants to make himself popular and get a lot of miners' votes there are other taxes he could remove. We have also talked about this matter a good many times. The coal miner has to buy certain equipment that goes with his trade. He has to buy a special hat. The Minister of Fisheries will understand this because he is an old miner. The miner has to buy special shoes with steel toecaps. If he is working at the coal face he has to buy his explosives and caps, and these things run into quite a bit of money each year. The request has been made to me time and time again, and this is not the first time I have spoken about the matter in the house, that in view of the fact

The Budget-Mr. Gillis that these things are part of the miner's cost of operation he should be allowed to write them off for income tax purposes. It has not happened to date though I have made the request a good many times, but it may not be a bad idea to get it in the next budget.
There is another matter I have discussed with the revenue department recently. Union dues are deductible for tax purposes. It is clearly stated in the Income Tax Act that annual union dues are deductible, but before you can become a member of most of the unions throughout the country today you have to pay an initiation fee. In some cases it is $50, in others $150, or it may be as high as $200, depending on the union. I have had many people ask me why it is not possible to charge initiation fees as a tax offset in view of the fact that annual union dues are deductible. In discussing the matter with the department that collects taxes it has been pointed out to me that the joker in the act is that annual union dues are specified. The Minister of Finance might get in touch with the Minister of National Revenue and suggest that a change should be made to allow initiation fees as a tax offset, because if it is legitimate to allow annual union dues as an offset I think it follows that it is equally right to allow initiation fees. The deduction of the initiation fee would only take place once in a lifetime, at the time the person joined the union.
Such a move would be a vote catcher. There are many young people joining unions today and having to pay $100 as an initiation fee. At the present time the money is a dead loss to them, and they consider that they should be allowed to offset it.
There is another plea I should like to make to the minister, and it concerns our blind people. I know the budget does not deal specifically with problems of this kind, but indirectly it affects government policy as to whether the relief for which we ask in different cases can be given. The blind people of this country have been sending literature to us from time to time, and I think the government should consider removing the means test from the blind pension at an early date. In the last representation I had from the blind they have this to say about the handicaps of the blind:
In addition, a blindness allowance free from the means test would provide a basic security, and so would be a source of encouragement and lead the blind to greater productivity and higher income. As it is, the means test holds back the allowance recipient from his full earning capacity lest his income forfeit his allowance and yet not be sufficient to provide a livelihood in its own right. Moreover, the means test only adds to the frustration and fear confronting the newly blind, who meet their handicap in adult life. It undermines


ambition and retards the rehabilitation process. A blindness allowance free from the restricting means test can be a positive restoration of selfconfidence.
No income tax is levied against a single sighted man whose earnings are less than $1,000 a year, or against a married man under $2,000. Yet, because of the means test, the single sightless worker may not have more than $840 or the married man more than $1,320.
I think their argument is absolutely sound. If these people, with the handicap they have and receiving the blind pension of $40 a month, have the courage to go out and tackle the world, sell brooms, sell pencils or run canteens and thus earn something on the side for themselves, I do not think they should be penalized by the loss of what I consider a disability pension rather than a means of livelihood.
During the course of this and other debates in the house I have listened to members comment from time to time on the group with which I sit and the movement I represent. They have used some pretty loose language in the interpretation of the policy and program of the C.C.F. party. But I have noticed that the only authority they had for the interpretation they made was that free enterprise was a wonderful thing; that it had saved the world, the sun and the moon, and that anyone who came into the picture with a little different opinion did not have any right to exist. They pick up a copy of the Globe and Mail or a copy of the Montreal Gazette or of some other newspaper, read an editorial from it and say, "That is what they stand for".
I sat here and heard it from the other side of the house, and from this side, during this session. I therefore thought it would not be a bad idea if during the course of this session some time somebody dug up an authoritative statement by someone who is in the C.C.F. movement and who has some responsibility. If I want to get an opinion on a point of law I go and see a lawyer about it; or if I am sick I go and see a doctor. At least he is qualified to make a diagnosis of the particular problem on which I may he questioning him. I certainly will not go to an ultra free-enterpriser in order to get an interpretation of what the C.C.F. program may be.
I thought I knew the C.C.F. policy and program fairly well, but during the course of the debates to which I listened I began to wonder whether over the last nine or ten years they had changed to the extent that these arguments would lead you to believe. I therefore went back into my archives and I looked up some authorities. In getting us an interpretation of what the C.C.F. program and policy really mean, I figured that the best authority I could find in Canada would be someone who has been with the movement,

who has responsibility in the movement and who has some responsibility to the public.
The best man I could find was the present premier of Saskatchewan, Tommy Douglas. When he made this statement he had been premier of Saskatchewan for some five years. He is premier of a province in which he was elected on the C.C.F. ticket. He has been administering a C.C.F. program for five years, and he is giving to the people who elected him an account of his stewardship on this particular point of what the C.C.F. means. I think he should know as much about it as the editor of the Globe and Mail, the editor of the Ottawa Journal or anyone else, because to my mind he exemplifies what I thought the
C.C.F. was and he is doing that kind of job.
I have heard thrown at us the statement that the C.C.F. will socialize your second pair of shoes, that the government are socialists in silk hats because they support the C.B.C., which is a monopoly, and the T.C.A., which is a monopoly. Someone over here said he would rather have a private monopoly than a government monopoly. I do not think there is much difference. There is only one corner of our community in this country where I can see any monopoly, and that is in this corner of so-called competitive free enterprise which does not exist. There is no such animal in this world any longer. If there were, there would not be the need for groups such as mine and such as we have to the left of us here.


Mr. Blackmore:: Social Credit.


Clarence Gillis: We hear of this business of free enterprise. It is not free any longer, and it is not enterprise. The man who is trying to get a living in this world from a small business has a hard row to hoe. I therefore asked myself the question, have we slipped to the point where we are going to do all the things that we are accused of, or have the program and policy got into such a mess today that nobody knows where he stands?
Hence I went back and thought I would get an interpretation from Tommy Douglas. Many of us in this house know him. We have complete faith in his honesty and integrity. The people of Saskatchewan certainly think a great deal of him. He said this in 1949, and that program has not changed one iota. I should just like to put it on the record for the purpose of keeping the record straight, as I did with this inquiry by the British government into the validity of the national health program in that country. It is official. When you talk about socialism in the loose and illiterate way that a great many people talk about it, and when you consider the many types of socialism there are and have been in the 67509-174
The Budget-Mr. Gillis world, I think it is nearly time that we in this group put back on the record exactly what we mean when we say we would do certain things to protect the public with regard to much of the monopoly control that exists today, not through the government but outside of it.
I will take extracts from this talk on the subject of where we stand with regard to the organization of the economy of this country. I am going to quote Tommy Douglas on that subject, and I might say that I do so with approval. I agree 100 per cent with what he says here. It has always been my conception of this movement. He says:
There are three different types of ownership in which we believe-
That has been the discussion, ownership.
-private ownership, co-operative ownership and public ownership, and each of these may again be subdivided, as I will explain later.
Let us take private ownership first, for under a C.C.F. government private ownership will always compose the greater part of our economy. It was largely because of the loss of private ownership of our farms and our homes and small businesses through the growth of monopoly and the control of credit that the C.C.F. was first organized- organized to get ownership back, not to destroy it. Private ownership can be divided roughly into two classes, individual ownership, and partnership or company ownership. In this field would come your home, your farm, retail businesses, secondary industries, services industries, except transportation and communications, and a host of others. As a matter of fact we believe that with increased production and better distribution made possible by a balanced economy we would have more, not less, private ownership. You have only to look around you at the stores in any town of over 1,000 population and see the numbers of them that are chain-operated or controlled to see what is happening in our economy today. The small businessman in retail, processing and manufacturing is being ruthlessly pushed aside, and this is becoming more apparent as supply catches up with demand and business becomes more competitive.
That was written in 1949. You can see that he was not far out, when you consider that last year in this province alone, according to reports, there were some 6,000 small business failures. These failures were in your local grocery set-ups, where the Loblaw stores and the A & P stores and such people come in and do the kind of business financing with which the small operator cannot compete. Mr. Douglas goes on further and says this:
Don t let anyone tell you therefore that the C.C.F. does not believe in private ownership. We do. As a matter of fact the greatest enemies of private ownership today are the monopolies who are condemning the C.C.F. They distract your attention by weird tales and misrepresentation of C.C.F. policy while they blackjack you and send you to the receivers.
He is talking to the small businessman. Anyone who knows Tommy Douglas knows that is his language. He continues:
Co-operative ownership is the second type of ownership in which the C.C.F. believes. It operates

The Budget-Mr. Gillis
in both the producer and consumer fields. In both of these fields it creates the necessary competitive factors to assure efficient and reasonable service. It retains in the community the largest possible amount of the wealth created by the community. It creates and stimulates the ability for selfhelp and self-reliance in solving the economic problems facing the individual in a free society. It is a training ground for leadership in the community and is a most effective weapon in fighting the growth of monopoly control. The growth of the co-operative movement in every part of the world has coincided with the development of the social democratic movements in the same areas. The one creates the economic freedom and intelligent group self-interest which is essential to the growth of the other. Co-operative ownership means a wider and more democratic distribution of ownership which is the objective of democratic socialism.
Finally, the C.C.F. believe in public ownership. This is again divided into three fields-municipal, provincial and federal, each having its own place. It is not now, and never has been, the intention of the C.C.F. to centralize all public ownership under the federal government. It would be equally as foolish for the federal government to take over ownership of the transportation systems of Toronto or Regina as it would be for those cities to own and operate the Canadian National or Canadian Pacific Railway within their boundaries. Public ownership has been proven a success in many fields and is being expanded today by even the capitalist government of the U.S.A. Even they recognize that complete private ownership in certain fields carries with it powers which they dare not leave in private hands. The Catholic Archbishop of Australia in 1949 issued a statement condemning total socialization, but stating, and I quote "the church recognizes that, under present conditions, there are certain forms of enterprise and industry which are of quite extraordinary importance to the community and which may legitimately come under public control. Among these are banking and insurance, the manufacture of steel and heavy chemicals, rail, sea and air transport, public utility services (electricity, gas, tramways) and armaments". This list goes even further than the proposals of the C.C.F. platform.
There are, however, two forms of ownership to which the C.C.F. is unalterably opposed. The first is complete state ownership as advocated and practised by communism, and the other is monopoly and cartel ownership as developed under capitalism. We agree wholeheartedly with the council of the Christian churches in their statement issued in Amsterdam in 1949, when they stated that "the idealogies of communism and of laissez-faire capitalism are equally wrong".
I could go on, but I know my time is running out.


Mr. Carrick:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Clarence Gillis: Yes.


Donald D. Carrick: The question is this. Do you consider the statement of Mr. Douglas is identical with or different from the statement of C.C.F. policy in the Regina manifesto which says that the C.C.F. will not rest until capitalism has been eradicated?


Mr. Sinclair:: Let us have a good answer to that one.


Clarence Gillis: I can give a good answer. If the hon. member is just reading the Globe and Mail editorials-


James Sinclair: He is reading the Regina
manifesto, the final paragraph.


Clarence Gillis: I hope, Mr. Speaker, you will note that my time is being taken up.


James Sinclair: We will give you lots of time to explain that. We do not want Tommy Douglas, we want the Regina manifesto.


Major James William Coldwell: Where is the Liberal platform of 1919; health insurance?


Hazen Robert Argue: What about health insurance?


James Sinclair: Let us get back to the Regina manifesto, not Tommy Douglas.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, will you tell the Minister of Fisheries to keep quiet?


James Sinclair: Let us have an answer.


Clarence Gillis: I am going to, but you will not let me answer. I want to answer the hon. member who asked that question. In my judgment the statement I have just read, emanating from the premier of Saskatchewan in 1949, is 100 per cent in accord with the Regina manifesto. I make that statement without any equivocation or mental reservations. I would remind the Minister of Fisheries and the hon. member who asked that question of this. No political party in this country or any country can write a social program and measure it in terms of days or years. When you are talking about a social program, as the Regina manifesto was back in 1932, you are merely stating an objective, the emphasis on which would change from time to time depending on conditions in the country. There is no finality to it. Neither your party nor this party or any other party can sit down and write a program today that you will not have to vary and change, but leaving your main objective the same.
Yes, the main objective of the C.C.F. is to eliminate-


James Sinclair: To kill socialism.


Clarence Gillis: -private control that is exercised over the lives of the people of this country by people behind the scenes who are not responsible to government. In every discussion I have heard in the house in the last several days I have heard Conservatives bemoan the fact that our resources are getting into the hands of private capitalists in the United States who have no social, economic or other responsibility to this country. It is that kind of thing that this movement aims at replacing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but I should point out to him that his time actually expired three minutes ago.


James Sinclair: As one who is involved in this, may I ask the hon. member if his last apology means that the C.C.F. now repudiates the last paragraph of the Regina manifesto?


Hazen Robert Argue: Tell us about 1919.


Clarence Gillis: There was no apology. It was a reaffirmation of our faith in the Regina manifesto.
(Translation) :


Mr. Lionel Bertrand (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, every time I have spoken in the house I have done so to give my views on matters of public interest and, for the past sixteen years I have tried to reflect here the opinions of my electors. If there is one matter which deeply interests them at present, and about which they send me numerous requests for information, it is that of health insurance, of hospital insurance.
Throughout my public life I have been a supporter of social security. Early in life I had to work and assume responsibilities; my family bravely faced situations which would not have existed if, in those days, there had been beneficial social legislation like that which is in force today. I have therefore considered it my duty to champion the cause of the lowly, the hard worker and the needy. The people of Canada do not want humiliating public charity, but rather legislation that would enable underprivileged citizens in this rich and prosperous country to get their share of welfare and security.
I am happy to underline here the vast accomplishments of the Liberal party to which I belong, and which was successfully led by Mr. Mackenzie King until 1948 and which has been led with no less success since by the Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent. Even opponents have to recognize that the Liberal party, which has governed the destinies of our country without interruption since 1935, has always enjoyed the confidence of the Canadian people; it has enjoyed that confidence during the worst period of the war and it came out of it with an even greater prestige than before. Today it still enjoys that confidence. The social legislation enacted by our party has been the envy of other countries and has helped to create in Canada an atmos-
The Budget-Mr. Bertrand phere of welfare that has become indispensable.
Nobody would like to see family allowances stopped; the government that enacted that legislation made a generous gesture and the people cannot forget it. If it did not exist, we would have to enact it. That legislation has been greatly beneficial to our people; it has satisfied a human desire for protection and provided help for the family. In the last few years, several requests have been made asking that the allowances be doubled, without increasing taxes. In my opinion, such a request was improperly put forward. I have often said and I still contend that although I am in favour of increasing family allowances, I do not see how it could be done without increasing one way or another governmental expenses and, therefore, the taxes which we have to pay.
I believe, and I have often said so in my constituency and in the house, that the family allowances act should be revised. It was enacted nearly eleven years ago. By virtue of that legislation, the government has spent several million dollars, but that money has not been wasted. It has contributed to the health and the progress of the nation. Those dollars have provided better food, better care, better clothes and a better education for thousands of children. The family allowances cheque, which comes at the same time, on the same day of each month, which is paid without political partisanship and used to good purpose has contributed and still contributes to create an atmosphere of family satisfaction which honours our country. During the past eleven years, the cost of living has greatly increased. I believe that the time may have come to revise the act, to set new rates that would take into account the cost of living. The Department of National Health and Welfare would be well advised to study the matter. In adjusting the act to present conditions, it would answer the general wishes of the people.
By providing good food and a good education to our young citizens we are doing an act of liberation. Children truly represent the future. If our children are healthy, our future will be prosperous; if our children are well educated and understand their religious, civil and patriotic duties, our future will be assured. Money invested by Canada to educate our citizens of tomorrow is not lost. It is an asset which enhances the undeniable prestige of our country.
2750	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Bertrand
Mr. Speaker, I put on the order paper of the house a motion which has not been debated but which deals more particularly with the blind. I have always taken an interest in them, and I know the work done by their associations, especially the Societe amicale des aveugles, in which I am particularly interested. In my opinion, the blind should not be subjected to a means test; they should be granted the maximum pension without any restriction whatsoever. True, last year the age requirements were lowered and the maximum income permitted was increased, but that does not seem to be sufficient. Few blind people in Canada have an income sufficient to provide for themselves, and the majority are unable to cope with the monthly allowance they receive unless they do some other work to supplement their income. I recently said in a speech in this house;
The blind are not deprived of all their producing capacities, but these capacities are deadened or reduced to nothing. If you want the blind to take on some productive job, you have to make them financially secure. The psychological fear of not being able to keep up their jobs because they might lose their pension if they kept on working adds to their anguish.
I have not changed my mind. In the case of the blind, one must stimulate and not destroy their human ideal. The elimination of the means test would guarantee their financial security as, by the very nature of things, blindness entails expenses which people with normal vision are spared: higher cost of living, guide services, additional maintenance costs, more adequate medical care, poor health, etc. Blindness calls for many extra expenses. It is for that reason that quite a substantial number of blind people in the province of Quebec do not get the pension. The husband or wife is working, since the maximum income fixed by law, even with a full pension, is not always adequate for the maintenance of the home. Therefore, in many cases, the blind person lives outside the home in order to receive full pension, leaving to the spouse the responsibility of working and raising the family. To raise the family and social standard as well as the dignity of the blind, it is essential that the blind do not have to suffer an inferiority complex throughout the year. The blind person lives in darkness; in many ways, his existence is complicated; he worries and loses patience, he feels lonesome and forsaken. The elimination of the means test would open new perspectives to him; he would find a new reason to work, to adapt


himself to circumstances and thus, being less worried, be in a better position to provide for the education of his children and the maintenance of his family.
I wish to say a word about disability allowances; no one should blame me for a few remarks on this subject since I have advocated this pension many years before the legislation on this matter was put on our statute books.
The provinces have accepted the act, although reluctantly in some cases. The regulations have been approved following discussions between representatives of the federal government and of the provinces. Some 30,000 people now get the disability pension in Canada, which is much less than the 50,000 and more which had been estimated at one time. Personally I think that the act is too rigid, and a great many cases which have been called to my attention after the applications had been rejected have brought home to me that it is so. Many of these applications have been submitted anew, and they have been granted favourable consideration.
I do not think this legislation should be for the dying; it should become more flexible. We could consider as invalids a large number of people who, though they may not be forced to remain constantly in bed or in a chair are prevented, through some infirmity or other, from earning their living or are constantly refused on the labour market, even though they may have the use of their hands or feet. A number of applications which seemed worthy of consideration have apparently been refused. The lack of latitude provided for in the regulations would seem to be directly responsible for this. Would it not be well to call for a study of these applications which have been turned down in order to see whether or not the present regulations could be changed so as to make the legislation really efficient and to achieve the desired purpose?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the government that the constituency of Terrebonne, which I represent in this house, supports a national health insurance plan and that my constituents are anxious for it to be quickly implemented. The comments which I have heard and the views which I have had the opportunity of ascertaining are quite indicative of the opinion of the people on this subject. If my constituents entertain such definite views on this matter, I doubt whether things are at all different in other constituen-

cies. It must be recognized that, for our working people, insecurity is the worst worry of all. There is nothing like idleness to wipe out in a few weeks savings which have been acquired after long and arduous effort, and to turn a prosperous home into one beset with financial difficulties or even with real want. These views of my constituents are all the more welcome to me because ever since I have been in public life I have never ceased to demand legislation which would ensure our working people the help of the nation in case of illness or confinement to a hospital.
I do feel also that most people in Canada favour a national health insurance plan and that the decision of the government to go ahead in this matter has been highly appreciated. I would even go further. The people of this country would not forgive the government if it were to stop halfway now, no more than it would forgive delay in completing the present program of social security by this beneficent legislation. And I would add that this question is so close to the heart of the people and appears so essential to them now that provincial governments refusing to co-operate may be judged severely by their constituents.
It is becoming impossible for the low income group to face the excessive costs of hospitalization. I realize that a hospital, like a hotel, must ask rates which often appear prohibitive, in order to meet their costs of management, but it is none the less undeniable that medical and hospital costs are excessively high. Dr. Jean Gregoire, deputy minister of health in the province of Quebec, did not hesitate to say a few months ago that 80 per cent of the people of Quebec-and I presume that such is the case elsewhere-cannot meet hospitalization expenses when they are sick. No doubt, there are many Canadians who are protected at this time against medical and hospital costs, either by subscribing to a private hospitalization plan or because their employers have adopted a group insurance plan which protects them, together with their dependents. There remains, however, a great number of Canadians-possibly more than 50 per cent of them-especially in the working and low income classes, who have no protection at all. It may be because their trade does not permit it, or because their employers are opposed to it or never thought of it, or because their salary does not allow them to join a private insurance plan. If their income is not sufficient to
The Budget-Mr. Bertrand permit them to seek preventive medicine, all the more reason for their being unable to face hospitalization costs. These people, I should point out, even when sick, will wait to the last minute before seeing the doctor, because of the very inadequacy of their income. They will conceal their ailment and suffer in silence, seeking relief from sedatives and old wives' remedies.
When the time comes for them to be hospitalized, they will not only be unable to regain their health but they will have to bear the handicap of impaired health. That point of view should be kept in mind by those organizations which, in their annual briefs or in their periodical suggestions to governments, will not come out clearly for or against the health insurance scheme but which say that we must be careful and proceed slowly, under the barely concealed pretext that taxes might go up.
On the other hand, many welfare and labour organizations are asking for that social security measure, and if the price comes high -which nobody will deny-they say that if we can, and rightly so, spend huge amounts of money to protect ourselves against outside dangers, against war and even to prevent war, it is up to the government to build a large social security system in order to suppress as much as possible social evils, to do away with distress which comes from ill-health, and to give Canadians, in these times of anxiety, the benefit of security and the priceless advantages of good health. The English writer and statesman Benjamin Disraeli said on that score:
The health of the people is really the foundation upon which all their happiness and all their powers as a state depend.
Our country is not backward in the public health field. Under the constitution, public health comes under provincial jurisdiction; but, eight years ago, the federal government embarked upon a national health program for the sole reason that the provinces alone could scarcely establish a uniform system and that it seemed necessary therefore, without depriving them of their autonomy, to co-operate with them on a national level so as to give greater efficiency to all freely taken joint decisions. Thousands of beds have been put at the hospitals' disposal; from year to year, medical research has gained in importance, public courses have been initiated, groups have been formed with the help of the various governments, and great progress has been

The Budget-Mr. Bertrand made in the fight against tuberculosis, cancer, mental illness and other ills that plague humanity. And-I am stressing this without fear of contradiction-never has the country had a better minister to carry out all these plans in the field of social security, i.e. family allowances, old age pensions, pensions for the blind, and for the disabled, than the present Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). I am therefore happy to pay a deserved tribute, not only to his personal talent, but also to his devotion for his cherished cause of public health, to his remarkable and well known industry, and to his very clear comprehension of all problems under his departmental jurisdiction.
I am among those who hope that he will be able to carry out the health insurance scheme. This is a vast project indeed, but his devotion measures up to it. I know he understands the importance of this scheme, and that he wants to help all Canadians, and more particularly the small wage earner.
The small wage earner is the man who, in order to live and support his wife and children, has to count on each day's work, who cannot afford to be ill for, whenever he is, hardship immediately befalls his home. The small wage earner is the one who never achieves wealth and who, at the end of his days, after toiling for forty years, has painstakingly put aside only a few hundred dollars to cope with unforeseen expenses of sickness and old age. The small wage earner who, during his lifetime, has been able to escape, with his wife and family, surgical and hospital bills which are always heavy will be, among his kind, a very lucky man indeed. Many of these people come to my office and show me unpaid hospital bills. They are people who, over and above their daily cares, always feel tortured by the same bills which will keep on piling up. Hospitals want to be paid; they cannot carry on unless they are. Are patients always able to pay? That is the question. Health insurance will be beneficial both to our citizens, who have to cope with sickness and to the hospitals whose progress will thus be ensured.
The small wage earner is the one who, week after week, sees his tax deducted from his pay cheque, and, though sometimes grudgingly, is nevertheless willing to do his share in the administration of the country. And when he makes out his annual income tax return, what is he allowed to deduct? A few dollars as charitable donations, a portion, always insignificant, of his medical expenses. On the other hand, the industrialist, the merchant, the businessman, owing precisely to their business, have an expense account where they can enter so many indirect expenses, the legal

facility of providing themselves with leisure and amenities, and to bestow on their families benefits squarely denied the low income class. Thus, health insurance would create a new balance through which the well to do would lose nothing of their benefits, while the poor and the humble would get their share of security. The happiness of the lower class is made of peace of mind and heart. You cannot have one without the other. Let us not forget that the heaviest damage to health is not caused by work, because sixty year old workers, who have worked very hard all their lives, still go to work early every morning. The things that are harmful to health, that undermine and destroy it, are moral and financial worries. Just go down to the miserable classes of society, and you will see what it is all about. The low income worker will understand that, even though he has to contribute his share to the establishment of a health insurance plan, he no longer will have, when misfortune strikes him, the awful shame of having to tell his doctor or the hospital officials that he is unable to pay, of having to be endlessly hurt in his feelings, and of having thereafter, because of accumulated debts, to live in discouragement, and sometimes on the brink of despair. We, the lucky ones, must keep aware of the fact that, close to our home there are slums, and people who, through lack of money, have never paid a visit to their native province or country and who will never go to Florida, and we must convince ourselves, when we criticize a poor home with a television set, that the poor ones too must have their moments of enjoyment. In these times of easy life, when sports are draining so much money, when the attraction for travel increases from year to year, when luxurious restaurants are crowded with customers who do not care for the amount of the bill, when in grills and bars we pay as much as one dollar for a glass of scotch or rye, I will never tolerate that those with an easy life should be the first to criticize or to refuse to pay a few additional dollars in taxes in order to maintain and develop our social security plan.
(Text):


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: It being six o'clock I do leave the chair.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
(Translation) :
Lionel Bertrand: Before the house adjourned at six o'clock I was speaking of health insur-*

ance. I would like to repeat one sentence I said at that time.
We, who are more favoured, should take note of the fact that next to us there are slums, that there are people who, through lack of money, have never visited their province, or their country, who will never see Florida; before criticizing the poor people who own television sets, we should stop and think that those poor people are also entitled to a few moments of happiness. In this period of easy living, where sports drain so much money, where the thirst of travelling increases from year to year, where luxury dining rooms are overcrowded with customers who do not worry how much the bill will be, where people have to pay as much as one dollar for a glass of scotch or rye in grills or bars, I will never admit that those who are better off are the first to criticize or to refuse to pay a few more dollars in taxes for the maintenance and the development of our social security program.
To maintain a social security program and, if need be, to improve it, is to destroy communism. Has communism ever been associated with a high level of production, attractive salaries and a high standard of living? Does communism make any headway in countries where the government is concerned with the lot of the working class and of people of modest means and takes care of the needy, the sick, the destitute and the poor? Has communism any chance to grow in a country where social legislation protects the people against the hazards of life and ensures the welfare of the needy? No one who is sincere would refuse to pay a few dollars a year in taxes in order that the government may enact a social legislation which is not only helping the population but ensures internal peace to a country like ours.
Personally, I would be willing to pay more taxes if necessary for the implementation of a health insurance program. There is no need to throw everything upside down nor to establish state medicine.
It is not a matter of preventing the family from choosing its own physician. Nor is it a matter of controlling the hospitals or the organizations which are in charge of them. The autonomy of the provinces can and must be respected. The federal government is willing to pay half the costs of such a health insurance plan. True, if it does need the approval of six provinces to go ahead, I hope that it wins it as quickly as possible and that the province of Quebec will be among those six.
However, should this national health insurance plan meet with too many difficulties, should the provinces refuse to enter into it
The Budget-Mr. Montgomery for a number of reasons into which I need not go, I still think that the government should not close this case it has opened in the interest of the whole country. It should put the question to the voters at the next election or, should circumstances become pressing, ask for a referendum so as to settle the matter once and for all.
Mr. Speaker, our social security program makes our people happy. The people know that they owe it to the party to which I belong. This program cannot and must not be tinted by politics. It is not and that is to the credit of all of us representing the people here. If old age pensions did not exist today on a national scale for people of 70, how many people and how many homes would be in difficulty. The amount of $40 a month was a boon to public health. It helps and continues to help old people to get better treatment and, by casting off financial worries, it enables a great many people to live longer and to await in serenity the inevitable twilight. The thing that must prevail now is a feeling of security, the certainty of that security. By spending annually enormous amounts of money for NATO and the protection of its territory, our country gives us that certainty. That feeling of security must also be felt in every home and be solidly anchored in the heart of every Canadian. Health insurance must become one of the foremost concerns of this government and also of parliament. In this as in other fields, I know, the government will not fail and it is our duty, in this parliament, to support the government.
(Text) ;


Mr. G. W. Montgomery (Victoria-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in this debate I should like to speak to two items in particular, but first I should like to make a few comments.
The budget held no surprises for me except the discriminatory tax imposed on a few United States magazines. This has been very ably dealt with by the hon. member for Calgary South, himself a publisher of Canadian trade journals and one who, I believe, can speak with authority. It has also been dealt with by other speakers. So I shall have nothing further to say on that.
As regards agriculture and the farmers, I find nothing substantially new that will help this particular industry. There are some changes in the tariff items which may clarify some former rulings, but in general there is nothing I can see that will give any great uplift to our farmers, or assure them of any relief from the price-cost squeeze, or enable them to obtain a greater share of the consumer's dollar.

The Budget-Mr. Montgomery
Among certain tariff items referred to the tariff board during the past year was that of potatoes. Whilst no definite action has been taken, I was interested in the minister's announcement that he hoped to be able to make a statement in the very near future in connection with that particular item. I trust that this will be a statement of policy that will be satisfactory to the producers. There are a great many growers of potatoes in my constituency, and this is a product that greatly affects the economy of my province, as it is one of the largest cash crops produced in New Brunswick.
The minister also announced that he was not recommending any reduction in the general level of the income tax, but that there would be some minor changes in certain provisions and such contemplated changes would be announced when the amending bill was brought in. Again I trust that among those changes he has in mind will be one restoring to section 42 of the Income Tax Act the true intent, meaning and spirit which I am sure members of this parliament had in mind when those sections were amended a few years ago; that is, the sections applying to farmers and fishermen. It is a well-known fact that the incomes of farmers and fishermen fluctuate greatly from year to year, and the legislation was an attempt, in my opinion, to deal equitably with individuals in these occupations.
This has particular application to farmers in my province, whose chief crop is potatoes. In some years their income is fairly good. In fact in some instances it is quite large, owing to good yields, high prices, selling at the right time and many other factors. However, in other years-and unfortunately we have a good many of the other years-owing to adverse weather conditions, poor yields and low prices, the incomes of the farmers are not good. In fact it is not uncommon for many of them to have losses, and they are lucky if they break even.
This is all due to factors over which the farmer really has no control. This legislation to which I refer was designed to give the farmer and fisherman some remedy in combating such uncontrollable circumstances. Section 42 was intended to permit farmers whose chief source of income was their farming operations to average their income over a period of five years if they elected to do so. In other words the farmer or fisherman was permitted to select any five-year period. He must not use the same years in different periods, but if he has selected a five-year period the interpretation of the section seems to be clear that he is not required to file a return or to pay a tax within that period.

That interpretation was upheld by Mr. W. C. Fisher, Q.C., of the income tax appeal board in the case of Topham v. The Minister of National Revenue. It seems to me there is no way of telling whether the farmer has any income tax to pay until the end of the five-year period. He may have a very good income in one or two of the years, but I think it was the intention of parliament when it passed the legislation to give the farmer and the fisherman the opportunity of waiting until the end of the selected period. Then if he was taxable he would have the right to average his tax over that period and pay it at that time.
However, the Department of National Revenue did not agree with Mr. Fisher. The department appealed the decision. The case went to the exchequer court and the decision was reversed. The reversal, if I understand the situation, was made on the basis of the interpretation placed upon section 44 of the act. You are all familiar with that section of the act. It provides that in so far as an individual is concerned he must file an income tax return for any year in which he is taxable, and he must pay his tax. This must be done within a certain period which is laid down in the section. The minister is also supposed to prescribe the form to be filed and the information which he requires. Under subsection 2 of section 44 the minister may call upon a person to file a return within a certain period, whether or not they are taxable, and if they do not do so they are liable to the penalties provided in section 55.
I am not going to criticize the decision of the exchequer court because I understand just as well as anyone that lawyers and judges differ in their opinions on interpretation, but I want to bring this point to the attention of the minister and the government. Under the ruling of the exchequer court farmers and fishermen have lost the right which I believe parliament intended to give them in order to correct the situation that the legislation was intended to correct. Under this ruling a farmer must file a return in any year in which he thinks he has made enough money to be taxable, and he must pay the tax. If he does not file the return and pay his tax he is subject to the penalties under section 55.
It works out in this way. Suppose the farmer has a good year in the second year of the period he has selected and his income is taxable. Under the present interpretation he must file a return for that year and must pay his tax on the basis of that year alone. But at the end of three more years, which would be the end of his period, is the only time at which it can be determined by either the farmer or the income tax department whether

or not he has any tax to pay, and I claim that when the farmer is forced to file a return and pay tax in the second year he is penalized because he is deprived of certain money for the next three years, if at the end of the period he finds he has no taxable income for the whole period which he has selected. Second, the farmer is subject to the penalties of section 55.
I submit that this situation is working hardship on the farmer, and I bring the matter to the attention of the minister and the government because I believe sincerely that parliament passed the legislation with the intention of providing a remedy for people with fluctuating incomes who may have one good year, two good years and three bad years, so they could average their income over the period and if they had no taxable income for the period they would then have no tax to pay.
I think that was what parliament intended, and I believe that intention has been frustrated by the decision of the court in the same way that other intentions with respect to the act have been frustrated. I believe the minister referred to that in his budget speech. It may be that I am premature in my remarks, but I hope the minister has in mind bringing in an amendment to remedy the situation, because I believe the amendment to section 42 has been affected by the changed interpretation of section 44, which says that every individual who is taxable in a given year must file a form. Inasmuch as the amendment to section 42 provided a five-year period instead of one year, and because there is no definite way of finding out whether or not a man is taxable until the end of the selected five-year period, I contend that section 44 does not apply.
At the present time the farmer is being penalized, and I suppose the fisherman too. I am more interested in the farmers, and I would certainly ask the minister to give the matter thorough study. I should like to see an amendment introduced which will fully restore the original purpose of section 42 and the amendment thereto, in order that farmers will not be severely penalized and to carry out the intention , of parliament. Otherwise I do not see much use in having the amendment.
As a matter of fact, I see nothing in the act which directs the government to return to the farmer any money he has paid during the period if it turns out at the end of the period that he is not taxable. He may have paid a small amount during the period but when his income is averaged the result may be that he has overpaid. I know the department has always been very prompt in making 67509-175
The Budget-Mr. Montgomery adjustments of that nature; nevertheless the man is without his money for one, two, three or maybe four years.
The other particular point in connection with the budget on which I should like to dwell for a few minutes is the question of federal-provincial relations. The minister devoted a good part of his address to this subject. He enumerated in a general way the proposals submitted by the federal government to the provinces. He went on to say that under the circumstances the federal government believed that the proposals were eminently fair, reasonable and realistic. He went to quite some length in explaining to hon. members that no province would receive less than it had received under the tax rental agreements.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, these proposals are certainly not in line with what the provinces have a right to expect or with what they had a right to assume was the intention of the Prime Minister in his letter of January, 1955, when he informed the provinces that the government had no intention of abandoning the objective of the tax rental agreements, which was to make it financially possible for all the provinces, whatever their tax base, to perform their constitutional functions and to provide a reasonable level of provincial services without abnormal burdens of taxation. Unfortunately I think the proposals do not achieve this principle, especially for those provinces with a limited tax base such as that which we have in the maritime provinces. Mr. Speaker, it is through no fault of their own that those provinces have not a wider base of taxation.
One of the provincial services that must or should be maintained on a basis of equality throughout this country is education. It costs just as much to erect buildings and provide equipment and other facilities in the maritime provinces as it costs anywhere else. But what do we find? The average cost of education in Canada runs approximately 2-225 per cent of the total Canadian national income but in my own province it would run something like 4-329 per cent of the total income of the people of the province, or almost double.
It might be interesting to some hon. members if I just mention how narrow our tax base is, or the burden of taxation in relation to education in my province; and I think our system is pretty much the same throughout the maritimes. For education alone the municipalities have to pay something like 40 to 45 per cent. How is it done? We have what we call a poll tax. That poll tax is levied on every male person between the ages of 21 and 60, with very few exceptions, and it may run from $3 to as high as $10. That tax is levied

The Budget-Mr. Montgomery regardless of what property a person has, just because he is a male person.
But that is not all. By the way, that tax is for the administration of justice, the hospitalization of the poor, general administration and the services the municipality gives to its citizens. But in addition to that there is another poll tax for educational purposes by which we must raise one-fifth of our share of the operational expenses of education, up to and including the high schools. That poll tax runs anywhere from $5 to $15 and possibly more in some places. And that is not all. Under the system adopted in our province some 10 years ago we also have certain districts getting together, called regional districts, where they build a special school called a regional school and provide not only the ordinary academic courses in education but also a fairly full course of vocational training and sometimes primary agricultural courses. About 40 per cent of the cost of these buildings has to be borne by the district concerned. One-fifth of the cost of the buildings of that district has to be raised by another poll tax, and that poll tax we find runs anywhere from approximately $5 to $20. It will average possibly $18. So the individual has three poll taxes to pay.
In addition to that, every individual man or woman who owns any personal property- that is a car, livestock or any kind of personal property; anything except money or securities-is assessed on its value and the rate is fixed just as the rate is fixed on real estate, and he or she must pay that tax. If people have a truck or a car or things like that they must pay that tax. In addition, of course, we have to pay our tax on real estate the same as people everywhere else. I am speaking of rural districts and small towns such as I have in my constituency. That situation exists all over New Brunswick and I think quite generally in the maritimes. Our real estate is ' assessed. I have checked up on the matter and in comparison with Ontario, percentagewise on the actual value of our real estate, I think we pay higher taxes than are paid in the province of Ontario. I suppose the same comparison would apply with respect to other provinces.
You have that picture, and you can see what a narrow tax base we have. What have we left to tax? In the province of Ontario- I do not know about some of the other provinces-the municipality does not assess anything but real estate. There is no poll tax to pay. There is no personal property tax to pay. You just pay on your real estate, and the mill rate is no greater than ours down there. In some places it is less. I think this is a picture which is possibly overlooked.


Our tax base or whatever you want to call it is limited and our burden is heavy.
Yet with all this taxation, we have not the educational facilities and privileges that are supplied in some of the other provinces. I have mentioned the municipality but the province has to make up the balance, some 60 per cent of the cost; and it is done by grants to teachers on their salaries, grants to the municipality, grants to the school district that builds these schools, grants for transportation of the children and grants for general administration and the running of the schools. This cost is still going up. What has the province left to tax? When the municipality has been assessing the individual there is not much left to the province on which to levy a heavy tax.
In addition to all this you must remember that these small provinces have a difficult time to meet the new demands that call for increased taxes for many types of health services, increased costs of policing and administration, in addition to their regular costs of roads and bridges and all the old expenditures as well which have increased many times in the last few years. Hence my province of which I am speaking at the moment, like the rest of the maritime provinces, is carrying a heavy burden of taxation and is labouring under the difficulty of what we refer to as a narrow tax base. We are limited in area. We are bound by federal fiscal policies which so often operate to our detriment, owing to our location in the federation.
The fiscal policies of the central government which have been necessary and correct-I have no criticism of them-to build Canada into a nation unfortunately have at times handicapped our growth and our trade, and still do so, and have operated to encourage the development of other parts of Canada and the centralization of industry in which we have not shared. I think this has been one of the reasons for the lag in our general economy.
As I said, I am not criticizing this part of the fiscal policy. I think it is right, because this country as a country must grow. I do not think you will find anybody in the maritime provinces who is jealous of the rest of Canada for growing faster. We want to see the nation grow as well. But I think there is a strong feeling in the maritimes- and I do not hesitate to voice it because I feel that I am backed up in it-that there is a responsibility on the federal government to devise and apply a fiscal policy that will even up the whole national economy.
During the past 80 years these three provinces by the sea have contributed much to the progress of this country. I would refer

in particular to the human resources. Many of the leading men and women of our country, who were born down by the sea, have used their ability, initiative and resources in other parts of this great country to assist in making it the nation it is today. We are proud of the fact that wherever you go in Canada you meet hundreds of former maritimers or their descendants. But as a result of the combination of these circumstances and the national fiscal policy, the maritimes have suffered and now lack many of the industries which they ought to have had and which could have been supported. This area necessarily has a limited taxation base and, while a part of this confederation, has not shared in the growth of the nation. Taking all the circumstances into consideration this area has contributed much more to the growth of this country than the central government has properly recognized.
I say therefore, Mr. Speaker, to the Prime Minister and to this government that the proposals submitted to the maritime provinces, the cradle of confederation, in my opinion and in the opinion of many others are not fair, reasonable or realistic as stated by the Prime Minister. Such statements do not measure up to his promise that regardless of the taxation base the federal government should make it financially possible for any province, which would include the maritimes, to perform its constitutional functions and provide reasonable services without having an abnormal burden of taxation. Unless this government is willing to reconsider these proposals or accept other proposals or formulas such as the one submitted by New Brunswick last October, or the suggested appointment of another royal commission similar to the Duncan and White commissions of 1926 and 1934, then conditions will become more difficult.
It will be recalled that the Duncan commission soon found that the economy of these provinces was lagging far behind, and that this was the result of federal fiscal policy and other circumstances over which these provinces had no control. At that time the commission recommended immediate lump sum increases in the federal subsidies, and those recommendations were carried out. They further recommended that another commission be appointed to restudy and reassess the whole economic situation as between the maritimes and the other provinces. This reassessment was carried out by the White commission, and as a result of its report of 1934 the statutory subsidies were further increased in view of the recognition by the members of that commission that the maritime provinces had not received, nor had they any prospect of receiving, the opportunity of 67509-175J
The Budget-Mr. Mclvor access to the central market areas. The commission felt that this was not sharing to an equitable degree in the natural growth of the country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it has been over 20 years since the White commission reported, and in view of the tremendous economic expansion in which the maritimes, as some of the original partners, are entitled to share, I feel the time is overdue for another reassessment by another royal commission of the maritime economic situation as compared with the rest of Canada. I am sure that any commission going into this whole matter would, under all the circumstances, recommend a considerable further increase in our statutory grants or subsidies. In fact I feel that such an increase could run up to 10 times as much as we are getting.
In closing let me say that I feel the government should certainly be considering some of the arguments that were put forward by the maritime premiers during the last conference concerning annual grants and treating this area as a special area. If the government is not willing to do that it is going to be tough for these people to put themselves on an even footing with the rest of Canada. The rest of Canada can grow and will grow, and the gap between us will get wider. I feel it will be nothing short of a tragedy if the maritimes are not treated as a special area. Although it may sound harsh, I feel it will be a blight on this government if it refuses to face up to the situation which we in the maritimes feel calls for justice and a square deal.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that I am qualified as a financial critic. While I studied political economy some time ago, yet when I see a budget I feel the need of knowing more. I agree with whoever said that money comes slowly but it goes quickly. I suppose the Minister of Finance finds the same thing. I would say that this is a poor election budget, but it is a great budget for all of Canada. There are some members in this house who would like to have another budget like this next year. I admit that I would like to see another budget like this next year and hear the Minister of Finance say there would be no election that year-not that I am very frightened of anything the future may hold.
It has been said by many in this house and in many of the newspapers that this budget is just holding the line. There are a good many members in this house who have heard that phrase thrown at them enthusiastically, "Hold the line". That is just what our Minister of Finance is doing. There are those who

The Budget-Mr. Mclvor would attack the line. Let us consider inflation. There is a danger of inflation breaking the line. When we have less goods and more money, there is a danger of inflation and the minister has to watch that. There is a danger of unemployment. I sat in this house last year and listened to the oratorical efforts of the opposition in denouncing the government in the matter of unemployment, yet when the government has done its best this year to help cure unemployment we do not hear very much about it. That is one of the dangers of breaking the line.
I think I know some classes of people fairly well. There are those who would tell us to hold the line. Who are they? The big trade unions of Canada want the government to hold the line. They do not want any more unemployment than exists at the present time. The chambers of commerce and the taxpayers of Canada want the government to hold the line. City councils and industries certainly want the government to hold the line; and the question is, will the government hold the line? We call on the Minister of Finance to hold the line because he stands for three fundamental things in the Liberal party, the things on which our party was built.
When we heard the hon. member for Cape Breton South give us the foundation of the C.C.F. party I thought it went back to the Regina manifesto, but our friend told us just what the C.C.F. is. I think I have the right to say on what the Liberal party is built. The minister has shown us, and so has the Prime Minister. The first principle is unity. From Newfoundland to British Columbia we have unity throughout Canada today. Therefore the line is being held. I could speak for half an hour on that, but I do not think it is necessary.
The second thing is security. If you visited any of our schools today what would you see? You would not see what you saw some years ago. From the way the children were dressed some years ago you could tell the brand of flour that had been used in the home. Go out in the streets and look at the automobiles there. Oftentimes I have been ashamed to go around amongst these big cars in my tin lizzy. I know there are some people who are unemployed. The great Teacher said, "The poor ye have always with you." Take a young man who has prepared himself in his youth, who has slaved and toiled like the hon. member to whom we heard such outstanding tributes paid today, who has developed his gifts. Certainly he need not lack a job in Canada today.

The third principle is freedom. We have freedom in Canada. I admit I am free to worship as I like or not to worship at all. I am free to go where I like; I am free even to resign from this house if I thought it was the right thing to do. We are free from the Atlantic to the Pacific to change our employment, to live as we like, to go to sleep when we like and get up when we like and to eat what we like. Since the budget is based upon these three principles of unity, security and freedom we say to the minister, "Boy, you are holding the line".
The reason I rose to take part in this debate is that I have two things to tell the minister. I have been telling him about these things for the past four years. I have been telling him how he should spend some money. But before I do that I think it is my duty to tell him how he can get some. It is all right to cut taxes, but where are we to get some money? We in the Fort William and Port Arthur district have organized the northwestern development association. We put in as the head of that association the city editor of the Times Journal. They are doing an outstanding job in getting industries to come in, and in opening up mines. One of the most outstanding new mines- perhaps you have not heard of it but if you had watched the stock market you could have made a little-is the Iron Bay mines which develop taconite ore in the Red lake district. Dr. Barclay is the man who is taking care of it. He is the former principal of our technical school in Port Arthur.
I must admit that some time ago I was disappointed in our Great Lakes pulp and paper mill, perhaps because of friendship. What is happening? Our northwestern development association is co-operating. They are building two more mills at a cost of $40 million. Perhaps that might not be the correct figure, because I am not a financier, but it is costing a lot of money and it will employ many people. Therefore I say to the minister, you are going to get a lot more taxes from the people who will be employed in producing what will come from that mill.
The two things I am again going to ask the minister to consider-and it is the fourth time I have mentioned them; they say that constant dripping will wear away a stone- are, first, superannuated pensioners, men who retired before salaries were increased. I have a letter from a postman who served 37 years, until one of his legs played out and the other one was not very much better. He was earning $116 a month and when he retired his pension was $88.46 a month. When Blue Cross and hospitalization are taken from that what is left for a couple to live on, especially when his wife is seriously ill? His

salary was $1,600 a year, compared with $3,400 a year today. I should like to tell the minister just as emphatically as I can that this is one of the outstanding needs in Canada today. The pensions of these superannuated pensioners should be increased.
The second thing-and I have a resolution on the order paper today dealing with it-is that pensions should be provided without a means test to veterans 60 years of age and over who saw active service. I said before that I have known some men who had four Christmas dinners in the trenches. I was talking to one a little while ago. He is only 61 years of age, but I could handle him in any way I wished and I am 20 years older than he is. He lost more than 10 years of his life. Why should those men who sacrificed their lives, their home influences and sometimes their homes, not get their pension without a means test at 60? I think it is time we woke up. I just say to the minister I hope that the new money that comes from my district will be used for that purpose.
Our city of Fort William tried to cooperate with the Department of Labour in another way to cure unemployment. This year they decided on winter work. They decided to lay sewers and put a tunnel under the Kaministikwia river for their water which comes down from Loch Lomond. Instead of putting it through the pipes that were broken not long ago, they put in a tunnel where it will be safe for all time.
We think the work which is being carried on now should have some support from the government. I believe that $310,359 was spent on winter work including trunk sewers. I ask the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Finance-and I suppose the Prime Minister will listen-for 20 per cent of that cost. I think we should get 20 per cent of it because I believe it is better to pay out money for that type of work than to pay it out in the form of unemployment insurance or relief.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to express through you my appreciation for several improvements. I patronize the cafeteria upstairs quite frequently because the meals are well prepared; one can eat as much or as little as one likes, and one only pays for what one eats. The improvement in the cafeteria has been outstanding and in expressing my appreciation for this improvement I am sure I am speaking for a good many hon. members in this house.
I would also like to express appreciation for the improvement in the lighting in this chamber. We do like to see the light coming down from above, and with this improvement it is possible for one to see all the clocks in this chamber. We express appreciation for the
The Budget-Mr. Mclvor improved lighting arrangement. I am reminded of the quotation, "Let there be light".


Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):: It is hard on the eyes, though.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I now wish to speak about a pet subject of mine. I think everyone should be interested in games. I am sure, however, that many of us have been disappointed in the great national game, hockey. I saw one game recently and it reminded me of what I wanted to see when I was a boy. I wanted at that time to go to Donnybrook fair where you could get a drink or two and where the slogan, "If you see a head, hit it" prevailed. That hockey game was somewhat like that. It is no longer a matter of playing the game and observing the rules.
I see great hope for the future, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps you have heard mention on the radio of a sports college in Canada. Among the personnel of that sports college is General H. D. G. Crerar. The college publishes a paper which is called Sports College News. This sport's college is a national non-profit organization which is dedicated to helping to raise the standards of amateur sports, efficiency, physical fitness and recreation in Canada. It has been operating on a national basis since 1946. I would like to read to you the objectives of this sports college, as outlined in the March, 1956, issue:
The fundamental objective of the Canadian amateur sports and physical fitness development service is to make Canadians the most amateur sports and fitness conscious and knowledgeable people in the world. In working to this objective the Canadian amateur sports and physical fitness development service will attempt to accomplish the following:
1.	Create increased interest and participation in physical fitness activities throughout Canada.
2.	Stimulate increased participation in amateur sport.
3.	Develop increased interest in and support for amateur sports and recreation generally.
4.	Provide an authoritative information-education service to Canadians (individually and in organized groups) on all matters pertaining to sports skills, training, conditioning, physical fitness programs, organization and all related subjects.
5.	Offer a national "voice" through which those at work in this field can receive publicity and promotional aid in selling their activities to the public and through which support can be generated.
I appreciate the contribution of this group of men who are devoting their time and energy to building up amateur sports in Canada. I must admit that I would rather see a group of pee wees play, go out and throw themselves into their game, than all the professionals in Canada. I think this sports college is to be congratulated, and I hope it will carry on and continue to do its best.
I congratulate the minister on his budget. He did not reduce taxes but he did not increase them very much. Therefore he is

The Budget-Mr. Hahn holding the line, and I expect he will hold the line in such a way that he will be able to hold up his head and look the whole world in the face.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your patience.


Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, the comments which have been made concerning the budget were not totally unexpected. We have heard it referred to as the nothing-nothing and the zero-zero budget. Some people have referred to it as the six-bit budget. I found very little in it to talk about; therefore I do not intend to waste the minister's time in talking about it at any length.
Certain statements have been made, however, to which I would like to refer. An announcement was made with respect to an increase in wages for federal civil servants, which I am satisfied will be met with good wishes and applause from every part of this house. The announcement today that the temporary employees would receive increases along similar lines is also appreciated. My only hope is that those who are in the lower income brackets will soon be the recipients of a sizeable increase in salary. Certainly those who are in the top bracket are not quite so much in need of an increase.
I would also like to be associated with the hon. member for Fort William in respect to his appreciation of the lighting in this chamber. I find now that I can practically look the minister in the eye and decide whether or not he means what he says-


Lester Bowles Pearson: We can see you blushing.


Frederick George Hahn: -and this is very commendable.
In making his statement today in reply to a question the Prime Minister indicated that part of the discussion in the United States with the president of that country had to do with the imbalance of trade, and with the fact that Canadians felt it was rather undesirable to have too much United States investment in this country. We in this group have long associated ourselves with that theory and that thought. We feel that if possible Canada should be for Canadians. I am pleased, however, that the Prime Minister is realistic enough to realize, as is the Minister of Finance, that if we are going to have an imbalance of trade we had better correct it in some way and allow United States dollars to come in to assist us in expanding our economy.
I have said before, and I repeat, that it remains for us as legislators and for those in the provinces as well to see to it that Canadian interests are protected. As long as we do that I do not think we have too much to fear from any investments that are

made in this country. This, of course, depends on the particular policies which the government decides to follow. If it wishes to permit 70 or 80 per cent of our investment to continue to come into the country from the United States that would doubtless be very detrimental to the future of Canada. I am satisfied, however, that with a certain understanding as between industrialists and the Canadian public as to the gradual shift of the United States balance of holdings in this country to Canadian control, in all likelihood we can change that balance over a period of time.
I have one other observation to make, and that is that we should not be so parochial in our thinking that we put ourselves in the unfortunate position where we stop the progress of North America. It is most important, if we are going to develop this country, that it must develop in conjunction with our great neighbour to the south. We have not a right to expect that the United States will be our protectors in the event of a catastrophe without at least doing something to assist them, and for that reason I was very pleased to hear the Prime Minister say today that certain discussions were being proposed in respect to waters crossing the international boundary.
This afternoon the hon. member for Cape Breton South gave us in this house considerable food for thought. I for one have learned to respect his thinking and his statements, for he usually says what he thinks. I must say I cannot remember him saying anything he did not think and absolutely believe in. He was somewhat taken aback, I would say, when the hon. member for Trinity asked him a question relative to his statement pertaining to the Regina manifesto, and possibly for a very good reason. I was pleased that he did not deny that the C.C.F. is going to maintain the Regina manifesto, for I think the people of Canada will now be in a better position to assess exactly what the C.C.F. stands for.
This is the doctrinaire basis of that particular party. I would say, let the people of Canada decide whether the statement the hon. member for Cape Breton South read is the true statement of C.C.F. thinking, or whether certain other utterances that have been made from time to time are the true statement of C.C.F. thinking. I refer to the Avonlea-Rouleau Beacon of March 9, 1955. This particular newspaper has an advertisement which was a recopy of one published many years ago. In fact it was issued in 1935. It says:
Douglas has been a student of Social Credit for many years.
Douglas has endorsed Social Credit.
The C.C.F. will make the Social Credit scheme possible.


An hon. Member:: Which Douglas is that?


Frederick George Hahn: It says:
Vote Douglas.
Issued by the C.C.F.-Social Credit, Weybum federal constituency.
I take it that this is the same T. C. Douglas to whom the hon. member was referring. This man is now adopting certain of the Social Credit principles, and I am happy to see that the hon. member for Cape Breton South is seeing the light and is beginning to endorse them all.


Clarence Gillis: He is pulling you out of the fat.


Frederick George Hahn: I do not think you have to worry about pulling me out of the fat. I am quite capable of getting myself out of the fat. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker-


Stanley Howard Knowles: The fat or the fact?


Frederick George Hahn: The fact of the matter is that the hon. member for Cape Breton South might have gone further today and told us that there are three kinds of socialist or C.C.F. members in this house. There are the extremists, the middle of the road gentlemen, and the very moderate ones. I have yet to decide exactly which group he falls in, unless he belongs to the Social Credit group or is possibly thinking of joining this group, since Mr. Douglas has accepted so many of the principles that have met with certain success in his own government. Mr. Douglas tried mild socialism. He failed in many instances to implement it. I am not sure of the reason for that. However, I am satisfied that those of our socialist friends who have endorsed socialism, or our C.C.F. friends who have endorsed socialism, might be better equipped to tell us for what particular reason these socialistic businesses failed.
I am sure Mr. Douglas does not reflect the views of the hon. member for Vancouver East, who unfortunately is not able to be in this house at the moment. I am satisfied that this hon. gentleman, who is just as straightforward and has made just as many statements that have been accepted at face value, will be only too happy to agree that some of the statements I am going to read are rightly attributed to him. I have in my hand a copy of a statement in the Vancouver Province of April 17, 1943, six years prior to the change in spirit of the C.C.F. party. At the tenth annual convention of the C.C.F. party of British Columbia the hon. member is reported as having said:
We must make it clear that we are not a reform party, we are a militant and revolutionary party and intend to be a militant and revolutionary government.
The Budget-Mr. Hahn
On November 10, 1943, the Calgary Albertan reported a speech made by the hon. member on November 9 in Calgary. He had this to
say:
When we become the government we will institute socialism immediately, and would use the power of the police and the military forces to force those opposed to obey the law. Those who defied the government's will would be treated as criminals and if capitalism says "no" then we know the answer-so did Russia.
I believe-and rightly so, I think-that there are at least two extremes in this thinking along socialistic lines in that party.


Mr. Castleden:: Tell us about the $25.


Frederick George Hahn: The hon. member is very much concerned about the $25 a month. We shall deal with this later when we have a proper opportunity. I think the hon. member has heard from time to time that it is possible to pay a dividend once one gains control of this nation, rather than forcing one's thoughts and ideas on others who do not believe in them.
As I said before, and I must repeat, I am satisfied that the hon. member for Vancouver East would not disagree that the statements I have read are rightfully attributed to him. So I am satisfied that the people of Canada should know exactly what type of C.C.F. members we have in this country. I have beside me a copy of the Vancouver Sun dated April 7 of this year. In it I see that the C.C.F. party in British Columbia has elected a new leader. This new leader is a militant socialist, and qualified himself as such. Just exactly what a militant socialist is I shall leave to your own imagination.
I think I have said enough on that subject in so far as classifying the socialists or C.C.F. members is concerned, but 1 too should like to keep the record straight. My purpose in raising this point at this time is that I do not want our C.C.F. friends going throughout the length and breadth of the nation telling the people that they again have thought of something that I am satisfied the Minister of Finance and the government, if it is the government of the time, may decide to institute possibly even next year.
I should like to refer to a Searle Grain Company report of Wednesday, March 28, 1956, which contains an article headed, "The United States Farm Bill, An Interesting Feature." The article reads in part as follows:
Although the United States farm bill has now been passed by the senate various amendments injected in its final stages are likely to receive close scrutiny in the senate-house conference committee; for this reason it is difficult to know in what form it will ultimately reach the president's desk. One of the amendments referred to, the two-price plan for wheat, is a new departure, the outcome of which will be watched closely by Canada. Under this proposal farmers would have

The Budget-Mr. Hahn
the opportunity to decide by referendum whether effective 1957, they would be willing to accept 100 per cent of parity on that portion of the wheat crop entering domestic consumption, normally some 500 million bushels, and whatever price was obtained on world markets for the balance.
I want to keep the record straight, and the reason I raise this point is the fact that on May 17, 1955, as found at page 3829 of Hansard, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), speaking on the two-price system, had this to say:
Parity to us is equity and justice. We do not support, as some other parties in this house do, notably the Social Credit party, a certain percentage of parity for any commodity which is less than 100 per cent, no matter by what formula it may be arrived at.


Solon Earl Low: Prove that.


Mr, Argue:: I shall prove that to you in one
moment.


Solon Earl Low: You cannot.


Hazen Robert Argue: I will prove it right now by quoting the hon. member for Acadia who gave the Social Credit position on agriculture in the budget debate, as reported at page 3626 of Hansard, as follows:
"In this group we have been advocating a two-price system for a number of years; that is, that the domestic market for farm products should be supported at 100 per cent of parity and that farm exports should be sold at the best prices obtainable in the international market, preferably under international agreement but supported by a reasonable support price."


Hazen Robert Argue: The farmer should get parity for all his crop, not just for part of it.


Frederick George Hahn: The hon. member for Assiniboia has repeatedly said that the farmer should get parity for all his crop. I am not going to argue that particular point at this moment.


Hazen Robert Argue: Are you for it or against it?


Frederick George Hahn: No, I am not.


Hazen Robert Argue: You are just for a part of parity.


Frederick George Hahn: I am for what the hon. member for Acadia said we stood for, and I hope the hon. member for Assiniboia will remember when the government proposes to accept a similar plan that it was not his idea or the idea of the government or its supporters but that it was the idea of a bunch of crackpots in this corner of the house, the Social Crediters.


Hazen Robert Argue: You are right when you say "crackpots".


Frederick George Hahn: That is not so.


Hazen Robert Argue: The member is against full parity for the farmer. That is exactly what he is saying now.


Frederick George Hahn: I am saying that I am for the sale of our products, and I will continue to be for that. The fact is that I would apply that same formula to the sale of all our


surplus goods outside of Canada if and when we have surpluses, as we have had in the past.


Hazen Robert Argue: Keep on apologi2ing.


Frederick George Hahn: There are no apologies. I think I made myself quite clear, even as the hon. member did.


Hazen Robert Argue: You are making some progress.


Frederick George Hahn: Don't feel sorry for yourself.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Is that a private war going on over there?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Border tension.


Frederick George Hahn: There were two other problems I had in mind, but I see I will not have time to deal with both of them. I shall devote the major portion of the remainder of my time to the question of social legislation. From time to time I have heard utterances from the government side that there will never be a depression. We have old age pensions, we have old age security, we have war veterans allowances, we have pensions for the blind and for the disabled, we have family allowances and we have unemployment insurance. Undoubtedly all these measures are very valuable in themselves and should take us through a temporary period of decline or depression.
However, there is some difference with respect to this group of pension and insurance measures. There are one or two that are specifically insurance funds, and there are others which are completely dependent upon the ability of the taxpayer to keep the coffers of the Minister of Finance well supplied in order that he can continue to pay. That is completely true under the present orthodox system of finance.
I did note two years ago, however, that we were in a bad way so far as unemployment was concerned. We had the heaviest unemployment in the history of the nation since what are referred to as the dirty thirties. It was apparent to those who studied the situation at all that if such unemployment had continued the fund would have been depleted. However, such was not the case. Certain factors, to which the hon. member for Fort William did not refer, helped. More particularly, the rise of the prosperous economy in the United States helped to take us out of the throes of that very difficult period.
If unemployment had continued at that time there is very little doubt in my mind that the Minister of Finance would have found fewer, and fewer tax dollars in his coffers, with the result that he would have had more and more difficulty in paying for these services, for after all the dollars that our farmers and

labourers pay through income tax are just a reflection of the prosperity of the businessmen of this country.
I was very interested in the reference to small merchants made today by the hon. member for Cape Breton South. It is not an unusual thing for merchants to go bankrupt in this country at the present time. I believe I brought this particular question to the attention of the house a year or so ago. In my one small community alone we find that because of the no down payment cry, four television and electrical stores have gone out of business in the past few weeks. They just cannot compete under a system that permits the sale of goods with no down payment.
The government must make a note of these things if they expect those people to be contented and happy who have had to close their doors because they could not compete with the large merchants referred to a few minutes ago. Competition in itself is one of the finest things this country can possibly have, but not uncontrolled competition making use of the loss leader practice whereby you sell a teakettle costing you $9.25 for $8.95 and make up the difference by issuing credit through loan companies. That is where the bigger stores get their profit, and there must be some measure of control.
I could continue discussing this matter for some time, but if I did so I would lose the opportunity to tell the house how I and thousands of people in this country feel about the assistance that our senior citizens and others should be receiving. The hon. member for Fort William, to whom we listened with some interest, said it was time we woke up. He referred to people on annuities. Yes, it is time we woke up. It is time we woke up to the realization that the dollar of today is not the dollar of yesterday but is only worth 50 cents.
I know that in many respects these are just repetitious remarks so far as the Minister of Finance is concerned. He has heard some of these utterances before. But, Mr. Speaker, it appears that we must continue to draw this matter to the attention of the minister and the government. It is my opinion that in an expanding economy such as that which we now have, continued expansion depends, and should not, wholly upon social welfare. It should depend upon ability of the businessman to get money with which to progress and further expand his business.
Earlier in the session I among others drew to the attention of the government the decline in the return to the agriculturist in comparison with what he had a right to expect a few years ago. I believe the figure that
The Budget-Mr. Hahn was used was something like 6-7 per cent of the gross national income as the proportion received today by the farmer, as compared with the 20 per cent of the population which he represents; and that I think was compared with what we had back in the 1930's.
Mr. Speaker, the agriculturist is not the only man who suffers a decline. We have these people who are on fixed incomes suffering in exactly the same way. The old age pensioner no longer is asking for a hand-out. He does not have to. The old age pensioner of today in all likelihood contributed something to the compulsory contributory fund through income tax up to a maximum of $60 annually. So it is his by right.
This is not a pay as you go policy, it is admitted. Figures prove that the fund is not self-sustaining. However, it is necessary that these people get more money; that is, if they hope to continue living. We have too many instances-certainly they are not all accidents in the city of Vancouver-of people turning on the gas jet, failing to turn it off and being found dead the next day. These happenings, Mr. Speaker, are not just accidents. In many instances they are quite deliberate. I would say it is our responsibility to see to it that they shall not continue.
We have the problem increasing daily. Young men are forced into compulsory retirement. Who wants a man over 45 years of age, we are told. If he has not a trade or a profession he is just shoved from pillar to post. We have not any place for him in our society. We do not take him and train him as we might or as we should. Maybe he is incapable of being trained. But, Mr. Speaker, because he cannot be trained does not necessarily mean that he should be deprived of the right to earn money, or the right to sustenance. The cost of living is out of all proportion today to what the old age pensioner is receiving. I have here the dominion bureau of statistics Daily Bulletin of Tuesday, January 10, 1956, in which the lead item is as follows:
A survey conducted by the dominion bureau of statistics in five metropolitan areas across Canada indicates that families with two to six members in the nation's larger cities spent an average of $6.94 per person on food every week.
That is just under $7 a week, Mr. Speaker. There are four weeks in the month or approximately 30 days. Worked out on a daily basis, it amounts to about $1 a day. In other words, $30 is the average expenditure each person makes in Canada on food. It is little enough that we expect our senior citizens to live on, a mere pittance of $40 a month, especially now that we are paying into a compulsory contributory fund to make it possible for the government to collect a good portion of it back. After all, it costs only

The Budget-Mr. Hahn $50 million; I believe that is the figure we went into the red last year. That in itself should be little enough contribution from the people of Canada to keep these people alive.
I am satisfied that there are others who recognize the problem. They are closer to it than are we. We practically live in this house for six to eight months of the year. We do not see the poorer people in the cities unless we go home. When we contact them directly or indirectly we receive letters from them asking if we cannot do something to give them some help, somehow or in some way. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, the municipalities that have sent letters to me and the newspaper articles that we read from time to time would indicate that there are thousands of people who are aware of the niggardly way in which we treat our senior citizens.
I have one here. It is a year old; in fact it is two years old now. It is from the Vancouver Province of February 18, 1954, but it is just as true today as it was then. I shall refer to another one later. It is headed "Victoria Sets an Example to Ottawa" and reads in part as follows:
The British Columbia government, in promising assistance to old age pensioners who need it, is giving the government at Ottawa a much needed lesson in generosity and justice.
This is that bunch of crackpot Social Crediters in British Columbia. "Justice" is the word the editorial uses, and possibly it is well chosen. In this article they go on to speak of starvation. Later on they tell about the way they would propose to help these destitute people. Not all old age pensioners are destitute. Not all of them require additional help. However, there is a group that requires help or further assistance. Later on the article goes on to say something about recognition by the government here, by the government's own department, of how much it costs individuals to live. It states as follows:
After all, the Minister of Finance at Ottawa collects no tax on the income of a single person over 65 up to $1,500 a year, and none on a married person up to $2,500. The exemption admits that the single person with $1,500 or less cannot afford a tax and that the married person with $2,500 or less is in the same position.
Why, then, treat the pensioner differently? If the ordinary single citizen over 65 needs $1,500 a year, why pretend that a pensioner can get along on less than half that amount?
Mr. Speaker, I would not be one who would ask for $1,500 a year for these old age pensioners. However, I maintain that when in 1954 the government of British Columbia gave $5 more to the pensioners of that province, they required it; and the province recognized that need as does every self-respecting governing body within this nation. The municipalities are much closer to the
(Mr. Hahn.]
situation than we are, as are the newspaper men. They go to these houses where we find these poor, maimed bodies, and they see for themselves what has taken place. Then in 1956 we had a repetition of the same thing in British Columbia. The Winnipeg Free Press Prairie Farmer of February 8, 1956 had this to say under the heading "B.C. pensions to hit high":
Pensioners living in British Columbia will become the highest paid in Canada if budget proposals of Premier Bennett are implemented.
Incidentally I may say that they were implemented. The article continues:
The premier announced February 1 a $5 increase in the $15 bonus paid by the province above the $40 federal pension.
Only four provinces and the Yukon pay supplements to the $40 federal and provincial old age assistance, all of them conditionally, and mainly for shelter requirements.
British Columbia now will pay $20. Saskatchewan pays up to $20-
Perhaps I could be corrected in this, but I believe the Saskatchewan system works in this way. They will pay up to $20 on condition that there is only one individual in a particular household who is in receipt of the old age pension. Otherwise it would be $20 for two people.
-Alberta $15, Ontario $10 and the Yukon $10.
I believe the Yukon payment comes from the federal treasury. There is a recognition in itself of the fact-and it is certainly true, as hon. members will realize-that in the northern part of this country the cost of living is far higher than anything we find in the more densely populated areas.
There are many other articles to which I could refer, Mr. Speaker. Here is one that strikes me as quaint in its own way, when I contrast it with the statement of the dominion bureau of statistics in respect to the cost of living. I have a clipping from the Vancouver Province of Saturday, January 7, 1956, in which the heading is, in bold type, "You can feed 10 on $40 a week". This amounts to $4 per person per week. The dominion bureau of statistics found that it required $6 and some odd cents, on an average, to feed one person for a week. In the face of that finding this kind of trash has no value in so far as presenting the problem in its proper aspect is concerned. You could feed people on less than that. I have seen people go hungry for a day, but that does not mean that month after month from the time you are 60 or 65 years of age you should be expected to live on such a diet.
I do not know that the article gives the complete diet, but it gives the cost of some of the items, and I shall just use one or two to illustrate how misleading an article such

as this can be. It says eggs, $2.16, but it does not say how many or what price per dozen. It says milk, 40 quarts including dried skim, $6.80. I think it must be mostly dried skim, because I do not know anywhere you can buy milk for 16 and 17 cents a quart. The article refers to sugar, 10 pounds for 50 cents. I am not sure how many hon. members are familiar with the price of food, but I question that statement also. It is indicative of the same sleepy-eyed thinking that goes on across this nation. In the meantime, we do have starvation in the midst of plenty.
I have other newspaper clippings here. This one says, "Senior citizens line up for west van housing". It is dated January 12, 1956. These senior citizens require housing and there just is not any for them. This sort of thing is not localized in the city of Vancouver or New Westminster; we find references to it in the newspapers across this nation. Here we have a clipping on which the heading reads, "Oldster issue urgent". It is taken from the Ottawa Citizen of May 21. Of course this refers to a statement by Mayor Charlotte Whitton when speaking in New York, and possibly for that reason it may not be given the consideration here it should receive. Then there is another clipping from the Vancouver Province of September 14 which says, "Watch food, Father William". It goes on to explain how these senior citizens require dentures. I do not know how they provide them out of $40 per month. We have another clipping on which the heading is, "Housing other major family welfare poser". Still another says, "Montreal's old people need special housing". Here is a letter headed, "Help for old age pensioners". Another clipping has the heading, "Pensioners need homes and hospitals". I do not suppose any person ever thought they had to go to hospitals. Another clipping says, "Our aged accorded 'miserable' treatment".
These clippings are not taken from Hush publication or Tabloid or any of these other publications that are generally referred to as so much trash. They are taken from the leading newspapers in this nation, and I am satisfied we should pay attention to them. Another clipping says, "Pensioners in dyke shacktown fear eviction". These people fear eviction from old shacks in which we would not keep our pigs in the prairie provinces. There is no reason in the world for that, Mr. Speaker. These people fear eviction because there are no homes for them; they have no place to go. Here is another which says, "Let pensioners live where they please".
This raises another very important question. These people who are today the old age pensioners of this country have contributed to
9, 1956	2765
The Budget-Mr. F. G. Power that pension on a compulsory basis of up to $60 per year, depending on their tax rate. This plan is supposed to assist in meeting this particular problem. These people pay into that fund, yet we deprive the old age pensioner of the right to live where he wishes. Certainly once people reach that age we should take into consideration the fact that they will only be with us for a few years. Their sons and daughters are probably most important in their lives, and they want to spend their few remaining years with them. Perhaps it is a case of having to go to a particular area for health reasons. Possibly they are rheumatic or have arthritis or some other unfortunate sickness which causes them to want to live elsewhere. We deny them that right even after they have paid into this fund.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but I must inform him that his time has expired.
(Translation) :


Mr. Frank G. Power (Quebec South):: wish, Mr. Speaker, in these, my opening remarks, to offer my most sincere thanks to the electors of the county of Quebec South for the confidence they manifested in me and in the principles of the Liberal party under the distinguished leadership of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). My election was also, in large measure, a tribute on the part of the electorate to the innumerable and important services rendered to them over the years by my father and predecessor, Senator the Hon. C. G. Power, in whose eminent footsteps I hope to prove a worthy follower. The tradition which he has left me is one of unstinting and devoted service in the interests of the electors of Quebec South, of the city and province of Quebec and of Canada. It is also a tradition of party loyalty and service tempered with clearness and independence of thought. Indeed, it is a tradition which he continues to maintain in his new legislative function, and which I will also endeavour, to the best of my ability, to continue in and out of this house.
And now, Mr. Speaker, I crave your kind indulgence while I say a few brief words about the constituency which I have the honour of representing here and while I discuss certain problems of local interest.
The constituency of Quebec South comprises generally speaking that part of the city of Quebec where the Palais station, the harbour, the Battlefields park, the walled town and upper town are located. It also includes the. city of Sillery which is undergoing a rapid growth. Within its limits is to be

The Budget-Mr. F. G. Power found the first permanent European settlement in Canada. It has felt the tread of the most illustrious figures of Canadian history: Champlain, Maisonneuve,-whose house in Sillery still stands today-Frontenac, Laval, Montcalm and Wolfe, Cartier, Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier, to name but a few. The riding has been the site of the capital of French Canada and of the United Provinces of Canada. The Quebec conference preceding confederation was held there. And within its limits are to be found the provincial parliament buildings. In brief, my constituency is the birthplace of Canada and of Quebec.
While I am on that subject, Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest to the government that because of the historical importance of that city and consequently of the attraction it has for Canadians and Americans, consideration might be given to some financial assistance to the municipality in the form of subsidies or otherwise, especially if we take into account the value of untaxed crown property in the city. In this way the municipal government would be in a position to discharge its heavy responsibilities and to increase the beauty and attractiveness of the city.
But the constituency of Quebec South has more than a historical interest. It also is part of modern Quebec whose progress since 1941 has been truly marvellous. Quebec offers unique advantages from the point of view of the establishment of new industries.
Quebec is one of the main shoe manufacturing districts in Canada. There you find more than 500 industries including bookbinding, tobacco, cigar and cigarettes, ladies' wear, agricultural products, food, furs, iron works, breweries, clothing, wood, pulp and paper.
The town of Sillery which is going to commemorate this year, between the 2nd and the 11th of June, the centenary of the incorporation of its municipality and of its school board, is a pleasant residential town which has grown rapidly since 1945 and of which my forefathers have been among the first settlers.
Now I would like to say a few words relating to some problems with which we are particularly concerned. One of the most important factors in the economic life of my constituency and of the city and district of Quebec is the harbour of Quebec.
The harbour of Quebec, as well as those of Halifax, Saint John, Chicoutimi, Montreal,
fMr. Power (Quebec South).]

Three Rivers, Churchill and Vancouver, is administered by the national harbours board, an institution which was established under chapter 42 of the Statutes of Canada for the year 1936.
Before the adoption of this legislation, the harbour of Quebec was state property and was administered by three government officials called the Quebec harbour commission. The change in the administration was made following Sir Alexander Gibb's recommendations, which he formulated after carrying on, at the request of the government, an inquiry into Canada's national harbours. His conclusions' were to the effect that the administrative system used was not satisfactory.
Consequently, the setting up of a central authority was proposed in order to co-ordinate direction and to supervise finance and works of a technical nature. Besides the central authority, the recommendation was also made to substitute for the harbour commissioners a local civil servant who would be called port manager. This official would have the direction of each harbour under the central authority. The National Harbours Board Act, chapter 42, statutes of 1936, gave effect to the above proposals.
Another recommendation, subordinate to the one above but which, unfortunately, was not put into effect, called for the setting up of a local harbour board which was to represent local interests and those that used the harbour, and would also help out the harbour master in matters of purely local concern.
The partial implementation of the Gibb report, as I have just indicated, resulted in a centralization which evoked almost unanimous criticism throughout the country, criticism which took the form of speeches and resolutions recorded from time to time in the orders of the day of this house.
The policy implemented as a result of the very nature of this act administered by the national harbours board has prevented the adoption of any corrective measure which could have been brought forward so as to stimulate the export of goods through the port of Quebec.
Consequently, Quebec harbour, though showing a balance sheet which is favourable in appearance, is not as widely used and known as it should be. We must not forget that the Quebec harbour commissioners did much to attract business to Quebec and that they fought to obtain concessions such as the preferential tariff on grain carried from Fort William to Quebec on the national transcontinental railway in 1921 and 1926. Since the disappearance of this harbour commission,

its functions of promoting trade in Quebec city have, to a certain extent, been assumed by the Quebec city chamber of commerce. Be that as it may, promotion carried out by that organization is obviously not as wide in scope as it would be if it were carried out by an authority having direct connections with the harbour.
The inherent weakness of the National Harbours Board Act as' it now stands is to be found in the fact that it is not within the terms of reference of the board, nor even of the local port manager, to promote competition between harbours. With regard to Quebec, it would seem that the harbour authorities are completely indifferent to any encouragement or stimulation of local business or to promotion or growth of regional and foreign trade. Indeed, the material assets of Quebec harbour have been so sadly neglected that they have deteriorated in an alarming way. Yet, recently, and as a result of representations made by the chamber of commerce, and supported by all federal members for that area in this house, an impressive program of reconstruction and improvements has been launched and it appears that, following instructions by the government, the national harbour board intends to recondition Quebec harbour. Though such action would be of great help, it would not be enough to ensure the prosperity of this port. It is essential that the recommendations of the Gibb report which I mentioned before, and which have not yet been passed-or some similar legislation-be added to the act so as to improve our domestic and foreign trade and to promote the development of the city by giving the harbour administration a more complete autonomy in co-operation with local business, industrial and labour interests.
(Text):
I wish, Mr. Speaker, in these my opening remarks to offer my most sincere thanks to the electors of the county of Quebec South for the confidence they manifested in me and in the principles of the Liberal party under the distinguished leadership of the right hon. Prime Minister. My election was also in large measure a tribute on the part of the electorate to the innumerable and important services rendered to them over the years by my father and predecessor, Senator C. G. Power, in whose eminent footsteps I hope to prove a worthy follower. The tradition he has left me is one of unstinting and devoted service in the interests of the electors of Quebec South, of the city and province of Quebec and of Canada. It is also a tradition of party loyalty and service tempered with fairness and independence of thought. Indeed,
9, 1956
The Budget-Mr. F. G. Power it is a tradition which he continues to maintain in his new legislative function, and which I shall also endeavour to the best of my ability to maintain both in this house and outside of it.
Mr. Speaker, I crave your kind indulgence while I say a few brief words about my constituency, Quebec South. It comprises, generally speaking, the harbour of Quebec, the walled town and the upper town. It also contains the modern city of Sillery. Its population is composed of about 85 per cent French speaking Canadians and 15 per cent English speaking Canadians, and of the 15 per cent half are Protestant and half Roman Catholic.
It is a marvellously beautiful county, as have testified the thousands and thousands of tourists who visit this section of Quebec and district every year. It has felt the tread of the most illustrious figures in Canadian history, such as Champlain, its founder; Maisonneuve, the founder of Montreal, whose house in Sillery still stands today; Laval, the founder of the oldest university on the continent; Frontenac, one of the greatest of its governors; Montcalm and Wolfe, whose glorious deaths are commemorated by the battlefields park and by numerous monuments and statues; Macdonald, Cartier and Sir Wilfrid Laurier, to name but a few. It is the site of the first permanent European settlement in Canada; in essence it is the cradle of Canada and the repository of a major part of its history. It is not surprising therefore, that I am deeply honoured and proud of the fact that I have been chosen to represent it in this house.
Mr. Speaker, whilst I am a newly arrived member of this house I am not a stranger to politics. Although I would not by any stretch of the imagination describe myself as an expert politician, for I have a great deal to learn, I have had some seven years of practical political experience as my father's assistant, and since adolescence I have been exposed more or less to the pratical and theoretical aspects of politics. As a result there has been developed in me the following, and possibly not surprising, theory with regard to my conduct as a member of this house and of the Liberal party.
I believe very strongly in the general political principles and objects of the Liberal party and in the practical manner in which they have been and are generally applied. In consequence of this, and of the fact that I was elected as a supporter of the Liberal party and of this government under the distinguished leadership of the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, I owe loyalty to our party and to my chief. However, I do not believe that

The Budget-Mr. F. G. Power this loyalty should be either blind or unquestioning, nor has the Liberal party or its chief ever so held.
Just as this government, as a Liberal government, has a dual responsibility, on the one hand to the party for the carrying out of the party platform when the occasion presents itself, and on the other hand and more importantly to the people of Canada toward whom it has a responsibility to discharge its functions irrespective of and despite its political commitments, so also I believe that I and every other hon. member of this house has a dual responsibility to the party whose principles he upholds and a responsibility as a member of this house for judging and passing on legislation which is brought down by the government. As in the case of father and son or brother and brother, I feel that any disagreement or criticism which in the discharge of my parliamentary obligations I may be obliged to express should not, or would not, in any way affect my standing as a member, of the Liberal party.
In this connection I would like to cite a paragraph from one of my last campaign speeches in which I expressed essentially the same thought:
In the course of my various discussions with you I have endeavoured to place before you the point of view of one who whilst strongly attached to the party to which he belongs, believes that no candidate should pledge himself in advance to the extent that he be precluded from exercising full liberty of action and the best of his judgment and discretion for the attitude which he will take in
all or any public question which may be presented to him during the course of his mandate as representative of the people.
Mr. Speaker, I have thought it best to avoid in this section of my speech discussion of particular issues of the day for which more appropriate occasions will arise. However, there is one subject now before this house in the form of two bills which I would like to touch upon before I close. I refer to the matter of bilingualism. Representing as I do a constituency which is by a large majority French speaking, and being myself bilingual, although there is room for improvement, I most strongly urge that this house should, as a principle, adopt the extension of bilingualism in the public service and public printing of Canada.
I do not mean that all English speaking or French speaking Canadians should be forced to speak each other's language, but I do feel that a French or English Canadian citizen should be able to obtain information or service from government publications or from selected civil service personnel wherever he may happen to be in Canada. I think this would go a long way toward increasing our sense of national unity.
Shall I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
On motion of Mr. Power (Quebec South) the debate was adjourned.


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

[Stage Direction]
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Hodgson: 1.	How much land was purchased or expropriated
2.
Location	Owner
67 Sacred Heart Blvd., Beaudry, Yvanhoe
100	St. Henri, Belanger, Oscar E 118 St. Henri, Bourgeois, Mrs. Jeanne 114 St. Henri, Brais, Wilfrid 37 Sacred Heart Blvd., Charron, Alcide 37 Sacred Heart Blvd., Charron, Alcide 130 St. Henri, Charron, Philorum 15 St. Florent, Cote, Mrs. Charles 39 Sacred Heart Blvd., d'Allemagne, Mrs. Laure
84	St. Hyacinthe, Despati, Mrs. R. A 112 St. Henri, Drolet, Henri 111 St. Henri, Dubois, Mrs. P
101	St. Florent, Fortin, Aldege 107 St. Florent, Gagnon, Mrs. Florence
85	St. Florent, Giroux, Mrs. Irene 55 Sacred Heart Blvd., Gratton, Arthur 59 Sacred Heart Blvd., Gratton, Lionel 109 St. Florent, Groulx, Eugene 122 St. Henri, Hebert, Mrs. S City of Hull
116 St. Henri, Labarge, Mrs. Henri 120 St. Henri, Labarge, Henri 91 St. Florent, Landriault, Arthur 89 St. Florent, Landriault, Lionel 89 St. Florent, Landriault, Leo 97 St. Florent, Legault, Mrs. C 53 Sacred Heart Blvd., Moisan, Cyrille
105	St. Florent, Parent, Lionel 85 St. Hyacinthe, Pichard, Francois Part Lot 5, Pilon, Estate of 79 Sacred Heart Blvd., Pilon, Jos., Co. Ltd
106	St. Henri, Rouselle, Antonio 124 St. Henri, Raymond, Ovila
99	St. Florent, Tessier, Philias 103 St. Florent, Thibeault, Leo 41 Sacred Heart Blvd., Viau, Alfred
100	St. Henri, Villeneuve, Romeo...
Questions
for the government printing bureau in Hull,
Quebec?
2.	What was the cost of each parcel and total cost?
3.	What was the cost of foundations, alterations and other work?
4.	What is the total cost to date?
Answer by: Mr. Winters:
1.	An area approximately 1,250 feet square. (1,562,500 sq. ft.)
Amount of settlement .$	3,000.00
17.360.00 5,678.97
,	7,307.69
43.891.48 5,867.43
2.500.00
3.000.	00
.	51,132.32
2.500.00
5.000.	00
8.000.	00
5.000.	00
3.600.00 9,212.45
10,000.00
7.500.00
4.000.	00
7.375.00
11.957.00
3.500.00
3.500.00
8.000.	00
1.700.00
4.000.	00
4.000.	00
7.000.	00
2.355.00 4,407.69
20.304.48 235,548.00
7.615.38
8.615.38
4.500.00
2.500.00
8.350.00 5,302.10
Cost of site on which building is erected..
3.	(a) Cost of foundations-$480,684.27;
4.	Total cost to date-$13,540,988.81.


ATOMIC POWER PLANTS, NEW BRUNSWICK
Mr. Bell: 1.	Have official requests been received from New Brunswick to consider construction of an atomic power plant in that province?
2.	If so, when, and with what reply?
3.	Have engineers from the New Brunswick Electric Power Commission been working at the atomic power plant near Chalk River?
	$545,080.37
(b) alterations and other work-nil.
4.	If so, for what reason?
5.	Is consideration given to said power requests of the provinces on a need basis?
Answer by: Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):
1 and 2. No. In early 1955 Atomic Energy of Canada Limited invited proposals from the electric power utilities to join them in a small reactor project. This reactor would be a
i770

Questions
prototype or demonstration power reactor. The New Brunswick Electric Power Commission expressed interest but did not submit a proposal.
3.	No.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	This question has not arisen. The only atomic power plant which has been considered so far is for demonstration purposes only.


WESTERN SHIPPING CHANNEL, TORONTO
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 325
Mr. Michener:: What would be the estimated cost of moving the western shipping channel of Toronto harbour to a location south of the Toronto island airport and filling in the present channel so that the island airport would be connected directly with the mainland?
Answer by: Mr. Winters:
Not' known. Detailed engineering studies have not been made.


C.B.C,-TELEVISION NEWSCAST
Mr. Henderson: 1.	Could not the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation T.V. newscast be televised at an earlier hour than 11 p.m. in the eastern Ontario area?
2.	If not, for what reason?
Answer by: Mr. McCann:
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation advises as follows:
1.	The national television news could be rescheduled by dropping some programs and might be in the future, but 11 p.m. has so far been judged to be, on balance, the best regular time in the light of various considerations of programming and the interests of viewers.
2.	See answer to No 1.


DISABLED PERSONS ASSISTANCE-WESTMORLAND COUNTY, N.B.
Mr. Murphy (Westmorland): 1.	How many persons in Westmorland county, New Brunswick, are receiving assistance under the Disabled Persons Act?
2.	Are all such persons receiving the assistance either "bedfast" or "chairfast"?
3.	Are the regulations the same in all provinces?
Answer by: Mr. Martin:
1 and 2. A province is not required to furnish information to the federal authorities regarding disabled persons allowances paid in any specific area within the province. The information requested is therefore not available.
3.	The disabled persons regulations apply in all provinces.


NATIONAL HEALTH PROGRAM-SANITATION SERVICES
Mr. Houck: 1.	Has any federal assistance been provided under the national health program to provincial sanitation services?
2.	If so, what services have been assisted?
Answer by: Mr. Marlin:
1 and 2. Yes. Environmental sanitation services have been improved and strengthened in all the provinces. Special engineering investigations and research projects on environmental problems have been carried out, such as a study of rural domestic septic tank operation, a study of the nitrate content of ground water, studies related to the adaptation of recognized potable water standards to the natural water sources, and a special water resources survey in Ontario. Professional training has been made possible to 366 sanitary inspectors and 45 sanitary engineers. Environmental sanitation services were extended through the employment over the past eight years of 156 additional sanitary inspectors and 14 sanitary engineers.



NATIONAL HEALTH PROGRAM


Mr. Houck: 1.	Have any federal funds been provided under the national health program towards blindness prevention services?
2.	If so, what have been the purposes of the grants made?
Answer by: Mr. Martin:
1 and 2. Yes. National health grants have assisted in the establishment of glaucoma clinics at the Toronto General hospital, Montreal General hospital, St. Sacrement hospital in Quebec city and the Hotel Dieu hospital in Montreal. In 1955, a pilot glaucoma clinic was started for patients at the provincial hospital, Lancaster, New Brunswick. Research into various diseases affecting the eye were supported at the Banting institute and the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto. A special survey of visual needs in rural areas of Alberta was undertaken and extensive aid is being given in almost all provinces toward the cost of testing school children's vision.



NO. 5 EQUIPMENT DEPOT, R.C.A.F  CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES

Mr. Murphy (Westmorland): 1.	How many civilians are employed by number 5 Royal Canadian Air Force equipment depot, Moncton, New Brunswick?
2.	How many new civilian employees were taken on in the years 1953 to 1955, inclusive?
3.	How many of these employees were nonpermanent or hourly paid employees?

4.	How many positions formerly held by civilians have been filled by service personnel from 1953 to 1955, inclusive?
Answer by: Mr. Campney:
1.	553.
2.	439.
3.	437.
4.	1.



MARRIAGE REGULATIONS, R.C.A.F.

Mr. Pallet!: What steps must an officer or airman who is not deemed to be married under Queen's regulations (air) article 205.20(2) (a) take to be deemed to be married?
Answer by: Mr. Campney:
If the marriage of the officer or airman has been dissolved or annulled within the meaning of QR(air) article 205.20 (2)(a)(i), nothing can alter his status under the article except, of course, his remarriage.
In respect to (2)(a)(ii), it might be possible for the officer or airman to bring a motion in court for cancellation of the maintenance decree. If successful, he could then substitute a personal contractual arrangement with his wife, e.g. "separation agreement". If there are children, it might be possible to have the court order altered to decree payments in respect of the children and not of the wife. In either of the foregoing cases, the officer or airman would be "deemed to be married" within the meaning of article 205.20.



USE OF FLUORIDE IN TOOTHPASTE

Mr. Garland: 1. Has the Department of National Health and Welfare any evidence that toothpaste containing fluoride is effective in preventing dental caries?
Questions
2. Has any conclusion been reached by the Canadian Dental Association or by the American Dental Association on this subject?
Answer by: Mr. Martin:
1.	While evidence has been presented by one commercial source which strongly suggests that toothpaste containing stannous fluoride may be effective in reducing the incidence of dental caries this evidence has not been confirmed by other research workers.
2.	The research committee of the Canadian Dental Association has examined all the published evidence concerning stannous fluoride dentifrices and has published its findings. Its conclusion is as follows:	"A
dentifrice containing stannous fluoride has been reported to reduce dental caries significantly. This study awaits confirmation by other laboratories".
The council on therapeutics of the American Dental Association does not accept any evidence which they have seen to date as conclusive proof of its effectiveness.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Purdy: 1.	Does the Department of National Defence make use of radio in its advertising program?
2.	If so, (a) what stations in Nova Scotia have been used during the past year by various branches of the service and what was the length of the programs: (b) what amount has been paid or is payable to each station for the period under review?
Answer by: Mr. Campney:
1. Yes.
2 (a) and (b).
Station	Length of Program	Amounts PaidCJFX, Antigonish	One-minute	spot	announcementsCommercial portion of newscast	
$1,103.25CKBW, Bridgewater	One-minute	spot announcements20-second flashes	
139.40CHNS, Halifax	One-minute	spot	announcementsCommercial portion of newscast	
2,743.23CJCH, Halifax	One-minute	spot	announcementsCommercial portion of newscast	
2,244.63CKEN, Kentville	One-minute	spot	announcements20-second flashes	
105.50CFAB, Windsor	One-minute	spot announcements. 51.00CKEC, New Glasgow	One-minute	spot announcements20-second flashes	
500.00CJCB, Sydney	One-minute	spot	announcementsCommercial portion of newscast	
2,570.60CKCL, Truro	One-minute	spot announcements. 613.45CJLS, Yarmouth	One-minute	spot	announcements
Commercial portion of newscast
20-second flashes	 755.90

Questions



NATIONAL GALLERY PAINTINGS

Mr. Murphy (Lambion West): 1.	Did anyone on behalf of the federal government or the national art gallery have any dealings with one Gulbenkian in connection with the purchase of paintings for the art gallery?
2.	If so, what are the particulars?
Answer by: Mr. Pickersgill:
1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.



SHIPPEGAN ISLAND, N.B.  WHARF

Mr. Van Horne: 1.	How much did the wharf at Ste-Marle-sur-Mer on Shippegan island cost?
2.	How much money has been spent on dredging, maintenance, alterations and repairs in respect to the said wharf since it was built?
3.	Can this wharf accommodate trawlers?
4.	How many boats using this wharf belong to residents of Ste-Marie-sur-Mer?
Answer by: Mr. Winters:
1.	$263,945.00 (breakwater); $180,253.17 (pier).
2.	Dredging, $55,361.45; maintenance and repairs, $11,626.99; alterations, nil.
3.	The depth of water adjacent to the wharf is 5 feet at L.W.O.S.T. Boats with lesser drafts can use this wharf at all tides.
4.	Information not available.



D.E.W. LINE  AIR TRANSPORT FROM ALASKA

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 363*-Mr. Diefenbaker:
1.	Has the air transport board received complaints since December 1, 1955, that Canadian air lines were not approached for bids on the transport out of Eagle, Alaska, to D.E.W. line points in the Yukon?
2.	If so, from whom were complaints received, and on what dates?
Answer by: Mr. Marler:
1 and 2. Yes, a joint complaint was received from Callison's Flying Service, of Dawson, Yukon Territory, and Pacific Western Airlines Limited of Whitehorse, Y.T., on January 12, 1956.

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 371
Mr. Knight:: 1.	How many of the 140 books prohibited from entry into Canada under tariff item 1201, in 1955, were so prohibited as a result of examination in that year?
2.	Has the department of customs and excise a staff of readers to examine such books?
3.	If so, who (by name) are those readers?
4.	Were all the books submitted to these readers so submitted by customs officers at various points of entry?
5.	From what points of entry were books submitted?
6.	From what other sources were books submitted to these readers?
7.	In case of indecision on the part of readers as to suitability for admission, who makes the final decision?
8.	Are some books submitted to the department's readers for a decision before shipment is made in bulk?
9.	Are any such books submitted by authors or publishers?
10.	What instructions are issued to customs officers at ports of entry as to the admission of books not on the prohibited list? (a) Are such books automatically admitted? (b) Are they or samples of them sent to Ottawa for examination?
11.	Is there a minimum requirement of education for customs officers at all ports of entry, and if so, what is such minimum requirement?
Answer by: Mr. McCann:
1.	All.
2.	Books are reviewed by various members of the customs and excise division and not by a particular staff.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	No.
5.	From numerous and various ports of entry across Canada. No record of books submitted for review is maintained on a port basis.
6.	Individuals, publishers, public authorities, national, provincial and local organizations, and others.
7.	Final decision in all cases is made by the Minister of National Revenue.
8.	Yes.
9.	Yes.
10.	No special instructions are issued for this purpose. Officers are governed by the requirements of section 36 of the Customs Act and guided by the list of publications prohibited under tariff item 1201, as well as the supplementary listings of authors and publishers of matter appearing on the list, (a) No. (b) Yes.
11.	Yes. Various educational requirements exist for different positions in customs and excise, but the minimum requirement is two years' high school.



INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, MANITOBA   SOLICITORS' FEES

Mr. Pommer: 1.	Who are the solicitors for the industrial development bank in Manitoba?
2.	What fees have been paid these solicitors, and to whom, in the years 1953, 1954, 1955?
Answer by: Mr. Harris:
1 and 2. This information is not of government record.

Tuesday, April 10, 1956



WELCOME TO HON. MEMBER FOR PEACE RIVER ON HIS RETURN FOLLOWING ILLNESS

Mr. Speaker:: Welcome to all, of course, but a very special welcome to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low). We are glad to see him back with us.



REVISION OF SALARIES OF TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES

Mr. Speaker:: I wish to inform the house that the commissioners of internal economy have reviewed the salaries of temporary employees of the House of Commons. It is my pleasure to report that they have authorized a revision of salaries in line with the increases being granted to civil servants. This decision conforms with our practice to the effect that in the past when general salary revisions have been granted to public service employees the salaries of our temporary employees have been adjusted, effective from the same date as that which has been announced for the coming into effect of the increased salaries of the civil servants.



THE LATE J. W. NOSEWORTHY

Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members of the house were saddened at the news we received during the Easter recess of the death of one of our colleagues, Mr. Joseph Noseworthy. The news came to us as a particularly startling shock, for only a few weeks before we had been happy to witness what seemed to be his successful and rapid recovery from an ailment which had kept him away from his desk for a few days earlier this session.
Mr. Noseworthy's career was one of many victories against heavy odds. He was in the true sense a self-made man who quietly and persistently overcame the obstacles that lay before him. The son of a Newfoundland fisherman, it was not until after he migrated to Canada in 1910 that he was able to work his way through college and university and complete the higher education which had always been his aim. Thereafter his rise in his profession as a teacher was rapid.
Within a few years he became the head of a department of a large collegiate in north Toronto. It was while serving in that post that his fellow teachers showed their appreciation of his professional and personal qualities by electing him president of the Ontario secondary school teachers federation, a position he held for nine years.
His very election to this house in a famous by-election in 1942 gave striking evidence of the way in which Mr. Noseworthy met and overcame difficulties. Since coming to this house he applied the full force of his talents in the promotion of the political and social principles in which he believed and he made many able contributions to a wide variety of debates in this chamber. Those of us who did not always agree with him in what he said nevertheless respected him for the sincerity with which he spoke and for the kindliness and courtesy of his relations with his fellow members.
To Mrs. Noseworthy and the members of the family who have lost a beloved husband and father and to the leader and members of his party who have lost a valued colleague, Mr. Speaker, we all extend, I am sure, our deepest sympathy.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, in joining with the Prime Minister in the expression of regret and sympathy in the loss of a friend who was known to everyone here as a kind, gentle and very devoted member of this house, I feel that I should also repeat what the Prime Minister has said with regard to Mr. Noseworthy's return to this house earlier. The very fact that he did come back to the House of Commons after an earlier illness suggested the certainty that the damage of the attack he had suffered had not been too severe. I think every one of us looked with confidence to his continued good health.
Mr. Noseworthy brought to this house the warm, personal interest in the affairs of his own community that grew out of his service as a teacher in that community. On educational matters he spoke with authority; on other matters he spoke with the interests of those he served at heart.
I think it can be said that there was not a single member of this house who did not hold him in high, personal regard. I know that all of us are going to miss his contributions very greatly and will miss from
2724	HOUSE OF
The late J. W. Noseworthy our ranks in this house a man who had given long years of public service in many fields. On behalf of the party I have the honour to lead I join with the Prime Minister in expressing our profound sympathy to the members of Mr. Noseworthy's family in his untimely death. I also extend to his associates in the party to which he gave such devoted service our sympathy in their loss.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, I should like to be associated with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in paying tribute to our late colleague, Mr. Noseworthy. When I contemplate the empty seat beside me which formerly was occupied by Mr. Noseworthy, and when I think of my own recent experience, I cannot help noting the appalling way in which heart disease is taking its toll of the Canadian people, and all too frequently of the members of this house. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that under the circumstances we ought to be redoubling our efforts to find out the cause of this appalling loss of life and impairment of health being caused by Canada's No. 1 killer. Perhaps no greater tribute could be paid to Mr. Noseworthy than to set up some sort of memorial fund for the study of heart disease because that is the thing which, if not directly certainly indirectly, took his life.
I want to pay my tribute to Mr. Nose worthy as a sincere and kindly gentleman whom I always enjoyed meeting and who always treated me very well. He was a fighter for the betterment of those people who most need help in our country, and he was always working on their behalf.
I want to join with the others in extending my sympathy to the members of his family in their irreparable loss and also to extend to the leader of the C.C.F. party and his colleagues our sympathy in their loss of a devoted colleague.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, would you allow me to express to you and to the members of the house my sincere thanks and gratitude for the warm welcome extended to me today. May I tell you how happy I am to be back in my place in the House of Commons. I have always felt that the greatest blessing that can come to any man is to be able to work all his days. I am glad to say that my doctors have given me encouragement. They say that it will be possible for me now to ease into the work gradually, and I hope I shall be able to take my full responsibility before long.
During the time I was in hospital in Calgary I received thousands of messages of encouragement, understanding and good will IMr. Drew.]

from people all across Canada. Amongst those were many from this house and from my colleagues here. Those messages gave me great encouragement and a lift that was much like a transfusion. They contributed in no mean way to the speed with which I was able to recover. I want to thank all hon. members for their kindness to me and for the kindness they have extended to my family while I was absent and impaired. I am glad to be back and wish to express my sincere thanks to all.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, may I first express my appreciation for the kindly references that have been made to the party which I have the honour to lead in this house in the loss that we have sustained in the death of a good friend and colleague. Joe Noseworthy's life was devoted to good causes throughout the whole of it. As the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has said, he was born under humble circumstances in a fisherman's home in Newfoundland. He literally had to fight his way through school. Then he devoted his life for some time to the Grenfell mission in Labrador where he worked for the health and the welfare of the people of that part of Newfoundland which is now also a part of this country.
He came to Canada in 1910, making up his mind that he would complete his university course. He worked his way through university by taking all kinds of work in the summer to enable him to get through. There he specialized in English and in history, becoming later on, as the Prime Minister has said, a teacher in one of the Ontario high schools where he remained for a number of years, indeed until he was elected as a member of the House of Commons. May I just say in passing that one of the assets he had when he was seeking election to this house in 1942 was that he had made great friends of the students of Vaughan collegiate where he was a teacher, and they wholeheartedly went out to support him in that election, a fact which I think was a great tribute to him as a teacher and friend of the young people in that community.
I knew him long before he came to this house. When I was the president of the Canadian Teachers' Federation he was associated with the secondary school teachers of Ontario. He contributed greatly to the welfare of the teaching profession of this country. The excellent brief which was presented to the Rowell-Sirois commission when it sat in this city some years ago was largely the work of the late Joseph Noseworthy, and the teachers of the country are grateful to him and appreciative of the work that he did for them in that regard.

He was elected to this parliament in 1942. As the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister and the leader of the Social Credit party have said, in this house we found him to be a great friend, a great representative of his constituency and a fine personality. We shall miss him from this place. To his colleagues and to myself, he was always a loyal friend. I feel personally that in the passing of Joseph Noseworthy I have lost one with whom I have been associated for some 30 years in the teaching profession and the House of Commons, and that is a very real and personal loss as well as a loss to the party which I represent.
We too join in expressing our deepest sympathy to his widow, his daughters, his son and other members of the family in their sad and sudden bereavement.
Sometimes we can find in the literature of our language something which appropriately describes an individual. Robert Browning, in one of his poems, wrote these words:
One who never turned his back but marched breast forward,
Never doubted clouds would break,
Never dreamed, though right were worsted, wrong would triumph,
Held we fall to rise, are baffled to fight better, Sleep to wake.
I know of no words more appropriate than those to describe the life and work of Joseph Noseworthy.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I should like to say a brief word, Mr. Speaker. Because our colleague belonged to the same branch of the church as I do, I felt it was my duty, as well as my privilege, to call on him when he was ill. I was cheered because I found he was not afraid of death, and what we know as death was to him a release to a greater life and larger liberty: not dead but living.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


George Carlyle Marler: I wish to make a statement concerning the transport of supplies out of Eagle, Alaska, in connection with the construction by the United States of the distant early warning line.
The agreement between Canada and the United States for the construction of the D.E.W. line in Canada provides that Canadian carriers will to the fullest extent practicable be afforded the opportunity to participate in D.E.W. 'line transportation in Canada; and as hon. members know, the greater part of the airlift for the D.E.W. line has been carried out by Canadian air carriers. The transport of 67509-173i
National Defence-D.E.W. line construction materials to D.E.W. line sites offers many difficulties and has necessitated the use of different routes and different modes of transportation.
During the winter of 1954-55 Alaska Freight Lines-a United States company which operates barges between Seattle and Alaska and trucks and tractors in Alaska, and which has, I understand, a Canadian subsidiary-moved certain materials for the D.E.W. line by means of a snow train from Circle, Alaska, almost due north to Shingle Point on the Arctic coast in the Yukon. From there it hauled the freight eastward along the coast to certain D.E.W. line sites in Canada.
During the summer of 1955 information from United States sources indicated that it was expected that the same facilities would be used in the winter of 1955-1956 over the same route between Circle and Shingle Point. After examining the matter, the Canadian authorities were satisfied that these snow-train services out of Alaska would be needed during the winter of 1955-1956 for the purpose of the construction of the D.E.W. line. Failure to move the material would have resulted in a serious delay in the shipments urgently required for the D.E.W. line work this winter, but it was pointed out to the United States authorities that any extensive and continuing use of snow trains in Canada should be based upon the use of Canadian operators. I am informed that at least one Canadian company was approached by the construction contractor in that sector, but that company indicated that it could not be ready in time for operations this winter. This is not surprising because not only are considerable organization and extensive equipment necessary, but the route northward from Circle, Alaska, is not in an area in which Canadian operators are normally interested.
In developing its plans for operations in the winter of 1955-56, Alaska Freight Lines found it desirable to cut a winter road from Eagle, Alaska, eastward to Norman Wells and thence northeastward to the Arctic coast. This change of route was made without consultation with the Canadian government, and accordingly final permission for the operation was withheld by the Canadian authorities until the company had supplied full details as to the operation and had satisfied Canadian officials that it would comply with all applicable Canadian laws and regulations.
May I now, Mr. Speaker, deal with the subject of complaints. A joint complaint from two Canadian charter air carriers, one at Whitehorse and the other at Dawson, alleging that Alaska Freight Lines was improperly using United States aircraft to assist the snow-train operations in Canadian territory,

Proposed Legislation
was received by the air transport board. Upon investigation it was found that though Alaska Freight Lines may, in its earlier operations to which I have referred, have made use of United States aircraft, it was, at the time of the complaint, using the services of one Canadian and one United States light aircraft.
No other complaint has been received by the departments of national defence, transport and national revenue.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that what I have just said replies fully to the question which the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker) addressed to the Prime Minister on the orders of the day on March 23.
I understand that the Whitehorse board of trade did prepare a brief criticizing the operations in Canadian territory of Alaska Freight Lines and suggesting that it was not conforming with Canadian laws and regulations. This brief was addressed not to the government but to the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Simmons), who communicated its contents to the departments concerned. These departments report that the laws and regulations administered by them have been complied with and that the necessary steps have been taken to ensure that they will continue to be complied with. The hon. member for Yukon has informed me that the principal object which the Whitehorse board of trade had in mind was the operations next winter, 1956-57, and I hope that it will be possible to satisfy them on this point.



CANADA GRAIN ACT


Hazen Robert Argue: for leave to introduce Bill No. 210, to amend the Canada Grain Act (distribution of box cars).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Explain.


Hazen Robert Argue: The purpose of this bill, Mr. Speaker, as usual, is to provide a new method for the allocation of box cars at each marketing point so that producers will be enabled to deliver their grain to the elevator of their choice.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


Stanley Howard Knowles: for leave to introduce Bill No. 211, to provide for annual holidays with pay for employees.


Hazen Robert Argue: Explain.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide by law that all employees in Canada who come under federal labour jurisdiction be granted at least two weeks' holidays with pay after one year's employment. This bill would thus write into federal law a provision already on the statute books of some of the provinces, the provision of at least two weeks' holidays after one year being the best of any such provisions.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 49-Mr. Knowles (for Mr. Mac-
Innis):
For a copy of all letters, telegrams and other communications, from August 1, 1955 to February 24, 1956, between any person in the Post Office Department and any person or persons in Vancouver, British Columbia, relative to the change of location of the sub-post office Vancouver-Joyce (No. 9795), and the change of postmaster at the said sub-post office.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would let this motion stand until the Postmaster General is here?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.
Motion stands.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 57-Mr. Knowles:
For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Prime Minister and any organizations representing federal civil servants (including postal employees and any others), dated at any time since January 1, 1955, with reference to the question of collective bargaining between such employees and the federal government.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Prime Minister if he will inform the hon. members of this house in regard to what was discussed, and, in so far as that is possible, what was achieved at the meeting in Virginia which he attended just before Easter.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I anticipated that there might be such a question and I prepared a rather brief statement of what took place there which otherwise I would not have inflicted upon the house ten or twelve days after the visit that has been so fully, although

not always as accurately as fully, reported in the newspapers of both countries.
This visit took place at White Sulphur Springs on March 26 and 27 between the heads of governments of the United States, Mexico and Canada. The host at this meeting was the President of the United States who in his invitation and subsequently emphasized that it would be of an informal character without agenda for the purpose of exchanging views on matters of mutual interest and of getting to know each other better.
In view of the character of the meeting, no decisions were reached and none was expected. It was, however, from my point of view, both helpful and agreeable to be in a position to discuss current international affairs with the presidents of the United States and Mexico in this informal way. There was also an opportunity to bring up one or two subjects of specific Canadian-United States concern with President Eisenhower and Mr. Dulles.
The general discussion centred largely upon the comprehensive report which Mr. Dulles made on his recent visit to Asia. It has been stated in the press that in the subsequent exchange of views there was an emphatic expression of policy difference between the United States and Canada in respect of communist China. The reports in that form are without foundation. It is quite true that both President Eisenhower and Mr. Dulles explained very frankly the reasons why recognition of the communist government at Peking could not be contemplated under present circumstances and why they felt their support should be continued to the government of Chiang Kai-shek. However, there was nothing said about the Canadian position which would suggest any change whatsoever from that stated in the house by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) on January 31 either in respect of recognition or of our attitude toward the islands of Quemoy and Matsu off the coast of China.
Each government is fully aware of the position of the other in these matters, as indeed they were before the meeting at White Sulphur Springs. It is true, however, and this was recognized at our recent meeting, that there are many countries which have recognized the Peking regime, and that this has created a problem as to which regime should represent China at the United Nations, a problem which may be expected to grow more acute as time goes on.
There was considerable discussion over the position in the Middle East, the seriousness of which, of course, everyone recognized. It was agreed that, while all possible steps to
Inquiries of the Ministry reduce immediate tension should be taken, peace could only be secured there by an agreed political settlement between Israel and its neighbours. In this connection, the three governments welcomed the expected intervention of the United Nations at this time, since formalized through the resolution which has just been passed unanimously by the security council. I am sure that the Secretary General of the United Nations has our best wishes for success in the very important mission on which he is now engaged in consequence of this resolution.
There was also general discussion of the possible consequences of recent communist party developments in Russia. I got the impression that it was felt that any firm conclusion in regard to the long-range importance of these changes would be premature but that, in any event, they would not warrant any relaxation of effort on our part, either in defence or diplomacy or negotiation.
Consideration was also given to the problems arising out of the emergence of new states in Asia and Africa, states which are as sensitive about their national independence as they are insistent on greater human welfare for their people. In this connection there was an exchange of views as to the desirability of continuing international economic assistance to materially underdeveloped countries, and especially as to the importance of removing any feeling that such assistance on the part of western countries had any ulterior motive or was inspired by any other spirit than good will and understanding. On the Canadian side, we expressed the view that it might help to remove any suspicions of ulterior motives if the United Nations were brought more into the picture than it had been, at least from the point of view of using the organization as a clearing house for plans and policies and information in regard to international assistance schemes. We felt that this had been done with good results in the annual meetings of the ministerial committee of the Colombo plan, and that possibly this practice could be usefully extended to the wider field of the United Nations, so that it would become clear to the whole world community what various countries were doing in this matter and why they were doing it.
In our bilateral talks, I emphasized once again to the President the importance of better-balanced trade between our two countries. I referred to the existing unfavourable balance in our visible trade, and I mentioned that the compensation or correction of this imbalance by capital movements occasionally was the cause of some concern in this country
2728	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry lest the control of our economic development, which should remain in Canadian hands, might be prejudiced thereby.
I also suggested to the President that the time seemed to have come when problems regarding the use of water power on rivers crossing the international boundary might well be studied at a conference between representatives of the two governments. Here I might perhaps extend this a little to answer a question of which notice was telephoned to my office by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton). There was no discussion of the problem, but merely the suggestion that it would probably be desirable at this time to have it studied by a joint conference representing the two governments, to try to get at something which would make for the possibility of expeditious use of these water powers to the best possible advantage of the people who might derive advantage from their use. It was left at that, with the understanding that the subject would be further pursued in discussions between our Department of External Affairs and the Secretary of State of the United States.
Needless to say, the President expressed a very warm feeling for this country and gratification at the way in which relations between our two peoples were based on mutual respect and friendship and frank statement of diverging views, when there were diverging views. He took advantage of the opportunity to mention some concern over the proposed 20 per cent advertising tax on Canadian editions of United States magazines. My explanation to him of the nature and purpose of this proposal will serve, I hope, to lessen his concern about it.
Having to make this statement, I would not want to end it without expressing once again my grateful thanks to the President and the government of the United States for the kindness and friendly hospitality which they showed us during our visit. I would also like to express my sincere appreciation of the opportunity thus afforded to me to become acquainted with the President of Mexico and to renew my acquaintance with the foreign minister of Mexico. It should be a source of real gratification to all Canadians that the relations between Canada and Mexico are developing in such an important and satisfactory way.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Prime Minister would tell us if the government of the United States shared the view, expressed by this government just before the Easter recess, that the situation in the Middle East has been easing.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not
know that that word was used. The views that were expressed and discussed there were in general to the effect that there were still good grounds to hope that there would be no serious conflict there and that this intervention of the United Nations might have satisfactory results and bring about an agreed political solution which, it seemed to be recognized, was the only way in which peace could be assured in that part of the world.


George Alexander Drew: My question was directed to the fact that there is an obvious difference between the actions taken by the two governments and that this government expressed a definite opinion that the easing situation in the Middle East justified the shipment of the further aircraft to Egypt, and other action that was taken at that time. I wondered if that subject had been discussed on that occasion.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The fact that shipments had been made was alluded to. It was alluded to not in the general meeting with the two Presidents and the Canadian representatives but in our bilateral meeting, and there was expression of satisfaction that we had released those small shipments to Israel.


George Alexander Drew: I referred specifically to the shipment of aircraft to Egypt.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That was not referred to at all.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask the Prime Minister whether his statement that it has been suggested that the problems of the control of the Columbia river should now be discussed directly between representatives of the governments of the two countries means that the Prime Minister or the government feel that the situation has got to the point where it is not likely to be solved under the agency of the international joint commission and that it should therefore be discussed at the higher level by direct negotiation between governments?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I would not like to say this was a higher level but there was a feeling that the chairmen of the two sections had publicly expressed views so diametrically opposed to each other that there was little probability of their being able to make the kind of progress we would hope would be made in arriving at a solution of these problems.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If I may ask one further question, has a date, either definite or tentative, been set yet for the meetings?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No. I would not even wish to convey the impression that the President had agreed that there would be meetings. He seemed interested in the suggestion and it was left that the matter would be further discussed between our Department of External Affairs and the department of the secretary of state.

On the orders of the day:


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask a further question with relation to the matter of the Columbia river development that was referred to earlier? Can the Prime Minister give the house assurance that the surveys and plans for the development of Columbia river power in Canada will not be interfered with in any way because of the prospect of these negotiations, and that no such undertaking was implicit in the discussions?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There was no undertaking implicit whatsoever. It was merely a suggestion that it might be desirable at this time to have the matter looked into, and the Columbia river was not referred to particularly. It was the rivers that cross the international boundary. The Columbia is one of them, the Yukon is another and the Saint John in the east is another. There are several of these rivers. The matter was just referred to. The whole thing probably did not take more than three minutes, not as much time as it has taken in the house to answer the questions.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is no reason why surveys and studies in Canada should not proceed as before?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: My conversation with the President is not a reason why they should not proceed.


REPORTED ESTABLISHMENT OF AIRFIELDS ON ICE FLOES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Before the Easter recess the hon. member for Oxford asked whether any Russian airfields were established on ice floes at the present time in Canadian Arctic waters. There are two ice islands, Mr. Speaker, known to be occupied by Soviet personnel and drifting in Arctic waters. They appear to be used as weather stations and for other scientific purposes. They have landing strips enabling them to be supplied by transport aircraft and they also make use of helicopters. Neither of these ice islands is in Canadian Arctic waters.
Inquiries of the Ministry

On the orders of the day:


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs arising out of the statement he has just made. Did the minister say in the last part of his statement that there are none of these Russian ice airfields in Canadian Arctic waters at present or that there have not been?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I said, Mr. Speaker, that neither of the Arctic stations referred to was in Canadian waters. I cannot say offhand whether there ever has been such a station in Canadian Arctic waters in the past, but I have no knowledge of one.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Will the minister re-examine the income tax files of the breweries of Manitoba to ascertain whether any of them claimed income tax deductibility for the contributions they made, as revealed in Winnipeg last week, to the Liberal, Conservative and Social Credit parties of Manitoba?


James Joseph McCann: I can comply with the request of the hon. gentleman but I doubt very much whether I can give him information about other people's business.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I make it clear that I did not ask the minister to give publicity to information that is secret by law. I asked him if he would examine the files to ascertain for the benefit of the treasury whether or not such deductibility was claimed by the breweries of Manitoba. May I assume the minister will conduct such an examination?


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, I understand the question and will take it into consideration.

On the orders of the day:


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of recent developments in Manitoba, would the minister state whether he, while premier of Manitoba or at any time since then, received any financial contributions from the breweries of Manitoba?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is an easy question to answer. The answer is no.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Speaker, may I direct
a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice. Is the minister aware of any financial contributions made by the breweries to the party with which he is associated?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice. Is the minister aware that the breweries made contributions to the Liberal party in Manitoba during the time he was leader of that party?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the minister now aware
of it since I have told him?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Only on my hon. friend's
authority.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will send my hon. friend
a copy of the Winnipeg Free Press.



REPORTED RECORDINGS OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS WITH TAXPAYERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Has the income tax branch made any recordings of telephone conversations with taxpayers or has it requested that any such recordings be made, as reported in Saturday's issue of the Windsor Daily Star?


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Andrew Ernest Robinson: Mr. Speaker, on a question of personal privilege, I have in my hand a Bruce county brochure. You, sir, will receive one, together with all hon. members of the House of Commons. I wish to say that if any of you can find the time to visit Bruce you have a cordial invitation to look us up at Kincardine.



NATURAL GAS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: In the absence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, may I ask the Prime Minister if any information can be given to the house with respect to the extended reports which appeared in the press during the Easter recess regarding discussions that have taken place as to possible alternative pipe-line projects to carry gas to eastern Canada?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry, but I was away in Quebec during the Easter recess and no communication was made to me of any possible alternative plan in that respect.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister say what the purpose is of the recent increase in the Bank of Canada discount rate and can he assure the house that it will not lead to any general increase in bank interest rates?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, the banking and commerce committee is meeting. The governor of the bank will be available for questioning.


Hazen Robert Argue: Do I take it from the minister's answer that he is giving up his responsibility to make a reply in the house on a very important question of public policy?


Walter Edward Harris: Of course not, Mr. Speaker. TELEVISION



REPLY TO REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF FACILITIES TO MANITOBA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, on March 26 the hon. member for Dauphin asked the following question:
Does the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation intend to extend its television facilities to the province of Manitoba in the near future and, if so, at what points?
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation advises that it is not at present planning to extend its television facilities to cover any additional points in the province of Manitoba in the near future.



REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE OF SUPPLY OF GARRY 27

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['wish, Mr. Speaker, in these, my opening remarks, to offer my most sincere thanks to the electors of the county of Quebec South for the confidence they manifested in me and in the principles of the Liberal party under the distinguished leadership of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). My election was also, in large measure, a tribute on the part of the electorate to the innumerable and important services rendered to them over the years by my father and predecessor, Senator the Hon. C. G. Power, in whose eminent footsteps I hope to prove a worthy follower. The tradition which he has left me is one of unstinting and devoted service in the interests of the electors of Quebec South, of the city and province of Quebec and of Canada. It is also a tradition of party loyalty and service tempered with clearness and independence of thought. Indeed, it is a tradition which he continues to maintain in his new legislative function, and which I will also endeavour, to the best of my ability, to continue in and out of this house.\nAnd now, Mr. Speaker, I crave your kind indulgence while I say a few brief words about the constituency which I have the honour of representing here and while I discuss certain problems of local interest.\nThe constituency of Quebec South comprises generally speaking that part of the city of Quebec where the Palais station, the harbour, the Battlefields park, the walled town and upper town are located. It also includes the. city of Sillery which is undergoing a rapid growth. Within its limits is to be', "The Budget-Mr. F. G. Power found the first permanent European settlement in Canada. It has felt the tread of the most illustrious figures of Canadian history: Champlain, Maisonneuve,-whose house in Sillery still stands today-Frontenac, Laval, Montcalm and Wolfe, Cartier, Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier, to name but a few. The riding has been the site of the capital of French Canada and of the United Provinces of Canada. The Quebec conference preceding confederation was held there. And within its limits are to be found the provincial parliament buildings. In brief, my constituency is the birthplace of Canada and of Quebec.\nWhile I am on that subject, Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest to the government that because of the historical importance of that city and consequently of the attraction it has for Canadians and Americans, consideration might be given to some financial assistance to the municipality in the form of subsidies or otherwise, especially if we take into account the value of untaxed crown property in the city. In this way the municipal government would be in a position to discharge its heavy responsibilities and to increase the beauty and attractiveness of the city.\nBut the constituency of Quebec South has more than a historical interest. It also is part of modern Quebec whose progress since 1941 has been truly marvellous. Quebec offers unique advantages from the point of view of the establishment of new industries.\nQuebec is one of the main shoe manufacturing districts in Canada. There you find more than 500 industries including bookbinding, tobacco, cigar and cigarettes, ladies' wear, agricultural products, food, furs, iron works, breweries, clothing, wood, pulp and paper.\nThe town of Sillery which is going to commemorate this year, between the 2nd and the 11th of June, the centenary of the incorporation of its municipality and of its school board, is a pleasant residential town which has grown rapidly since 1945 and of which my forefathers have been among the first settlers.\nNow I would like to say a few words relating to some problems with which we are particularly concerned. One of the most important factors in the economic life of my constituency and of the city and district of Quebec is the harbour of Quebec.\nThe harbour of Quebec, as well as those of Halifax, Saint John, Chicoutimi, Montreal,\nfMr. Power (Quebec South).]", "Three Rivers, Churchill and Vancouver, is administered by the national harbours board, an institution which was established under chapter 42 of the Statutes of Canada for the year 1936.\nBefore the adoption of this legislation, the harbour of Quebec was state property and was administered by three government officials called the Quebec harbour commission. The change in the administration was made following Sir Alexander Gibb's recommendations, which he formulated after carrying on, at the request of the government, an inquiry into Canada's national harbours. His conclusions' were to the effect that the administrative system used was not satisfactory.\nConsequently, the setting up of a central authority was proposed in order to co-ordinate direction and to supervise finance and works of a technical nature. Besides the central authority, the recommendation was also made to substitute for the harbour commissioners a local civil servant who would be called port manager. This official would have the direction of each harbour under the central authority. The National Harbours Board Act, chapter 42, statutes of 1936, gave effect to the above proposals.\nAnother recommendation, subordinate to the one above but which, unfortunately, was not put into effect, called for the setting up of a local harbour board which was to represent local interests and those that used the harbour, and would also help out the harbour master in matters of purely local concern.\nThe partial implementation of the Gibb report, as I have just indicated, resulted in a centralization which evoked almost unanimous criticism throughout the country, criticism which took the form of speeches and resolutions recorded from time to time in the orders of the day of this house.\nThe policy implemented as a result of the very nature of this act administered by the national harbours board has prevented the adoption of any corrective measure which could have been brought forward so as to stimulate the export of goods through the port of Quebec.\nConsequently, Quebec harbour, though showing a balance sheet which is favourable in appearance, is not as widely used and known as it should be. We must not forget that the Quebec harbour commissioners did much to attract business to Quebec and that they fought to obtain concessions such as the preferential tariff on grain carried from Fort William to Quebec on the national transcontinental railway in 1921 and 1926. Since the disappearance of this harbour commission,", "its functions of promoting trade in Quebec city have, to a certain extent, been assumed by the Quebec city chamber of commerce. Be that as it may, promotion carried out by that organization is obviously not as wide in scope as it would be if it were carried out by an authority having direct connections with the harbour.\nThe inherent weakness of the National Harbours Board Act as' it now stands is to be found in the fact that it is not within the terms of reference of the board, nor even of the local port manager, to promote competition between harbours. With regard to Quebec, it would seem that the harbour authorities are completely indifferent to any encouragement or stimulation of local business or to promotion or growth of regional and foreign trade. Indeed, the material assets of Quebec harbour have been so sadly neglected that they have deteriorated in an alarming way. Yet, recently, and as a result of representations made by the chamber of commerce, and supported by all federal members for that area in this house, an impressive program of reconstruction and improvements has been launched and it appears that, following instructions by the government, the national harbour board intends to recondition Quebec harbour. Though such action would be of great help, it would not be enough to ensure the prosperity of this port. It is essential that the recommendations of the Gibb report which I mentioned before, and which have not yet been passed-or some similar legislation-be added to the act so as to improve our domestic and foreign trade and to promote the development of the city by giving the harbour administration a more complete autonomy in co-operation with local business, industrial and labour interests.\n(Text):\nI wish, Mr. Speaker, in these my opening remarks to offer my most sincere thanks to the electors of the county of Quebec South for the confidence they manifested in me and in the principles of the Liberal party under the distinguished leadership of the right hon. Prime Minister. My election was also in large measure a tribute on the part of the electorate to the innumerable and important services rendered to them over the years by my father and predecessor, Senator C. G. Power, in whose eminent footsteps I hope to prove a worthy follower. The tradition he has left me is one of unstinting and devoted service in the interests of the electors of Quebec South, of the city and province of Quebec and of Canada. It is also a tradition of party loyalty and service tempered with fairness and independence of thought. Indeed,\n9, 1956\nThe Budget-Mr. F. G. Power it is a tradition which he continues to maintain in his new legislative function, and which I shall also endeavour to the best of my ability to maintain both in this house and outside of it.\nMr. Speaker, I crave your kind indulgence while I say a few brief words about my constituency, Quebec South. It comprises, generally speaking, the harbour of Quebec, the walled town and the upper town. It also contains the modern city of Sillery. Its population is composed of about 85 per cent French speaking Canadians and 15 per cent English speaking Canadians, and of the 15 per cent half are Protestant and half Roman Catholic.\nIt is a marvellously beautiful county, as have testified the thousands and thousands of tourists who visit this section of Quebec and district every year. It has felt the tread of the most illustrious figures in Canadian history, such as Champlain, its founder; Maisonneuve, the founder of Montreal, whose house in Sillery still stands today; Laval, the founder of the oldest university on the continent; Frontenac, one of the greatest of its governors; Montcalm and Wolfe, whose glorious deaths are commemorated by the battlefields park and by numerous monuments and statues; Macdonald, Cartier and Sir Wilfrid Laurier, to name but a few. It is the site of the first permanent European settlement in Canada; in essence it is the cradle of Canada and the repository of a major part of its history. It is not surprising therefore, that I am deeply honoured and proud of the fact that I have been chosen to represent it in this house.\nMr. Speaker, whilst I am a newly arrived member of this house I am not a stranger to politics. Although I would not by any stretch of the imagination describe myself as an expert politician, for I have a great deal to learn, I have had some seven years of practical political experience as my father's assistant, and since adolescence I have been exposed more or less to the pratical and theoretical aspects of politics. As a result there has been developed in me the following, and possibly not surprising, theory with regard to my conduct as a member of this house and of the Liberal party.\nI believe very strongly in the general political principles and objects of the Liberal party and in the practical manner in which they have been and are generally applied. In consequence of this, and of the fact that I was elected as a supporter of the Liberal party and of this government under the distinguished leadership of the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, I owe loyalty to our party and to my chief. However, I do not believe that", "The Budget-Mr. F. G. Power this loyalty should be either blind or unquestioning, nor has the Liberal party or its chief ever so held.\nJust as this government, as a Liberal government, has a dual responsibility, on the one hand to the party for the carrying out of the party platform when the occasion presents itself, and on the other hand and more importantly to the people of Canada toward whom it has a responsibility to discharge its functions irrespective of and despite its political commitments, so also I believe that I and every other hon. member of this house has a dual responsibility to the party whose principles he upholds and a responsibility as a member of this house for judging and passing on legislation which is brought down by the government. As in the case of father and son or brother and brother, I feel that any disagreement or criticism which in the discharge of my parliamentary obligations I may be obliged to express should not, or would not, in any way affect my standing as a member, of the Liberal party.\nIn this connection I would like to cite a paragraph from one of my last campaign speeches in which I expressed essentially the same thought:\nIn the course of my various discussions with you I have endeavoured to place before you the point of view of one who whilst strongly attached to the party to which he belongs, believes that no candidate should pledge himself in advance to the extent that he be precluded from exercising full liberty of action and the best of his judgment and discretion for the attitude which he will take in\nall or any public question which may be presented to him during the course of his mandate as representative of the people.\nMr. Speaker, I have thought it best to avoid in this section of my speech discussion of particular issues of the day for which more appropriate occasions will arise. However, there is one subject now before this house in the form of two bills which I would like to touch upon before I close. I refer to the matter of bilingualism. Representing as I do a constituency which is by a large majority French speaking, and being myself bilingual, although there is room for improvement, I most strongly urge that this house should, as a principle, adopt the extension of bilingualism in the public service and public printing of Canada.\nI do not mean that all English speaking or French speaking Canadians should be forced to speak each other's language, but I do feel that a French or English Canadian citizen should be able to obtain information or service from government publications or from selected civil service personnel wherever he may happen to be in Canada. I think this would go a long way toward increasing our sense of national unity.\nShall I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?\nOn motion of Mr. Power (Quebec South) the debate was adjourned."]
James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, on the last sitting day the hon. member for Bruce asked a question of me in my absence and referred it to the Minister of Finance. The question has been referred back to me. His question was as follows:
Will the minister inquire as to the number of bushels of Garry 27 oats being exported to the United States, and make sure that there is sufficient supply left in Canada for our farmers' needs?
Statistics of oat exports are not maintained by varieties. There is, therefore, no record of the quantity of Garry oats which has been exported to the United States.
The estimated production of Garry oats in Canada in 1955 eligible for grading as registered or certified seed was 750,000 bushels. A total of 369,082 bushels have been graded and inspected as registered or certified seed to February 29, 1956. Seed from this stock has been offered freely on the Canadian market and there are still substantial quantities available.
It is understood that all Canadian demands have been taken care of. In fact, with the season for the sale of seed drawing to a close, it now appears that there may be some unsold surplus of Garry oat seed from the 1955 crop.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister recently received any requests from provincial ministers of agriculture that farm organizations should have representatives at the coming federal-provincial conference? If so, will such invitations to such farm organizations be extended?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I suppose it depends somewhat on what my hon. friend has in his mind whether the answer will be yes or no. When I was in Saskatchewan I noted in the press in Regina that there had been a discussion of the matter in the legislature in the province of Saskatchewan and that the minister of agriculture in that province said that a request had been made to me. I will have to look the matter up and see whether or not there was such a request made recently.
The Budget-Mr. Dupuis


Hazen Robert Argue: Will the minister make a reply at a later date?


James Garfield Gardiner: I might make a reply now that it is not the intention to extend invitations to the farm organizations to be there.


Hazen Robert Argue: Another big mistake.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, the answer given by the minister is an interesting one. From the minister's answer do I take it that his reply will depend upon what he thinks the hon. member wants?


James Garfield Gardiner: No. I think my second answer made it quite clear that it does not depend on that. The statement has already been made in this house on a number of occasions that the question was fully discussed, with the provincial ministers of agriculture present and all of the representatives of the farm organizations present at the conference last December. The nature of the meeting and those to be present was agreed to then. The call has been put out. We do not intend to enlarge upon it.


THE BUDGET
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, March 28, consideration of the motion of Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Macdonnell, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Hector Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, in the first part of my speech that I had to interrupt on the adjournment on March 28 last for the Easter recess, I was just asking the members on the opposite side of this house to be a little bit more logical and to stop asking for a decrease in taxes while at the same time asking for an increase of government expenditures in different fields covering the administration of the various departments of this country. On that occasion I also made a suggestion that the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) should talk to the premier of Alberta and ask him to start to distribute the dividend which was promised to Albertans 20 years ago by Mr. Aberhart who just 20 years ago, within a few days, said that he was not able to fulfil the promises he had made to the citizens of that particular province. I wonder if my hon. friend has started yet to act on that suggestion? I still call upon him urgently to go ahead and give the Alberta dividend for the benefit of that particular province in order that the citizens should at least after 20 years get the dividend
2732	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Dupuis that was promised by the Social Credit party. At the same time while I am making suggestions and before I go into the second part of my speech which I will make in French, I would also suggest to two of the hon. members of my own province to get in touch with the premier, with whom they are on such friendly relations, in order to ask him to increase the old age pensions in the province of Quebec. This particular suggestion is addressed to the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) and also to the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Dufresne) so that Quebec, with the $400 million budget which they have this year, should be in a position to increase the old age pension for the residents of our respective province as was done in the other provinces, and just lately in the province of Ontario.
Before terminating my remarks in English may I say that I am sure-I repeat myself again and may I express the hope-that when the international situation shall have been cleared up-that means to say that when the conditions are such that there is no immediate fear of war activities-this government will be in a position first of all to decrease the taxes which are a heavy burden on the shoulders of Canadians and at the same time to increase the welfare allocations which are granted generously to the various classes of our population. Everyone must realize, however, that in the welfare department alone we are spending over $1J billion for the purpose of helping our citizens in different ways. I refer to hospitalization grants, old age pensions and all kinds of welfare measures that were adopted for the benefit of our citizens. One of the most effective social measures ever adopted by this government was the Unemployment Insurance Act which has given such highly appreciated benefits to those who, for one reason or another, are forced to be idle for some time. I particularly wish to congratulate the Minister of Labour for having followed the situation month by month and year by year in order to increase, according to the conditions existing, the rate which is allowed to the man who is unemployed and is receiving an allowance from the unemployment insurance commission.
I shall now revert to my own language, Mr. Speaker. If I took a long time speaking in English, it is owing to the fact that my hon. friends on the other side of the house put words in my mouth by the questions they asked me.
(Translation) ;
Mr. Speaker, there are two points which I would like to discuss, first as the member


for St. Mary, and also simply as a representative from the province of Quebec. My hon. friend, the member for Terrebonne (Mr. Bertrand), recently mentioned a subject which deserves the particular attention of the federal authorities; I mean the rubberized footwear industry in our province. I think it is my duty to stress the point with the greatest firmness, because in my own riding the Dominion Rubber Company is operating a plant which, according to its management, is unfortunately bound to close down if competition due to the importation of those foreign and commonwealth products continues to increase.
Like several other members of this house, I received from the management a brief on the position of this particular industry, and I think I should insist and draw to the attention of the house certain figures which will doubtlessly give some food for thought to those whose responsibility it is to look after our trade balance. I would moreover draw the government's attention to the necessity of reviewing our policy with regard to the importation of certain goods, which is proving very damaging to the industry I just mentioned.
The hon. member for Terrebonne described the position very clearly, and I commend him for doing so. It is indeed not the first time that we benefit from his experience; he is one of those who are concerned with all questions of vital interest to our country. Of course, he also more especially looks after the interests of his own county.
The Dominion Rubber Company also operates a factory in the county of Terrebonne, and the employees risk losing their jobs because of the conditions he has so well described and on which I would like to comment for a moment. Because of a preferential trade agreement which goes back to 1932, I believe, at which time the late Right Hon. R. B. Bennett was prime minister of this country, certain commonwealth industrialists, such as those in Hong Kong, were allowed to take advantage of our preferential tariff and to export certain goods to this country, notably rubberized footwear. I definitely share the view of those who say that this treaty is out of date. Not only is it out of date as far as that industry is concerned, but perhaps also in other cases as well.
In 1949, for instance, we imported 2,000 pairs of rubberized footwear, while in 1954 this figure had risen to one million pairs imported from various places such as Hong Kong.

For the ten first months of the year 1955, 2,186,928 pairs of rubberized footwear were imported from various places. These figures immediately show the seriousness of the competition with which our local industry is faced.
But that is not all. We must remember that, in that same period, our exports were substantially reduced, since we are in no position to compete with a market like Hong Kong's for instance, where workers are paid about 10 cents an hour, whereas the average hourly wage of a Canadian worker is about $1.45. We can therefore not expect to export this product to Europe or elsewhere since we cannot meet the competition of such cheap labour. To my mind the main factor in the price differential is not the cost of the material, but rather the labour costs. Until 1949 we were able to manufacture these products very profitably, but at this time competition has become highly dangerous and threatens to snuff out the local market.
I am no expert on the matter, Mr. Speaker, but it does seem to me that a thirty-two year old treaty should be revised. To my mind, not only should the suggestion made by the hon. member for Terrebonne be given serious consideration, but import quotas should be established. As the hon. member for Terrebonne so aptly stated, such an attitude would allow the canvas and rubber shoe industry to stabilize its situation, to see where it is going, because the leaders of this industry are really alarmed. In fact, judging from the brief they submitted to us, they do not beat around the bush about it. To them, the situation is so critical that they summarize this report by stating that there are only three alternatives. Either go out of business completely, or else import these products themselves and resell them, taking into account the very low price at which they could secure them from abroad because of the extremely lower level of salaries paid in these countries exporting canvas and rubber shoes, as I pointed out a while ago. Or else, they could close down in this country and set themselves in business in those countries where they could obtain labour at rates of 8 to 10 cents an hour.
So, Mr. Speaker, I thought it a good thing to add my humble observations to those of the hon. member for Terrebonne. If I did not speak at length on this subject, it was because it was dealt with in a masterly way by my hon. friend, but I think it my duty to insist in order that the government consider
The Budget-Mr. Dupuis this matter seriously and help the canvas and rubber shoe industry of this country.
Now, the second point I should like to deal with, in the time left at my disposal is one of local interest and one which I bring up at each session. It is the matter of toll bridges. Many a subject has been often discussed in this house, and by raising them repeatedly their sponsors finally reached their goals. I wish that the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) would listen to, or read if he is not here, the few remarks I have to make on this subject.
This is not just a purely local matter. If I bring it up it is not because the bridge begins or ends-according to where you come from, in my riding. Nevertheless, I believe that this discussion will help set a pattern all across Canada as far as toll bridges are concerned, if they continue to exist.
According to the request of an association in my riding, I wish to suggest that the tolls be made uniform. If they cannot be made uniform in all provinces, I suggest then that they should be standardized at least in the same province, or, as far as I am concerned, in the province of Quebec, at the very least.
To my mind, Mr. Speaker, tolls should be charged on cars only, and not on passengers, if it is indeed necessary to maintain these tolls, which-I cannot emphasize that too strongly-I still find very hard to understand.
Is my time nearly over, Mr. Speaker? Well, you have to make allowance for the fact that I was interrupted for a few minutes.
So I would suggest that tolls be uniform. Then, as far as Jacques Cartier bridge is concerned, I think that the toll-gates should be on the south shore so that the people of Montreal could get to Ste. Helene island- which belongs to the city of Montreal-without paying the toll. I never heard in any city, in any country, that a citizen had to pay a toll to cross a bridge in his own city. I have seen citizens pay something to cross over to another country, to another city or to another province, but I have never seen any place where a citizen had to pay a toll to get to his own property. If the collection booths were moved to the south side, my fellow citizens could, go to Ste. Helene island where the city of Montreal has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to turn it into a most attractive public park. I feel that the national harbours board which administers the bridge should grant all the citizens of Montreal the privilege of travelling free of charge to their

The Budget-Mr. Hees own property on Ste. Helene island! which, as I said a moment ago, has been improved to the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars by the city of Montreal which, in the past, has largely contributed to the payment of the Jacques Cartier bridge deficits. Now that the bridge brings in considerable revenues, it should be obvious that any citizen of Montreal must be given at least the privilege of going around within his own city without having to pay for moving from one street to another or from one side of the river to the other.
I have made these two suggestions. I shall come back to this same subject anyway when the estimates of the Department of Transport are called. I regret not to have more time at my disposal to explain the many reasons why tolls on those bridges should be abolished. However, if this cannot be done, let there be a toll for vehicles only and not for passengers; let there be a standard rate for all bridges so that tickets may be used anywhere, at least within a province, and so that the citizens of Montreal may go to Ste. Helene island without having to pay for using a bridge for which the city of Montreal has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars.
(Text):


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, in travelling around the country and talking to one's constituents and people in other parts of the country, the first thing that strikes one is the intense disappointment on the part of the people in the budget which the government brought down three weeks ago. People consider this is a cynical, political budget, brought in for one purpose and one purpose only, namely, to provide a kind of psychological buildup which this government obviously believes is necessary as a curtain-raiser to next year's election budget. There are no tax reductions this year. There will be small tax reductions, or perhaps reasonably large tax reductions, next year. People will feel happy and the government hopes they will go to the polls and vote Liberal. This is nothing more or less than a straight political budget. Tax reductions could have been made easily, and the government is very much to be criticized, and is being very severely criticized by people from one end of the country to the other, for indulging in no more nor less than a cynical political budget at this time.
What this country needs, Mr. Speaker, among many other things, is the introduction


of budgetary measures which will create an economic atmosphere which will induce a far more rapid industrial expansion in this country than we are having at the present time or have had for many years past.
The United Nations statistical bureau issued figures in January which showed that the rate of industrial expansion in Canada has been far slower than that of any of our main industrial competitors. By refusing to introduce measures which will correct this sorry state of affairs the government is making it very clear that it is perfectly willing for Canada to continue to be primarily a producer of raw materials, to feed the machines of the United States and of other industrial countries.
Of course, these countries are delighted to use our raw materials to create profits for their industries and employment for their people. They find it very hard to understand why a country like Canada should be so willing to go on making its raw materials available to them and allowing them to have the profits and greater employment while we seem to be quite content to accept the lesser end of the bargain. However, of course, they say, "if you are willing to go on doing that it suits our purpose very well, but we cannot understand why you are willing to do it."
The government's latest move to help United States industry is its proposal to use public funds to enable United States interests to take over the control of the transportation and marketing of a large proportion of one of our most important natural resources, namely, natural gas. This action has mobilized Canadian public opinion as perhaps nothing else could have done, and it has made us realize that for some time past we have been handing over more and more of our resources to the people of the United States. When the people of Canada see the government using public funds to accelerate this process it makes them realize to what extraordinary lengths this process has gone and the degree to which this government has fallen under the domination of United States financial interests. Unless this present process is stopped, Canadians are going to become merely economic vassals of the United States, supplying their factories with raw materials and their people with jobs.
A further example of the government allowing Americans to move in and take over control of operations which should be handled by Canadians was the information which we received a few weeks ago that a United States contractor is to have the control and operation of our distant early warning radar line. We have in our armed forces the

technical personnel necessary to handle this operation. Any shortage in training at the moment could be made up within a period of three months. The government's action in handing over control of the operations of our D.E.W. line is simply further evidence of this government's supine submission to United States pressure.
What is happening is that we have been selling more and more of the ownership of our enterprises to attempt to balance our current account deficit with the United States. Recently, the dominion bureau of statistics published figures which show that during the past year this was the principal means we used to try to balance our record $665 million current account deficit with the United States.
This sort of thing must stop, Mr. Speaker, and the first step we should take is to balance our current account with the United States. The best way to do that is to start manufacturing here in Canada many more of the manufactured articles which we are buying at the present time from that country. For some unexplained reason we seem to be perfectly content, as I said a few minutes ago, to ship most of our primary products to the United States and other industrial countries, and then buy back much of this raw material in its finished form.
By exporting our resources in their raw state, we are simply taking the easy way to make a dollar instead of making $4 or $5 or more by carrying our manufacturing process through to its conclusion here in Canada. For every hour of employment which we gain by exporting our resources in their raw state, we would gain many hours of employment by carrying production through to its finished stage.
The new plants that would be required to make this possible are going to be built only if industries become convinced that it is to their advantage to manufacture in Canada. The most important factor, of course, is cost of production. We must show potential industry that their cost of production will be lower in order to attract them to establish plants here and start manufacturing. In the past, ambitious and alert municipalities have offered potential industry all sorts of concessions to attract them to their locality. These concessions have included such things as free grants of land, cheap water and hydro rates, reduced taxes for an initial period, and the provision of roads, docks, sidings and other necessary transportation facilities. These municipalities have been repaid many times over in the form of increased employment and trade, and the taxes that accrue from both.
I believe that such a program to attract potential industry to all parts of Canada should be pursued with system and vigour
The Budget-Mr. Hees from one end of this country to the other. To see that this is done I believe there should be established in Canada a Canadian industrial development board composed of topflight personnel who would work with the provinces, and through them with the municipalities, in order to find out what concessions could be made to potential industry. With that information available, the board could act as a clearing house and could approach potential industry in order that as much industry as possible, in the shortest possible time, could be established in this country.
An industrial development board such as I envisage would work with provincial governments and through them with municipal governments to explore all possible concessions which these bodies would be willing to make in order to attract industry to their areas. This board would also work with transportation companies to find out what transportation facilities in the way of docks and railway sidings and the like they would be willing to provide for the extra business which would result from the establishment of new plants in the various localities.
If a program of this kind is pursued with imagination and vigour it will greatly assist us in setting in motion a rate of industrial expansion which can equal or exceed that of our industrial competitors. If they can reach the rate of expansion they have reached, there is no reason in the world why a country such as Canada with its tremendous wealth of power and natural resources cannot have as great or a greater rate of industrial expansion.
In addition to the concessions which the provincial and municipal governments could be persuaded to offer, concessions which I believe will be paid back many times over in the form of increased employment and trade, and tax revenues which will accrue from both, the federal government can also offer inducements in eight forms.
First of all it could offer a graduated corporation income tax spread over the period it is estimated a new industry requires to get on its feet. If, for example, such a period is estimated to be 15 years, the tax for the first year would be one-fifteenth of the normal rate and would increase steadily until after 15 years the company would be paying the full rate. The important thing is that there would be no loss to the government by the introduction of such a program because these new industries do not exist at the present time and of course they are not paying taxes. I believe they will not exist unless the federal, provincial and municipal governments are willing to make concessions which will persuade industries that it is to
2736	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Hees their advantage to process in Canada. After this is done, the Canadian government will benefit from those taxes, but until those industries are induced to establish plants here, there will be no industries and no taxes. In making a concession of this kind, therefore, the federal government would be losing nothing in the form of taxes, but would gain by the ultimate taxes which would result from such a move.
Secondly, the government can make a material reduction in its sales and excise taxes without loss of tax revenue. By lowering sales and excise taxes the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) would be making it possible to lower the selling price of many of our products which are today being priced out of the market. By helping our products to become more competitive, the minister would be stimulating sales, and these increased sales multiplied by a lower unit tax, may very easily equal or exceed our present tax totals.
An example was given to the minister during the past year of just how true this can be. In his previous budget, after considerable pressure had been brought to bear upon him by the automotive industry and the official opposition, he reduced the excise tax on automobiles from 15 per cent to 10 per cent. He estimated in his budget-the budget before last-that this would cost him a considerable amount in loss of tax revenue, but the actual result was that lower prices, made possible by the lower tax, greatly stimulated sales and taxes as well. An increased number of car sales, multiplied by the lower excise tax, resulted in an increase of $8 million in excise taxes paid on new automobiles.
The third thing that the government can do is to reduce today's high income tax. Again I believe that this can be done without loss of tax revenue, because by reducing income taxes the minister is simply going to make it possible for more people to spend more of their incomes on the things they need. That would make it possible for more goods and services to be sold, and more people would become employed producing these additional goods and services. They will be paying income taxes instead of drawing on the government for unemployment insurance or direct relief. There would also be many additional products carrying sales and excise taxes in the future.
Fourthly, I believe that the government can encourage small industries to expand and become big industries by introducing a graduated corporation tax on corporation incomes between $20,000 and, say, $50,000 a year. At the present time a corporation pays 20 per cent on an income of up to $20,000 a year, and on the next $1,000 of income it pays 47 per cent. This provides very little inducement


to expand to a firm that is doing a comfortable business of $20,000 a year and paying a 20 per cent tax, because as soon as it does so, half of its additional income is taken in taxes. If the rate of increase between $20,000 and $50,000 a year is graduated, many industries that are small industries today will be induced to enlarge and take on the added responsibilities and worries which go with an industrial expansion.
Any initial tax losses which the government will experience, I believe, will be more than made up in the very near future by the additional sales, excise, and income taxes, which will accrue from the additional sales and employment resulting from the expansion which such a measure will induce.
Fifthly, the government can help to improve the competitive position of industry through enabling industry to undertake a greatly expanded research program, if the minister will allow a more reasonable tax write-off for expenditures made on research. At the present time the government allows only five per cent of the taxable income of the previous year, unless special permission is obtained from the minister. That means that a company which wishes to undertake a research program that will cost in excess of five per cent of the income of the previous year must wait until approximately half the current year is over, and then the decision of the Minister of National Revenue may be an unfavourable one. As any businessman knows, a decision to undertake a research program must be made well in advance of the beginning of the year, and cannot wait until the previous year's figures have been first audited and then given to the Department of National Revenue for that department to put the figures through its usual procedure of red tape.
Another factor which militates against undertaking an expanded research program at the present time is that expanded research is most needed after a bad year, when the amount allowable for tax deductions would be least. This points up the present unreality of the government's approach to the need for expanded research in this country at the present time. In Great Britain, a company is allowed to write off completely all expenses-both current expenses and capital expenses-that it undertakes for research purposes, and I believe that this government would do well to follow the same plan. I do not think that it will suffer any tax loss by so doing, because the increased employment and sales that would be made possible through additional research and the taxes they will carry in the future would more than make up for any initial tax loss which the government might suffer.

Sixthly, the government could help new industry through an accelerated depreciation program, which would permit new industries to write off their investment far more quickly than they do at the present time. This would not cost the government one penny when it is spread over the present depreciation period.
Seventhly, the government could assist gas and oil companies materially by allowing them a more generous depletion allowance on oil and gas wells. This would greatly encourage exploration and development, and would put them on a basis more comparable with their United States competitors. At the present time the United States allows a depletion allowance of 27J per cent of gross income, not to exceed 50 per cent of net income. This policy has encouraged the United States oil and gas companies to undertake very important exploration and development programs, with extremely beneficial results to the industry. I believe that this government would do well to adopt a similarly generous program for Canadian oil and gas companies.
Finally, I believe that the government should introduce a policy on public investment to assist the provinces to develop their power and other natural resources. It is public investment of this kind that is needed to help stimulate the private investment which we need to speed our economic expansion, which today is lagging so far behind that of our competitors. It is on the firm basis of seaways, highways, natural gas, electric power, irrigation and reclamation, that people build homes and offices and factories. If the people of Canada will lend their government $12 billion to shoot up in smoke, as they did during the second world war, surely they will lend it a billion dollars or so to be invested in self-liquidating public works which will make possible more jobs and higher more stable, tax revenues.
Now I should like to deal briefly with the 20 per cent tax that has been imposed by this government on Canadian advertising sold by United States periodicals that publish Canadian editions.


Walter Edward Harris: Not Canadian, all advertising.


George Harris Hees: All advertising. First of all, why was this tax imposed? It certainly was not imposed at the request of any Canadian publication. They know perfectly well that this measure will not reduce by a single copy the number of United States periodicals sold in Canada. People are going to go on buying these American magazines because they provide a type of presentation of news and views which is not provided by any Canadian publication at the present time. They are going
The Budget-Mr. Hees to continue to buy these magazines until comparable publications are produced in Canada.
This tax, Mr. Speaker, is nothing more or less than a punitive tax imposed for a purely political reason. That reason is that the government has been severely embarrassed by the widespread criticism it has so justly received because of its willingness to use public funds to make easier the acquisition of Canadian resources by United States interests. I believe that the imposition of this tax is nothing more than a frantic and very futile attempt to show that the government is not really as meekly submissive to United States pressure as its pipe line proposal has very clearly demonstrated it to be. Unfortunately, however, it has chosen an attempt to hinder the sale of United States publications that publish news and views not available in a similar form in Canada, as its means of doing so.
If the government wants to help Canadian publications to increase their circulation at the expense of United States periodicals, then let it adopt a positive and constructive, instead of a negative and destructive, approach to the problem. Such an approach could well take the form of a reduction in postal rates for Canadian publications. To encourage foreign publications to increase their percentage of Canadian content, the government could allow the same percentage reduction in postal rates as their Canadian content bears to the remainder of the publication. Such a measure would be easy to introduce and administer, and it would serve the dual purpose of helping Canadian publications and encouraging foreign publications to increase their percentage of Canadian content.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what about the effect that this tax has had on our relations with the United States? It is obvious that it has had a very bad effect indeed. In view of what the United States has done recently to maintain good relations by refusing to allow restrictive legislation to be passed against a Canadian company, I believe we should examine this whole measure very carefully indeed. When the senate and legislature of the state of Maryland, by overwhelming majorities in each house, passed a bill denying the Carling Brewing Company of Canada the right to build a plant in Maryland, the United States state department wrote a very strong letter to Governor Mc-Keldin urging him to veto the measure because it was felt that it would create an unfriendly attitude towards Canada. Because the bill had been passed by overwhelming majorities in both Maryland houses, it was very difficult

The Budget-Mr. Balcom for the governor to veto the measure, but in response to a personal call by the President of the United States, Governor McKel-din did so.
If the President of the United States thought that the Carling affair was of sufficient importance for him personally to ask Governor McKeldin to face the severe criticism he would have to face in his state by vetoing the measure, then surely the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) must take the maintenance of international relations as seriously, and he has no course left open to him except to reciprocate and do what the President and Secretary of State of the United States obviously requested him to do when he saw them at White Sulphur Springs, namely, withdraw this punitive and ill-considered measure.
If the Prime Minister is unwilling to do so, he will be making it very obvious that he considers the maintenance of good international relations between Canada and the United States to be merely a one-way street. I hope that he will show that he, as well as the President of the United States, is capable of taking farsighted action, and I strongly urge him to withdraw this punitive and ill-considered measure at the very earliest moment.


Samuel Rosborough Balcom: Mr. Speaker, today, April 9, is the 39th anniversary of the battle of Vimy Ridge. I was reminded of it this morning when walking around the western part of the building and seeing the small inscription there. I thought we should perhaps be reminded of that great battle for it was the first battle in which the Canadian corps fought as a unit under the leadership of then Lieutenant General Sir Julian Byng. At that time some 97,000 Canadian soldiers in the corps took part in the battle. Unfortunately there were 11,297 courageous young men killed in that battle.
In speaking of Vimy Ridge I thought it might be a good opportunity to mention that we should now be thinking of a really national cenotaph, one that would do for the soldiers who have fallen in all wars. The cenotaph in Confederation square commemorating our soldiers who lost their lives in the war of 1914-18 is very good so far as that purpose is concerned, but it does not cover a broad enough field. I hope a national cenotaph will be built on parliament hill this year or next year on the site suggested by the Canadian Legion, namely, on the walk from Wellington street up to the peace tower. I think it will be a very fitting location.
I should like to be able to make a 15 minute speech but unfortunately I have many


local problems which I think should be aired in the house and brought to the attention of the various departments, the public generally and in many cases the people of Halifax. The budget speech and the accompanying papers tabled by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) have given as usual a very complete review of the business of the nation. This year the picture is very encouraging and, indeed, there is some danger of overoptimism and inflation. It seems to me that we just get one kind of problem solved when a different one confronts us. However, we are very fortunate that they are problems with which we can cope. In other parts of the world where life is just one crisis after another there is often a great deal more at stake. We can be thankful that our economic problems are mainly those of development and distribution rather than a struggle for survival.
Speaking of distribution, may I say that we have heard a great deal both in the House of Commons and elsewhere about the problem of surpluses. Many proposals have been advanced and much advice has been offered on what should be done to dispose of our surplus apples, wheat, fish and potatoes. I think it will take something even more complicated than parity prices to provide an equitable disposal plan.
In addition to the wealth of material in the budget speech on the nation's business, there has been an abundance of information on Canada's growth and prospects presented to another august body. A spate of facts, figures and arguments has been brought out in connection with the Gordon commission. It is not only the abundance of material that is overwhelming. What is even more confusing is the strength of conviction with which diametrically opposite views on policy have been presented, backed as well by a substantial array of facts and arguments. How does the lowly politician or the ordinary voter find his way through this perplexing problem? At the risk of appearing to sermonize I am going to suggest some guide posts.
First, our human resources are our most important resources and the objectives that this suggests should be the ones we serve first. Second, we have a great Canadian heritage of both human and material resources of which we are in a sense only custodians for coming generations. Sometimes I am inclined to think that promoters imagine that Canada is a great big apple pie and that we should gorge ourselves on it.
As to human resources, I want to speak first about immigration. Immediately that one raises the subject, one is classed as being either for or against immigration. But it is not as simple as Calvin Coolidge's famous dictum on sin.

I wish it were that simple. But when you are dealing with people, things are never simple. As was pointed out in a recent statement by a labour leader, immigrants are not component parts that can be stored until needed.
A new approach is called for in respect of our immigration procedures. An excellent opportunity is now here to state clearly the objectives of our immigration policy and to set up the standards that will apply. The basic question is this: Do we want a rapidly growing population irrespective of the traditional basis of our culture? We have answered this question in part by our exclusion of certain races or rather by our obvious preference in the selection of immigrants. But it has seemed to be a negative answer rather than a positive policy.
I shall not presume to suggest the procedure that should apply but I would urge that the preservation of a Canadian nation and the democratic condition be the paramount consideration. We should recognize further that the democratic system, whatever its weaknesses, draws its vitality from the principle of the sanctity of the individual. This fact we are sometimes, I think, prone to forget. Devotion to that principle is not something learned overnight. Mere numbers are not enough to assure the preservation of a Canadian nation that represents a strong moral force in the world. We must have citizens who are prepared to accept the discipline and the responsibilities as well as the rights of a democratic society.
The case for large-scale immigration has been presented forcibly by many people. There is no doubt that Canada can and should have immigration-how much will depend on changing circumstances-and our policy should be flexible. It should vary in accordance with the best interests of both native-born citizens and prospective new immigrants. The demands for a larger labour force and a larger domestic market should be recognized but should not take priority over social considerations or concern for our absorptive capacity.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I should like to mention something that I consider to be important, namely the possibility of making some reciprocal arrangement with the commonwealth countries-in particular the British isles-whereby immigrants coming to Canada might be given a shorter period in which to qualify as citizens. A man of 60 years of age who comes to this country is too old to qualify for social security. I wish arrangements could be made with the British isles and the other commonwealth countries whereby that man would receive credit for what he has paid in the old country. I think
The Budget-Mr. Balcom that is an important matter. I think we all agree that we should have more people here from the British isles. There are in my own riding several cases in which people are concerned in this problem.
On this same subject of human resources I want to quote the words of a noted economist, J. K. Galbraith, who recently appeared before the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects in support of a plea made to this house earlier this session for aid to universities and students. Mr. Galbraith said this:
Far more urgent than resource development, as just implied, is the problem of human development. It is vital that this keep abreast of the technical and scientific requirements of growth and that it stimulate growth along this dimension. Here-I speak for the United States and, I think, also for Canada-is our most serious failure. We have left the training of scientists, engineers, and highly skilled technicians largely to chance. We have suffered an enormous wastage of talent by making higher education dependent not on ability but on ability to pay. The present scramble for highly qualified people is a measure of our failure. We must plan to spend generously to correct our mistakes in this area.
I am not going to labour at this time my personal views on this matter, other than to say briefly that I firmly believe that a more generous federal policy on university finance is of vital national importance. Further, I want to emphasize the fact that it is of more than ordinary importance to Nova Scotia and the other Atlantic provinces. We are limited in the opportunities and training we can offer to our youth by our relatively small tax base. Thus in our most precious national asset, our youth, has been denied the opportunity of full development in this land flowing with honey and other sources of wealth.
We have heard with satisfaction the minister's outline of developments, past and present, which make up the picture of a booming economy with bright prospects for the future. It is important to note also that in spite of the rapid growth and spectacular changes that have taken place in our way of life, transportation and communication still remain our fundamental problems. It is natural that they should loom large in the affairs to be dealt with by parliament this session. Their garb is somewhat different from 1867, but their fundamental nature is the same. The dominant factors in the nation's business life are the enormous distances between important points and the relatively small population compared with the total land area. These are the things that dictated the formation of the publicly owned national broadcasting system, the creation of Trans-Canada Air Lines, pu,blic participation in the railway system, in the St.

The Budget-Mr. Balcom Lawrence seaway and now the proposed participation by the federal government and the province of Ontario in a gas pipe line.
A vital role in our national transportation is played by our national harbours. I want to speak particularly about the port of Halifax. I want to emphasize that the port comprises not only the waterfront of the city of Halifax and Dartmouth but also the shore of Bedford basin and the northwest arm in Halifax county. The property includes grain elevators, a cold storage plant, freight sheds, piers and all the equipment that goes with these. Great improvements have been made in these in the past number of years. In talking about the physical changes, I might mention that there has been a marked improvement in administration, better facilities and better services.
You might think these words of praise could be dismissed as those of an interested party, but I believe you will have them confirmed by those who use the port, such as ship operators and shippers, who know from experience and whose knowledge is important in determining the port of call and the direction of shipping business. Through the combined efforts of longshoremen, freight handlers, shipping companies, insurance firms and other marine service establishments, as well as the federal government, a great industry has been established. The government is to be commended for its recognition of the importance of our ports in the national interest.
Yet in spite of the increases and extensions of facilities by the national harbours board, from time to time ships are tied up in the stream waiting for space to dock. Port business would be even better if our manufactured products were shipped via Canadian ports. For example, in 1953 almost 85 per cent of the Canadian-made automobiles exported, some 37,844, were shipped via United States ports, compared with a little more than 15 per cent through Canadian ports. The picture is roughly the same in so far as farm implements and machinery exports are concerned; in the same year 80 per cent went through United States ports. In my opinion, manufacturers should be bending over to use our ports, for surely we bend backwards in giving them protection and other subsidies.
There is obviously a heavy selling job to be done if we are to attract more of the business that is going. The national harbours board has done an excellent job within the limits set by available funds. The administrative work of this board in Halifax has been assisted, supported and supplemented by the promotional work of the port of Halifax commission. The effectiveness of this organization


is indicated by the plan now under way to organize such a commission for the port of Montreal. The contribution of waterfront workers and the shipping companies has already been mentioned, but in my opinion more remains to be done.
Perhaps I need not labour the well known fact of the strategic importance of Halifax and its invaluable contribution to the defence of the free world in time of war. I think most of those in authority are well aware of that fact, but I wonder whether sufficient thought has been given to what might happen in a future catastrophe. I doubt very much whether we would have time to plan and build the additional port facilities so necessary to our survival.
I should like to make one specific suggestion as part of the long-term build-up, and that is that the national harbours board do a complete job now on pier 1-A. The plan, as I understand it, is to build about half the required length in 1956. We feel that this unit should be completed to the same length as pier B, and for various reasons. While the work is under way it would be cheaper to complete the job. Further, there is a rock pile jutting out from the centre of what will be the new pier, and this will be a hazard both for vessels coming into the new pier and vessels berthing on the north side of pier B.
While there has been steady improvement in the harbours board facilities, I cannot say that the reports are equally encouraging respecting our railway and related services. Let me say here that the Canadian National Railways have greatly improved their passenger service during the last year or so, and having done that you would imagine they would have a very forward-looking program for freight. But this does not seem to me to be the case. Halifax is served by the publicly owned Canadian National, but the management of that railway seems to take a very hard, cold look before embarking on any new developments in that area. As it is a crown corporation, decision on such matters as capital expenditures for express and freight facilities rests with the management and not with the government. The Canadian Pacific Railway does not run into Halifax, other than via the Dominion Atlantic Railway, so the incentives ordinarily provided by competition are lacking. It is quite apparent that the Canadian Pacific, as a private company, makes its own decision on whether or not it should have a line into Halifax. I cannot but wonder what the result would be if such competition existed. How much more cargo would go over Halifax piers destined for Newfoundland, for example, if there were alternative transportation?

Consider, for example, the bottleneck in cargo shipments to St. John's, Newfoundland. I have no wish to see business drawn away from North Sydney that can be properly handled on that route. However, if greater efficiency could be attained by using the existing steamship services to St. John's via Halifax, are not the residents of Newfoundland entitled to those benefits? These services via Halifax and via North Sydney should surely be complementary, not competitive. Then, too, the shortage of box cars and yardage, and the limitations of the railway facilities in Halifax have hindered the full use of the port this year.
This is hard to reconcile with the forwardlooking policies of the government in the development of national harbours board facilities. The physical facilities and the labour force were available to handle much more freight than was going through. The exports this winter, outside of wheat, have not been very good. I suppose that bottlenecks in one form or another have prevented as much going through as we would like, but I would urge upon the Minister of Transport that greater attention be given to the co-ordination of development in Halifax and Dartmouth to make the best use of what we have. If the accusation is correct that the C.N.R. is giving better service to Saint John, New Brunswick, than to Halifax, it should be investigated and the service brought in line immediately. I see the hon. member for Saint John-Albert smiling. It makes me most unhappy to think the C.N.R. would do such a thing; but it would please us even more if the railroad management adjusted traffic to the level of the importance of the respective ports.
I speak now on a different note. We are pleased at the foresight and energy that have gone into the Canadian National Steamships service to the West Indies. Because of the growing importance of the West Indies and the Caribbean area as a market for Canadian produce this is constructive public action. The traditional importance of this area to the Atlantic provinces is based on solid ground, and the economic advance that is bound to come in that area and in South America is a promising factor for future growth in the Atlantic region. We should take very positive steps in aiding this development.
In Canada glamour seems to attach to the new places, especially if they are far away from the centres of population. It seems so much easier to recognize the need for developmental expenditure in the far north, for example, than in the more settled areas of Canada. I have in mind the development of our forest potential in Halifax county and
The Budget-Mr. Balcom in eastern Nova Scotia. Several paper companies have shown interest in a site in this part of the province. A mill is now operating at Sheet Harbour which offers possibilities for further processing. Will the development division of the C.N.R. give serious study to this matter to see whether an economic proposition is hindered mainly by the lack of rail service? If that is the case, the extension of rail facilities from Musquodobit Harbour to Sheet Harbour should be thoroughly examined.
At this point perhaps I should like to say how pleased we were to read in the press information about the increase in salaries of the civil service, the navy, the army and the air force, and other branches of government. This means in the Halifax area the distribution of at least another $3 million, and I know the people of Halifax are very grateful.
There is another item I should like to mention at this time, namely the encouragement of our young people to become interested at an early age in the army, navy and air force, in the matter of enlistment or getting into the reserve. But to do this, facilities should be provided in which they can train, in which they can study and meet. I am referring to armouries in Halifax and Dartmouth. The facilities in Halifax now are inadequate, and in Dartmouth there are no such facilities. To do any training they have to go as far as eight miles, and anyone knows this is not very encouraging to people who are interested in the armed services.
Reference has been made to the St. Lawrence seaway. Great interest has been shown in this development and in its possibilities. Particularly we notice, both inside and outside the public service, great energy devoted to ways and means of keeping the waterway open in the winter. The pressure on the federal government to spend enormous sums of money on this objective will mount. Those who have a large investment in Labrador, the owners and workers in the steel mills hungry for iron ore, as well as numerous others who will use the seaway as a means of transportation will raise their voices.
It is desirable that a great national asset be used as fully as possible, but let us keep account of the cost. When we are looking at the total moneys paid out under the Maritime Freight Rates Act-this year the estimates provide for over $11 million-let us realize how very minor this is compared with the costs contemplated for ice breakers, reconnaissance planes, research and all the hidden expenses which will go into the St. Lawrence enterprise, or just that part of it pertaining to winter- navigation.

The Budget-Mr. Balcom
To refer again to the Maritime Freight Rates Act, I note with interest that the president of the C.N.R. feels, as many others do, that a close look at our transportation problems is in order. I would suggest that particular attention be paid to the Maritime Freight Rates Act, its purpose, its basis and its present achievement in relation to its objectives.
To revert to a statement made earlier, I should like to repeat my belief that we living Canadians are custodians of a great heritage. Just as important as the development of our natural resources is the need for proper conservation measures that will preserve, and indeed enhance, what we pass on to the next generations. While federal action in this field is limited to some extent by the sharing of authority with the provinces, notable steps have been taken. In forestry, jointly sponsored forest inventory work will pay off, it is to be hoped, in better forest management. Research on improved utilization of wood is making a valuable contribution to the better use of our forests. In agriculture the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act in the west and marshlands reclamation in the maritimes are adding to our capital assets. But we are really only making a beginning in this whole field.
Based on my own constituency, I can cite some situations which call for action. Along the Musquodobit river valley there is a problem of flooding which is almost perennial in the winter and spring. There must be some way in which the periodic wastage from flooding can be prevented. Some scheme of fresh water control should be feasible that would perhaps involve both agricultural and forest conservation. The particular area I speak of is located close to the large metropolitan area of Halifax and Dartmouth.
In the fisheries, good progress has been made in conservation measures to the continuing benefit of the individual fisherman as well as the whole industry. And here I should like to discuss what has become a very controversial matter in Nova Scotia, namely the protection of the inshore fisherman from the inroads of the trawlers. The Canadian law which prevents our trawlers from coming within 12 miles of the shore seems unfair to the trawler fisherman when vessels from other countries can come in to within three miles. On the other hand, it is no solution in the eyes of the inshore fisherman to let all trawlers come within three miles of shore.
The ideal solution lies in obtaining agreement among the several countries involved on a limit to which all would adhere. Theoretically we could change the law affecting our own ships, or take unilateral action to bar

foreign ships. However, we have to remember that our dealings with other countries, particularly the United States, involve a great many very important matters. One which is of vital significance to the fisheries is the United States tariff on fish products. If we should be excluded from the United States market by higher tariffs, in many parts of Nova Scotia it would not matter what was the trawler limit. It is useless to deplore our dependence on that market, for it is the place where we get a price sufficient to make it worth while for our fishermen to produce. On the other hand, this surely should not condemn us to a continuation of the present unsatisfactory regulations for much longer. I would urge the Minister of Fisheries, who understands and has discussed this situation and wishes to do something about it, to regard this question as one of very real urgency.
We have in Halifax an excellent example of international co-operation in fisheries conservation. I refer to the northwest Atlantic fisheries council with headquarters at Dal-housie University. I am sure this organization and what it represents would receive much more ardent support from the industry if we could have tangible evidence of cooperation on this matter of the trawler limit.
The budget has been described in many quarters as empty, negative and partisan. I think all three of those adjectives are ruled out if we take just one part of the budget speech and cast out all the rest. I refer to the proposed arrangements with the provinces to replace the tax rental agreements. I believe these represent a statesmanlike approach to a most difficult problem.
On the one hand the federal government must keep in mind that there is only one group of taxpayers, and whether we live in Ontario, Nova Scotia or the Yukon we must collectively provide the revenues for public services. With that in mind the total taxes collected by the dominion government, no matter how fairly they are distributed, must be kept within realistic proportions.
On the other hand the federal government has recognized the need for a certain minimum standard of Canadian services. The equalization payments will go a considerable distance in providing that minimum. At the same time, the development needs of the more rapidly growing parts of Canada must not be neglected in a share the wealth program. The federal government has shown a most commendable spirit and ingenuity in reconciling these three purposes.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, the first comment I would like to make is that the lighting in this chamber seems to have improved considerably during the recess-


William Earl Rowe: The heat has increased, too.


Clarence Gillis: -and it makes it a bit more difficult to beat the government, because we can see them too clearly now.


An hon. Member:: We can see the whites of their eyes.


An hon. Member:: The same is true of the opposition.


Clarence Gillis: When they were in the shadows and we could not see them too clearly it was not too difficult to throw bricks at them.
It is about two weeks since this debate adjourned. In listening to the speeches that have been made I have reached the conclusion that if I were outside the house and not reading Hansard I would be rather doubtful as to what we were debating. I had to sit and think for a while and reread our amendment in order to be sure what it was about.
I make that observation in view of the statement by the hon. member for Broadview concerning the great interest that is shown throughout the country in debates that occur in the house. That has not been my experience. The hon. member is not nearly as good a psychologist as the government, because the government realized that in bringing down a completely different kind of budget immediately prior to the federal election it had chosen the proper psychological moment. Of course one cannot quarrel too much with that because if the Conservative party were on that side of the house it would have done exactly the same thing-


Walter Edward Harris: But not as well.


Clarence Gillis: Well, the minister has admitted that he has done it. The amazing thing is that if the Liberal party were on this side of the house it would be making exactly the same criticisms as those being made by the Conservative party at this time, and would perhaps be doing it a little better.


An hon. Member:: Thanks for the compliment.


Clarence Gillis: We should not be too surprised at this time at the kind of budget we have. It is rather difficult to pick it apart because there is nothing to pick, and the minister in making his speech on the budget did not leave very many loopholes. The minister went along very quietly in outlining the budget. When the government is in the position of throwing the shots and then sitting
The Budget-Mr. Gillis back on the defensive and allowing the opposition to carry on the war practically all by itself, it is not an easy job to criticize the budget because as long as the rules of the game are as they are, this is the way the game will be played.
I think the two groups in this corner of the house are the only groups that can make any valid criticism of the budget as it is at this time, because no one knows what we would do if we were sitting over there.


An hon. Member:: That is all too true.


Clarence Gillis: We might have done a much better job than the Minister of Finance did in the face of an election, but of course no one can accuse us of that because we have no record. The other two parties have records. They have established the rules of the game, and although the game has been played for a good many years the rules have not changed. The whole subject will continue to be regarded as a game until such time as the rules are changed.
I listened to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, who made practically all the criticism that could be made of the budget in the light of our amendment. It may not be a bad idea, in view of the fact that there has been a two weeks lapse of time, to put our amendment on the record again at this time as a guide to those who may read Hansard, in order that they may know to what the debate relates.
The section of the amendment that we added to the Conservative amendment reads as follows:
That the amendment be amended by inserting therein immediately after the words "United States interest" the following words:
"that it has failed to reduce the burden of sales and income taxes on those in the lower income groups, while continuing to favour privileged interests and those with unearned incomes by maintaining the 20 per cent dividend tax credit and by refusing to impose a tax on capital gains".
During the course of this session we have had several discussions on resolutions and other matters which have come before the house, which have enabled most hon. members to place their economic and financial views on record. I have taken the opportunity of doing so on a couple of occasions during the session with respect to the part of the country from which I come. At this time, however, I shall endeavour to stick as close as possible in what I have to say to the subject of the budget.
We deplore the fact that there has not been any tax relief in the low income brackets. The amendment of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar made our point quite clear and I want to reiterate what he said, because I agree with him. He said that in so far as he was
2744	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Gillis concerned, if there were no tax relief given at all; if the money realized by continuing the tax structure as it is were applied to the establishment of a national health program which would bring medical aid right across the country to the hundreds of thousands of people who cannot afford any, and relieve the fear and the burden of those who may need it in the future-if the money were used for that purpose, then as far as I am concerned I agree with the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar that the tax structure should remain as it is, providing the money gathered in is used for that purpose. I think that is one oi the greatest needs of this country today and one of the ways in which the average person in this country would benefit to the greatest extent.
I know that the subject of a national health program is still a controversial one in this country. I know there was not a great deal of progress made on it at the dominion-provincial conference. I know that some of the premiers, particularly in the central provinces, are still quibbling over formulas of their own, and I do not think all the people in the country understand the matter as it really is.
One of the main arguments I have heard advanced in this house, in the country and in the press particularly, over the years, is that Britain established a national health program and it does not work. It is said that it is all haywire and the doctors do not want it. That has been a line of propaganda that has been carried on all over the United States and Canada, particularly in the press, and I have heard it repeated in the house. The present British government set up a committee to make an inquiry into the administration of the national health service in Britain, as to whether it was working, whether there was waste and extravagance and whether the doctor-patient relationship had been disturbed.
Of course the present government does not believe in national health insurance to the extent that the government which established it did. When that committee was appointed, because the personnel were people who certainly were not socialists, I was of the opinion that they were appointed to try to justify the line of propaganda that was being spread about it. I have a clipping here that I took from one of the local newspapers. It sets out the fact that while that committee sat and examined the whole question thoroughly, when they brought in their report it was completely the reverse of what was expected.
I	Mr. Gillis.]

I am just going to read the heading of the newspaper report I have seen about it. It says this:
A remarkable defence and vindication of the British national health service, introduced by the Labour government, has been published by an independent official committee of inquiry. The committee describes the record of the service as "one of real achievement", denies charges of extravagance, approves the general set-up of the service, and recommends that charges to patients should be lowered rather than raised.
Then the story goes on to stress the fact that all the propaganda we have heard in the past has been just so much propaganda and that this independent committee, which reported directly to the government, completely reversed everything that was said over here about that national health program in Britain.
I hope that in the future, whether it be in Ontario, in Quebec or in Nova Scotia, when pronouncements are made on this question of a national health program, they do not still continue to drag that old red herring over the trail, of the failure of the national health program in Britain. It is anything but that. That committee report, according to this press report, completely waves aside all that propaganda.
I mention that because I think it is still a controversial issue. It has to be taken care of in this country. I believe the federal government is convinced today that the provinces, when they make their set-ups, are prepared to go ahead with a national health program. I am sure most of the members of the house realize that this is one of the most important issues in this country today. It is a way in which our people can be helped to the greatest extent. I think it would offset any tax reductions.
Another matter that I think we should stress very strongly is one that was also introduced by the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar; that is trying to have the social security legislation in Canada and the rest of the commonwealth countries made reciprocal, if it is possible to do so. There are many people living in this country who come from different parts of the commonwealth. They receive the old age pension. If they could take that old age pension and go back and live in Australia or New Zealand or Great Britain or Ireland that pension of $40 a month, in their places of origin to which they would like to return, would mean three times the purchasing power that it means to them here in this country. Whilst it is something that would have to be worked out and thought about carefully, the time has come when much of our legislation in the social

security field should embrace all the commonwealth countries. I agree absolutely with the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar on this particular point.
There are many little things the minister could have done to bring relief to the lower income groups. I want to mention this fact. Take the pay envelope of the average industrial worker-I do not care whether he is in the automobile, steel, or coal industry or what he is in-and look at his weekly deductions, including income tax. You will find how these weekly deductions shown on the envelope of a worker, which reduce his take-home pay considerably, are in effect a tax that is already there for certain purposes. They are charged against his wages. I have looked at some of them and worked out a kind of average. I would say that today the average industrial worker of this country is paying at least $5.35 a week in ordinary deductions for hospital plans, pension plans and that kind of thing. In addition to that, the average income tax that is paid would be approximately $10 a week.
Worked out on a yearly basis, that amounts to a tax of $735.60 a year. The average worker has his income reduced to that extent by items that are already shown on his envelope and that are just as much a tax as his income tax. He has to carry them by virtue of his employment. You may say that it is a form of insurance and that he is going to receive benefit from it at some time. Nevertheless it is a condition of employment that these obligations must be met before his take-home pay is computed. This is a group of people who argue all the time and send us resolutions to the effect that the basic exemptions should be stepped up, that a single person should get an exemption of $2,000 a year and that a married person should have his exemption raised to $3,000 a year. In view of the fact that they are already paying a tax of some $735 a year I think they are on sound ground in asking that the exemptions be raised to the levels I have already mentioned, so as to relieve them of some of the burden they are already carrying as the result of indirect taxes.
There is another item at which I think the minister should have taken a look, the matter of household appliances. When the average young couple get married today they have to buy a refrigerator, a toaster, a little electric range and so on. I believe the excise tax on such items should have been eliminated. It is quite a burden for the average young couple starting housekeeping today when you consider the cost of building a home, if you build one, and then the cost of equipping it.
The Budget-Mr. Gillis


Walter Edward Harris: Is my hon. friend talking about excise taxes?


Clarence Gillis: Sales tax and excise tax. I
think these taxes should have been modified considerably. I am talking about the sales tax on household appliances.


Walter Edward Harris: Sales tax, not excise tax.


Clarence Gillis: I think something should have been done in that regard. I was in a home last night where a young couple are struggling to get along, and I have seen the same thing a good many times. They are both working and are trying to get a home together. They have mortgage payments to meet and they want to equip their kitchen. Take a look at what the sales tax means on the items that are required for such a kitchen.
Of course it is too late now to do anything. The budget has been prepared and presented. It is before the house. It is government policy. It is going to go through because the voters of Canada have seen to it that the government has a sufficient number of members in the house to put it through. The only effect our arguments can have is with regard to the super-budget the minister is going to bring in next time. We can provoke his thoughts with regard to cases where he should give some relief if he wants to get votes.


William Earl Rowe: An election every year would help.


Clarence Gillis: I suggest that the minister take a square look at the question of the sales tax on household appliances when he is bringing in his next budget. There is another item about which the minister and I have had a lot of correspondence. I refer to the soft drink industry. There are several small operators in my part of the country who are just struggling along on a shoestring. The difference between the taxes they are carrying and bankruptcy is just as little as that. They have been hanging on hoping the minister would remove the tax, but it has not happened.
If the minister wants to make himself popular and get a lot of miners' votes there are other taxes he could remove. We have also talked about this matter a good many times. The coal miner has to buy certain equipment that goes with his trade. He has to buy a special hat. The Minister of Fisheries will understand this because he is an old miner. The miner has to buy special shoes with steel toecaps. If he is working at the coal face he has to buy his explosives and caps, and these things run into quite a bit of money each year. The request has been made to me time and time again, and this is not the first time I have spoken about the matter in the house, that in view of the fact

The Budget-Mr. Gillis that these things are part of the miner's cost of operation he should be allowed to write them off for income tax purposes. It has not happened to date though I have made the request a good many times, but it may not be a bad idea to get it in the next budget.
There is another matter I have discussed with the revenue department recently. Union dues are deductible for tax purposes. It is clearly stated in the Income Tax Act that annual union dues are deductible, but before you can become a member of most of the unions throughout the country today you have to pay an initiation fee. In some cases it is $50, in others $150, or it may be as high as $200, depending on the union. I have had many people ask me why it is not possible to charge initiation fees as a tax offset in view of the fact that annual union dues are deductible. In discussing the matter with the department that collects taxes it has been pointed out to me that the joker in the act is that annual union dues are specified. The Minister of Finance might get in touch with the Minister of National Revenue and suggest that a change should be made to allow initiation fees as a tax offset, because if it is legitimate to allow annual union dues as an offset I think it follows that it is equally right to allow initiation fees. The deduction of the initiation fee would only take place once in a lifetime, at the time the person joined the union.
Such a move would be a vote catcher. There are many young people joining unions today and having to pay $100 as an initiation fee. At the present time the money is a dead loss to them, and they consider that they should be allowed to offset it.
There is another plea I should like to make to the minister, and it concerns our blind people. I know the budget does not deal specifically with problems of this kind, but indirectly it affects government policy as to whether the relief for which we ask in different cases can be given. The blind people of this country have been sending literature to us from time to time, and I think the government should consider removing the means test from the blind pension at an early date. In the last representation I had from the blind they have this to say about the handicaps of the blind:
In addition, a blindness allowance free from the means test would provide a basic security, and so would be a source of encouragement and lead the blind to greater productivity and higher income. As it is, the means test holds back the allowance recipient from his full earning capacity lest his income forfeit his allowance and yet not be sufficient to provide a livelihood in its own right. Moreover, the means test only adds to the frustration and fear confronting the newly blind, who meet their handicap in adult life. It undermines


ambition and retards the rehabilitation process. A blindness allowance free from the restricting means test can be a positive restoration of selfconfidence.
No income tax is levied against a single sighted man whose earnings are less than $1,000 a year, or against a married man under $2,000. Yet, because of the means test, the single sightless worker may not have more than $840 or the married man more than $1,320.
I think their argument is absolutely sound. If these people, with the handicap they have and receiving the blind pension of $40 a month, have the courage to go out and tackle the world, sell brooms, sell pencils or run canteens and thus earn something on the side for themselves, I do not think they should be penalized by the loss of what I consider a disability pension rather than a means of livelihood.
During the course of this and other debates in the house I have listened to members comment from time to time on the group with which I sit and the movement I represent. They have used some pretty loose language in the interpretation of the policy and program of the C.C.F. party. But I have noticed that the only authority they had for the interpretation they made was that free enterprise was a wonderful thing; that it had saved the world, the sun and the moon, and that anyone who came into the picture with a little different opinion did not have any right to exist. They pick up a copy of the Globe and Mail or a copy of the Montreal Gazette or of some other newspaper, read an editorial from it and say, "That is what they stand for".
I sat here and heard it from the other side of the house, and from this side, during this session. I therefore thought it would not be a bad idea if during the course of this session some time somebody dug up an authoritative statement by someone who is in the C.C.F. movement and who has some responsibility. If I want to get an opinion on a point of law I go and see a lawyer about it; or if I am sick I go and see a doctor. At least he is qualified to make a diagnosis of the particular problem on which I may he questioning him. I certainly will not go to an ultra free-enterpriser in order to get an interpretation of what the C.C.F. program may be.
I thought I knew the C.C.F. policy and program fairly well, but during the course of the debates to which I listened I began to wonder whether over the last nine or ten years they had changed to the extent that these arguments would lead you to believe. I therefore went back into my archives and I looked up some authorities. In getting us an interpretation of what the C.C.F. program and policy really mean, I figured that the best authority I could find in Canada would be someone who has been with the movement,

who has responsibility in the movement and who has some responsibility to the public.
The best man I could find was the present premier of Saskatchewan, Tommy Douglas. When he made this statement he had been premier of Saskatchewan for some five years. He is premier of a province in which he was elected on the C.C.F. ticket. He has been administering a C.C.F. program for five years, and he is giving to the people who elected him an account of his stewardship on this particular point of what the C.C.F. means. I think he should know as much about it as the editor of the Globe and Mail, the editor of the Ottawa Journal or anyone else, because to my mind he exemplifies what I thought the C.C.F. was and he is doing that kind of job.
I have heard thrown at us the statement that the C.C.F. will socialize your second pair of shoes, that the government are socialists in silk hats because they support the C.B.C., which is a monopoly, and the T.C.A., which is a monopoly. Someone over here said he would rather have a private monopoly than a government monopoly. I do not think there is much difference. There is only one corner of our community in this country where I can see any monopoly, and that is in this corner of so-called competitive free enterprise which does not exist. There is no such animal in this world any longer. If there were, there would not be the need for groups such as mine and such as we have to the left of us here.


John Horne Blackmore: Social Credit.


Clarence Gillis: We hear of this business of free enterprise. It is not free any longer, and it is not enterprise. The man who is trying to get a living in this world from a small business has a hard row to hoe. I therefore asked myself the question, have we slipped to the point where we are going to do all the things that we are accused of, or have the program and policy got into such a mess today that nobody knows where he stands?
Hence I went back and thought I would get an interpretation from Tommy Douglas. Many of us in this house know him. We have complete faith in his honesty and integrity. The people of Saskatchewan certainly think a great deal of him. He said this in 1949, and that program has not changed one iota. I should just like to put it on the record for the purpose of keeping the record straight, as I did with this inquiry by the British government into the validity of the national health program in that country. It is official. When you talk about socialism in the loose and illiterate way that a great many people talk about it, and when you consider the many types of socialism there are and have been in the 67509-174
The Budget-Mr. Gillis world, I think it is nearly time that we in this group put back on the record exactly what we mean when we say we would do certain things to protect the public with regard to much of the monopoly control that exists today, not through the government but outside of it.
I will take extracts from this talk on the subject of where we stand with regard to the organization of the economy of this country. I am going to quote Tommy Douglas on that subject, and I might say that I do so with approval. I agree 100 per cent with what he says here. It has always been my conception of this movement. He says:
There are three different types of ownership in which we believe-
That has been the discussion, ownership.
-private ownership, co-operative ownership and public ownership, and each of these may again be subdivided, as I will explain later.
Let us take private ownership first, for under a C.C.F. government private ownership will always compose the greater part of our economy. It was largely because of the loss of private ownership of our farms and our homes and small businesses through the growth of monopoly and the control of credit that the C.C.F. was first organized- organized to get ownership back, not to destroy it. Private ownership can be divided roughly into two classes, individual ownership, and partnership or company ownership. In this field would come your home, your farm, retail businesses, secondary industries, services industries, except transportation and communications, and a host of others. As a matter of fact we believe that with increased production and better distribution made possible by a balanced economy we would have more, not less, private ownership. You have only to look around you at the stores in any town of over 1,000 population and see the numbers of them that are chain-operated or controlled to see what is happening in our economy today. The small businessman in retail, processing and manufacturing is being ruthlessly pushed aside, and this is becoming more apparent as supply catches up with demand and business becomes more competitive.
That was written in 1949. You can see that he was not far out, when you consider that last year in this province alone, according to reports, there were some 6,000 small business failures. These failures were in your local grocery set-ups, where the Loblaw stores and the A & P stores and such people come in and do the kind of business financing with which the small operator cannot compete. Mr. Douglas goes on further and says this:
Don t let anyone tell you therefore that the C.C.F. does not believe in private ownership. We do. As a matter of fact the greatest enemies of private ownership today are the monopolies who are condemning the C.C.F. They distract your attention by weird tales and misrepresentation of C.C.F. policy while they blackjack you and send you to the receivers.
He is talking to the small businessman. Anyone who knows Tommy Douglas knows that is his language. He continues:
Co-operative ownership is the second type of ownership in which the C.C.F. believes. It operates

The Budget-Mr. Gillis
in both the producer and consumer fields. In both of these fields it creates the necessary competitive factors to assure efficient and reasonable service. It retains in the community the largest possible amount of the wealth created by the community. It creates and stimulates the ability for selfhelp and self-reliance in solving the economic problems facing the individual in a free society. It is a training ground for leadership in the community and is a most effective weapon in fighting the growth of monopoly control. The growth of the co-operative movement in every part of the world has coincided with the development of the social democratic movements in the same areas. The one creates the economic freedom and intelligent group self-interest which is essential to the growth of the other. Co-operative ownership means a wider and more democratic distribution of ownership which is the objective of democratic socialism.
Finally, the C.C.F. believe in public ownership. This is again divided into three fields-municipal, provincial and federal, each having its own place. It is not now, and never has been, the intention of the C.C.F. to centralize all public ownership under the federal government. It would be equally as foolish for the federal government to take over ownership of the transportation systems of Toronto or Regina as it would be for those cities to own and operate the Canadian National or Canadian Pacific Railway within their boundaries. Public ownership has been proven a success in many fields and is being expanded today by even the capitalist government of the U.S.A. Even they recognize that complete private ownership in certain fields carries with it powers which they dare not leave in private hands. The Catholic Archbishop of Australia in 1949 issued a statement condemning total socialization, but stating, and I quote "the church recognizes that, under present conditions, there are certain forms of enterprise and industry which are of quite extraordinary importance to the community and which may legitimately come under public control. Among these are banking and insurance, the manufacture of steel and heavy chemicals, rail, sea and air transport, public utility services (electricity, gas, tramways) and armaments". This list goes even further than the proposals of the C.C.F. platform.
There are, however, two forms of ownership to which the C.C.F. is unalterably opposed. The first is complete state ownership as advocated and practised by communism, and the other is monopoly and cartel ownership as developed under capitalism. We agree wholeheartedly with the council of the Christian churches in their statement issued in Amsterdam in 1949, when they stated that "the idealogies of communism and of laissez-faire capitalism are equally wrong".
I could go on, but I know my time is running out.


Donald D. Carrick: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Clarence Gillis: Yes.


Donald D. Carrick: The question is this. Do you consider the statement of Mr. Douglas is identical with or different from the statement of C.C.F. policy in the Regina manifesto which says that the C.C.F. will not rest until capitalism has been eradicated?


James Sinclair: Let us have a good answer to that one.


Clarence Gillis: I can give a good answer. If the hon. member is just reading the Globe and Mail editorials-


James Sinclair: He is reading the Regina
manifesto, the final paragraph.


Clarence Gillis: I hope, Mr. Speaker, you will note that my time is being taken up.


James Sinclair: We will give you lots of time to explain that. We do not want Tommy Douglas, we want the Regina manifesto.


Major James William Coldwell: Where is the Liberal platform of 1919; health insurance?


Hazen Robert Argue: What about health insurance?


James Sinclair: Let us get back to the Regina manifesto, not Tommy Douglas.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, will you tell the Minister of Fisheries to keep quiet?


James Sinclair: Let us have an answer.


Clarence Gillis: I am going to, but you will not let me answer. I want to answer the hon. member who asked that question. In my judgment the statement I have just read, emanating from the premier of Saskatchewan in 1949, is 100 per cent in accord with the Regina manifesto. I make that statement without any equivocation or mental reservations. I would remind the Minister of Fisheries and the hon. member who asked that question of this. No political party in this country or any country can write a social program and measure it in terms of days or years. When you are talking about a social program, as the Regina manifesto was back in 1932, you are merely stating an objective, the emphasis on which would change from time to time depending on conditions in the country. There is no finality to it. Neither your party nor this party or any other party can sit down and write a program today that you will not have to vary and change, but leaving your main objective the same.
Yes, the main objective of the C.C.F. is to eliminate-


James Sinclair: To kill socialism.


Clarence Gillis: -private control that is exercised over the lives of the people of this country by people behind the scenes who are not responsible to government. In every discussion I have heard in the house in the last several days I have heard Conservatives bemoan the fact that our resources are getting into the hands of private capitalists in the United States who have no social, economic or other responsibility to this country. It is that kind of thing that this movement aims at replacing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but I should point out to him that his time actually expired three minutes ago.


James Sinclair: As one who is involved in this, may I ask the hon. member if his last apology means that the C.C.F. now repudiates the last paragraph of the Regina manifesto?


Hazen Robert Argue: Tell us about 1919.


Clarence Gillis: There was no apology. It was a reaffirmation of our faith in the Regina manifesto.
(Translation) :


Lionel Bertrand: Mr. Speaker, every time I have spoken in the house I have done so to give my views on matters of public interest and, for the past sixteen years I have tried to reflect here the opinions of my electors. If there is one matter which deeply interests them at present, and about which they send me numerous requests for information, it is that of health insurance, of hospital insurance.
Throughout my public life I have been a supporter of social security. Early in life I had to work and assume responsibilities; my family bravely faced situations which would not have existed if, in those days, there had been beneficial social legislation like that which is in force today. I have therefore considered it my duty to champion the cause of the lowly, the hard worker and the needy. The people of Canada do not want humiliating public charity, but rather legislation that would enable underprivileged citizens in this rich and prosperous country to get their share of welfare and security.
I am happy to underline here the vast accomplishments of the Liberal party to which I belong, and which was successfully led by Mr. Mackenzie King until 1948 and which has been led with no less success since by the Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent. Even opponents have to recognize that the Liberal party, which has governed the destinies of our country without interruption since 1935, has always enjoyed the confidence of the Canadian people; it has enjoyed that confidence during the worst period of the war and it came out of it with an even greater prestige than before. Today it still enjoys that confidence. The social legislation enacted by our party has been the envy of other countries and has helped to create in Canada an atmos-
The Budget-Mr. Bertrand phere of welfare that has become indispensable.
Nobody would like to see family allowances stopped; the government that enacted that legislation made a generous gesture and the people cannot forget it. If it did not exist, we would have to enact it. That legislation has been greatly beneficial to our people; it has satisfied a human desire for protection and provided help for the family. In the last few years, several requests have been made asking that the allowances be doubled, without increasing taxes. In my opinion, such a request was improperly put forward. I have often said and I still contend that although I am in favour of increasing family allowances, I do not see how it could be done without increasing one way or another governmental expenses and, therefore, the taxes which we have to pay.
I believe, and I have often said so in my constituency and in the house, that the family allowances act should be revised. It was enacted nearly eleven years ago. By virtue of that legislation, the government has spent several million dollars, but that money has not been wasted. It has contributed to the health and the progress of the nation. Those dollars have provided better food, better care, better clothes and a better education for thousands of children. The family allowances cheque, which comes at the same time, on the same day of each month, which is paid without political partisanship and used to good purpose has contributed and still contributes to create an atmosphere of family satisfaction which honours our country. During the past eleven years, the cost of living has greatly increased. I believe that the time may have come to revise the act, to set new rates that would take into account the cost of living. The Department of National Health and Welfare would be well advised to study the matter. In adjusting the act to present conditions, it would answer the general wishes of the people.
By providing good food and a good education to our young citizens we are doing an act of liberation. Children truly represent the future. If our children are healthy, our future will be prosperous; if our children are well educated and understand their religious, civil and patriotic duties, our future will be assured. Money invested by Canada to educate our citizens of tomorrow is not lost. It is an asset which enhances the undeniable prestige of our country.
2750	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Bertrand
Mr. Speaker, I put on the order paper of the house a motion which has not been debated but which deals more particularly with the blind. I have always taken an interest in them, and I know the work done by their associations, especially the Societe amicale des aveugles, in which I am particularly interested. In my opinion, the blind should not be subjected to a means test; they should be granted the maximum pension without any restriction whatsoever. True, last year the age requirements were lowered and the maximum income permitted was increased, but that does not seem to be sufficient. Few blind people in Canada have an income sufficient to provide for themselves, and the majority are unable to cope with the monthly allowance they receive unless they do some other work to supplement their income. I recently said in a speech in this house;
The blind are not deprived of all their producing capacities, but these capacities are deadened or reduced to nothing. If you want the blind to take on some productive job, you have to make them financially secure. The psychological fear of not being able to keep up their jobs because they might lose their pension if they kept on working adds to their anguish.
I have not changed my mind. In the case of the blind, one must stimulate and not destroy their human ideal. The elimination of the means test would guarantee their financial security as, by the very nature of things, blindness entails expenses which people with normal vision are spared: higher cost of living, guide services, additional maintenance costs, more adequate medical care, poor health, etc. Blindness calls for many extra expenses. It is for that reason that quite a substantial number of blind people in the province of Quebec do not get the pension. The husband or wife is working, since the maximum income fixed by law, even with a full pension, is not always adequate for the maintenance of the home. Therefore, in many cases, the blind person lives outside the home in order to receive full pension, leaving to the spouse the responsibility of working and raising the family. To raise the family and social standard as well as the dignity of the blind, it is essential that the blind do not have to suffer an inferiority complex throughout the year. The blind person lives in darkness; in many ways, his existence is complicated; he worries and loses patience, he feels lonesome and forsaken. The elimination of the means test would open new perspectives to him; he would find a new reason to work, to adapt


himself to circumstances and thus, being less worried, be in a better position to provide for the education of his children and the maintenance of his family.
I wish to say a word about disability allowances; no one should blame me for a few remarks on this subject since I have advocated this pension many years before the legislation on this matter was put on our statute books.
The provinces have accepted the act, although reluctantly in some cases. The regulations have been approved following discussions between representatives of the federal government and of the provinces. Some 30,000 people now get the disability pension in Canada, which is much less than the 50,000 and more which had been estimated at one time. Personally I think that the act is too rigid, and a great many cases which have been called to my attention after the applications had been rejected have brought home to me that it is so. Many of these applications have been submitted anew, and they have been granted favourable consideration.
I do not think this legislation should be for the dying; it should become more flexible. We could consider as invalids a large number of people who, though they may not be forced to remain constantly in bed or in a chair are prevented, through some infirmity or other, from earning their living or are constantly refused on the labour market, even though they may have the use of their hands or feet. A number of applications which seemed worthy of consideration have apparently been refused. The lack of latitude provided for in the regulations would seem to be directly responsible for this. Would it not be well to call for a study of these applications which have been turned down in order to see whether or not the present regulations could be changed so as to make the legislation really efficient and to achieve the desired purpose?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the government that the constituency of Terrebonne, which I represent in this house, supports a national health insurance plan and that my constituents are anxious for it to be quickly implemented. The comments which I have heard and the views which I have had the opportunity of ascertaining are quite indicative of the opinion of the people on this subject. If my constituents entertain such definite views on this matter, I doubt whether things are at all different in other constituen-

cies. It must be recognized that, for our working people, insecurity is the worst worry of all. There is nothing like idleness to wipe out in a few weeks savings which have been acquired after long and arduous effort, and to turn a prosperous home into one beset with financial difficulties or even with real want. These views of my constituents are all the more welcome to me because ever since I have been in public life I have never ceased to demand legislation which would ensure our working people the help of the nation in case of illness or confinement to a hospital.
I do feel also that most people in Canada favour a national health insurance plan and that the decision of the government to go ahead in this matter has been highly appreciated. I would even go further. The people of this country would not forgive the government if it were to stop halfway now, no more than it would forgive delay in completing the present program of social security by this beneficent legislation. And I would add that this question is so close to the heart of the people and appears so essential to them now that provincial governments refusing to co-operate may be judged severely by their constituents.
It is becoming impossible for the low income group to face the excessive costs of hospitalization. I realize that a hospital, like a hotel, must ask rates which often appear prohibitive, in order to meet their costs of management, but it is none the less undeniable that medical and hospital costs are excessively high. Dr. Jean Gregoire, deputy minister of health in the province of Quebec, did not hesitate to say a few months ago that 80 per cent of the people of Quebec-and I presume that such is the case elsewhere-cannot meet hospitalization expenses when they are sick. No doubt, there are many Canadians who are protected at this time against medical and hospital costs, either by subscribing to a private hospitalization plan or because their employers have adopted a group insurance plan which protects them, together with their dependents. There remains, however, a great number of Canadians-possibly more than 50 per cent of them-especially in the working and low income classes, who have no protection at all. It may be because their trade does not permit it, or because their employers are opposed to it or never thought of it, or because their salary does not allow them to join a private insurance plan. If their income is not sufficient to
The Budget-Mr. Bertrand permit them to seek preventive medicine, all the more reason for their being unable to face hospitalization costs. These people, I should point out, even when sick, will wait to the last minute before seeing the doctor, because of the very inadequacy of their income. They will conceal their ailment and suffer in silence, seeking relief from sedatives and old wives' remedies.
When the time comes for them to be hospitalized, they will not only be unable to regain their health but they will have to bear the handicap of impaired health. That point of view should be kept in mind by those organizations which, in their annual briefs or in their periodical suggestions to governments, will not come out clearly for or against the health insurance scheme but which say that we must be careful and proceed slowly, under the barely concealed pretext that taxes might go up.
On the other hand, many welfare and labour organizations are asking for that social security measure, and if the price comes high -which nobody will deny-they say that if we can, and rightly so, spend huge amounts of money to protect ourselves against outside dangers, against war and even to prevent war, it is up to the government to build a large social security system in order to suppress as much as possible social evils, to do away with distress which comes from ill-health, and to give Canadians, in these times of anxiety, the benefit of security and the priceless advantages of good health. The English writer and statesman Benjamin Disraeli said on that score:
The health of the people is really the foundation upon which all their happiness and all their powers as a state depend.
Our country is not backward in the public health field. Under the constitution, public health comes under provincial jurisdiction; but, eight years ago, the federal government embarked upon a national health program for the sole reason that the provinces alone could scarcely establish a uniform system and that it seemed necessary therefore, without depriving them of their autonomy, to co-operate with them on a national level so as to give greater efficiency to all freely taken joint decisions. Thousands of beds have been put at the hospitals' disposal; from year to year, medical research has gained in importance, public courses have been initiated, groups have been formed with the help of the various governments, and great progress has been

The Budget-Mr. Bertrand made in the fight against tuberculosis, cancer, mental illness and other ills that plague humanity. And-I am stressing this without fear of contradiction-never has the country had a better minister to carry out all these plans in the field of social security, i.e. family allowances, old age pensions, pensions for the blind, and for the disabled, than the present Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). I am therefore happy to pay a deserved tribute, not only to his personal talent, but also to his devotion for his cherished cause of public health, to his remarkable and well known industry, and to his very clear comprehension of all problems under his departmental jurisdiction.
I am among those who hope that he will be able to carry out the health insurance scheme. This is a vast project indeed, but his devotion measures up to it. I know he understands the importance of this scheme, and that he wants to help all Canadians, and more particularly the small wage earner.
The small wage earner is the man who, in order to live and support his wife and children, has to count on each day's work, who cannot afford to be ill for, whenever he is, hardship immediately befalls his home. The small wage earner is the one who never achieves wealth and who, at the end of his days, after toiling for forty years, has painstakingly put aside only a few hundred dollars to cope with unforeseen expenses of sickness and old age. The small wage earner who, during his lifetime, has been able to escape, with his wife and family, surgical and hospital bills which are always heavy will be, among his kind, a very lucky man indeed. Many of these people come to my office and show me unpaid hospital bills. They are people who, over and above their daily cares, always feel tortured by the same bills which will keep on piling up. Hospitals want to be paid; they cannot carry on unless they are. Are patients always able to pay? That is the question. Health insurance will be beneficial both to our citizens, who have to cope with sickness and to the hospitals whose progress will thus be ensured.
The small wage earner is the one who, week after week, sees his tax deducted from his pay cheque, and, though sometimes grudgingly, is nevertheless willing to do his share in the administration of the country. And when he makes out his annual income tax return, what is he allowed to deduct? A few dollars as charitable donations, a portion, always insignificant, of his medical expenses. On the other hand, the industrialist, the merchant, the businessman, owing precisely to their business, have an expense account where they can enter so many indirect expenses, the legal

facility of providing themselves with leisure and amenities, and to bestow on their families benefits squarely denied the low income class. Thus, health insurance would create a new balance through which the well to do would lose nothing of their benefits, while the poor and the humble would get their share of security. The happiness of the lower class is made of peace of mind and heart. You cannot have one without the other. Let us not forget that the heaviest damage to health is not caused by work, because sixty year old workers, who have worked very hard all their lives, still go to work early every morning. The things that are harmful to health, that undermine and destroy it, are moral and financial worries. Just go down to the miserable classes of society, and you will see what it is all about. The low income worker will understand that, even though he has to contribute his share to the establishment of a health insurance plan, he no longer will have, when misfortune strikes him, the awful shame of having to tell his doctor or the hospital officials that he is unable to pay, of having to be endlessly hurt in his feelings, and of having thereafter, because of accumulated debts, to live in discouragement, and sometimes on the brink of despair. We, the lucky ones, must keep aware of the fact that, close to our home there are slums, and people who, through lack of money, have never paid a visit to their native province or country and who will never go to Florida, and we must convince ourselves, when we criticize a poor home with a television set, that the poor ones too must have their moments of enjoyment. In these times of easy life, when sports are draining so much money, when the attraction for travel increases from year to year, when luxurious restaurants are crowded with customers who do not care for the amount of the bill, when in grills and bars we pay as much as one dollar for a glass of scotch or rye, I will never tolerate that those with an easy life should be the first to criticize or to refuse to pay a few additional dollars in taxes in order to maintain and develop our social security plan.
(Text):


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: It being six o'clock I do leave the chair.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
(Translation) :
Lionel Bertrand: Before the house adjourned at six o'clock I was speaking of health insur-*

ance. I would like to repeat one sentence I said at that time.
We, who are more favoured, should take note of the fact that next to us there are slums, that there are people who, through lack of money, have never visited their province, or their country, who will never see Florida; before criticizing the poor people who own television sets, we should stop and think that those poor people are also entitled to a few moments of happiness. In this period of easy living, where sports drain so much money, where the thirst of travelling increases from year to year, where luxury dining rooms are overcrowded with customers who do not worry how much the bill will be, where people have to pay as much as one dollar for a glass of scotch or rye in grills or bars, I will never admit that those who are better off are the first to criticize or to refuse to pay a few more dollars in taxes for the maintenance and the development of our social security program.
To maintain a social security program and, if need be, to improve it, is to destroy communism. Has communism ever been associated with a high level of production, attractive salaries and a high standard of living? Does communism make any headway in countries where the government is concerned with the lot of the working class and of people of modest means and takes care of the needy, the sick, the destitute and the poor? Has communism any chance to grow in a country where social legislation protects the people against the hazards of life and ensures the welfare of the needy? No one who is sincere would refuse to pay a few dollars a year in taxes in order that the government may enact a social legislation which is not only helping the population but ensures internal peace to a country like ours.
Personally, I would be willing to pay more taxes if necessary for the implementation of a health insurance program. There is no need to throw everything upside down nor to establish state medicine.
It is not a matter of preventing the family from choosing its own physician. Nor is it a matter of controlling the hospitals or the organizations which are in charge of them. The autonomy of the provinces can and must be respected. The federal government is willing to pay half the costs of such a health insurance plan. True, if it does need the approval of six provinces to go ahead, I hope that it wins it as quickly as possible and that the province of Quebec will be among those six.
However, should this national health insurance plan meet with too many difficulties, should the provinces refuse to enter into it
The Budget-Mr. Montgomery for a number of reasons into which I need not go, I still think that the government should not close this case it has opened in the interest of the whole country. It should put the question to the voters at the next election or, should circumstances become pressing, ask for a referendum so as to settle the matter once and for all.
Mr. Speaker, our social security program makes our people happy. The people know that they owe it to the party to which I belong. This program cannot and must not be tinted by politics. It is not and that is to the credit of all of us representing the people here. If old age pensions did not exist today on a national scale for people of 70, how many people and how many homes would be in difficulty. The amount of $40 a month was a boon to public health. It helps and continues to help old people to get better treatment and, by casting off financial worries, it enables a great many people to live longer and to await in serenity the inevitable twilight. The thing that must prevail now is a feeling of security, the certainty of that security. By spending annually enormous amounts of money for NATO and the protection of its territory, our country gives us that certainty. That feeling of security must also be felt in every home and be solidly anchored in the heart of every Canadian. Health insurance must become one of the foremost concerns of this government and also of parliament. In this as in other fields, I know, the government will not fail and it is our duty, in this parliament, to support the government.
(Text) ;


Gage Workman Montgomery: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in this debate I should like to speak to two items in particular, but first I should like to make a few comments.
The budget held no surprises for me except the discriminatory tax imposed on a few United States magazines. This has been very ably dealt with by the hon. member for Calgary South, himself a publisher of Canadian trade journals and one who, I believe, can speak with authority. It has also been dealt with by other speakers. So I shall have nothing further to say on that.
As regards agriculture and the farmers, I find nothing substantially new that will help this particular industry. There are some changes in the tariff items which may clarify some former rulings, but in general there is nothing I can see that will give any great uplift to our farmers, or assure them of any relief from the price-cost squeeze, or enable them to obtain a greater share of the consumer's dollar.

The Budget-Mr. Montgomery
Among certain tariff items referred to the tariff board during the past year was that of potatoes. Whilst no definite action has been taken, I was interested in the minister's announcement that he hoped to be able to make a statement in the very near future in connection with that particular item. I trust that this will be a statement of policy that will be satisfactory to the producers. There are a great many growers of potatoes in my constituency, and this is a product that greatly affects the economy of my province, as it is one of the largest cash crops produced in New Brunswick.
The minister also announced that he was not recommending any reduction in the general level of the income tax, but that there would be some minor changes in certain provisions and such contemplated changes would be announced when the amending bill was brought in. Again I trust that among those changes he has in mind will be one restoring to section 42 of the Income Tax Act the true intent, meaning and spirit which I am sure members of this parliament had in mind when those sections were amended a few years ago; that is, the sections applying to farmers and fishermen. It is a well-known fact that the incomes of farmers and fishermen fluctuate greatly from year to year, and the legislation was an attempt, in my opinion, to deal equitably with individuals in these occupations.
This has particular application to farmers in my province, whose chief crop is potatoes. In some years their income is fairly good. In fact in some instances it is quite large, owing to good yields, high prices, selling at the right time and many other factors. However, in other years-and unfortunately we have a good many of the other years-owing to adverse weather conditions, poor yields and low prices, the incomes of the farmers are not good. In fact it is not uncommon for many of them to have losses, and they are lucky if they break even.
This is all due to factors over which the farmer really has no control. This legislation to which I refer was designed to give the farmer and fisherman some remedy in combating such uncontrollable circumstances. Section 42 was intended to permit farmers whose chief source of income was their farming operations to average their income over a period of five years if they elected to do so. In other words the farmer or fisherman was permitted to select any five-year period. He must not use the same years in different periods, but if he has selected a five-year period the interpretation of the section seems to be clear that he is not required to file a return or to pay a tax within that period.

That interpretation was upheld by Mr. W. C. Fisher, Q.C., of the income tax appeal board in the case of Topham v. The Minister of National Revenue. It seems to me there is no way of telling whether the farmer has any income tax to pay until the end of the five-year period. He may have a very good income in one or two of the years, but I think it was the intention of parliament when it passed the legislation to give the farmer and the fisherman the opportunity of waiting until the end of the selected period. Then if he was taxable he would have the right to average his tax over that period and pay it at that time.
However, the Department of National Revenue did not agree with Mr. Fisher. The department appealed the decision. The case went to the exchequer court and the decision was reversed. The reversal, if I understand the situation, was made on the basis of the interpretation placed upon section 44 of the act. You are all familiar with that section of the act. It provides that in so far as an individual is concerned he must file an income tax return for any year in which he is taxable, and he must pay his tax. This must be done within a certain period which is laid down in the section. The minister is also supposed to prescribe the form to be filed and the information which he requires. Under subsection 2 of section 44 the minister may call upon a person to file a return within a certain period, whether or not they are taxable, and if they do not do so they are liable to the penalties provided in section 55.
I am not going to criticize the decision of the exchequer court because I understand just as well as anyone that lawyers and judges differ in their opinions on interpretation, but I want to bring this point to the attention of the minister and the government. Under the ruling of the exchequer court farmers and fishermen have lost the right which I believe parliament intended to give them in order to correct the situation that the legislation was intended to correct. Under this ruling a farmer must file a return in any year in which he thinks he has made enough money to be taxable, and he must pay the tax. If he does not file the return and pay his tax he is subject to the penalties under section 55.
It works out in this way. Suppose the farmer has a good year in the second year of the period he has selected and his income is taxable. Under the present interpretation he must file a return for that year and must pay his tax on the basis of that year alone. But at the end of three more years, which would be the end of his period, is the only time at which it can be determined by either the farmer or the income tax department whether

or not he has any tax to pay, and I claim that when the farmer is forced to file a return and pay tax in the second year he is penalized because he is deprived of certain money for the next three years, if at the end of the period he finds he has no taxable income for the whole period which he has selected. Second, the farmer is subject to the penalties of section 55.
I submit that this situation is working hardship on the farmer, and I bring the matter to the attention of the minister and the government because I believe sincerely that parliament passed the legislation with the intention of providing a remedy for people with fluctuating incomes who may have one good year, two good years and three bad years, so they could average their income over the period and if they had no taxable income for the period they would then have no tax to pay.
I think that was what parliament intended, and I believe that intention has been frustrated by the decision of the court in the same way that other intentions with respect to the act have been frustrated. I believe the minister referred to that in his budget speech. It may be that I am premature in my remarks, but I hope the minister has in mind bringing in an amendment to remedy the situation, because I believe the amendment to section 42 has been affected by the changed interpretation of section 44, which says that every individual who is taxable in a given year must file a form. Inasmuch as the amendment to section 42 provided a five-year period instead of one year, and because there is no definite way of finding out whether or not a man is taxable until the end of the selected five-year period, I contend that section 44 does not apply.
At the present time the farmer is being penalized, and I suppose the fisherman too. I am more interested in the farmers, and I would certainly ask the minister to give the matter thorough study. I should like to see an amendment introduced which will fully restore the original purpose of section 42 and the amendment thereto, in order that farmers will not be severely penalized and to carry out the intention , of parliament. Otherwise I do not see much use in having the amendment.
As a matter of fact, I see nothing in the act which directs the government to return to the farmer any money he has paid during the period if it turns out at the end of the period that he is not taxable. He may have paid a small amount during the period but when his income is averaged the result may be that he has overpaid. I know the department has always been very prompt in making 67509-175
The Budget-Mr. Montgomery adjustments of that nature; nevertheless the man is without his money for one, two, three or maybe four years.
The other particular point in connection with the budget on which I should like to dwell for a few minutes is the question of federal-provincial relations. The minister devoted a good part of his address to this subject. He enumerated in a general way the proposals submitted by the federal government to the provinces. He went on to say that under the circumstances the federal government believed that the proposals were eminently fair, reasonable and realistic. He went to quite some length in explaining to hon. members that no province would receive less than it had received under the tax rental agreements.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, these proposals are certainly not in line with what the provinces have a right to expect or with what they had a right to assume was the intention of the Prime Minister in his letter of January, 1955, when he informed the provinces that the government had no intention of abandoning the objective of the tax rental agreements, which was to make it financially possible for all the provinces, whatever their tax base, to perform their constitutional functions and to provide a reasonable level of provincial services without abnormal burdens of taxation. Unfortunately I think the proposals do not achieve this principle, especially for those provinces with a limited tax base such as that which we have in the maritime provinces. Mr. Speaker, it is through no fault of their own that those provinces have not a wider base of taxation.
One of the provincial services that must or should be maintained on a basis of equality throughout this country is education. It costs just as much to erect buildings and provide equipment and other facilities in the maritime provinces as it costs anywhere else. But what do we find? The average cost of education in Canada runs approximately 2-225 per cent of the total Canadian national income but in my own province it would run something like 4-329 per cent of the total income of the people of the province, or almost double.
It might be interesting to some hon. members if I just mention how narrow our tax base is, or the burden of taxation in relation to education in my province; and I think our system is pretty much the same throughout the maritimes. For education alone the municipalities have to pay something like 40 to 45 per cent. How is it done? We have what we call a poll tax. That poll tax is levied on every male person between the ages of 21 and 60, with very few exceptions, and it may run from $3 to as high as $10. That tax is levied

The Budget-Mr. Montgomery regardless of what property a person has, just because he is a male person.
But that is not all. By the way, that tax is for the administration of justice, the hospitalization of the poor, general administration and the services the municipality gives to its citizens. But in addition to that there is another poll tax for educational purposes by which we must raise one-fifth of our share of the operational expenses of education, up to and including the high schools. That poll tax runs anywhere from $5 to $15 and possibly more in some places. And that is not all. Under the system adopted in our province some 10 years ago we also have certain districts getting together, called regional districts, where they build a special school called a regional school and provide not only the ordinary academic courses in education but also a fairly full course of vocational training and sometimes primary agricultural courses. About 40 per cent of the cost of these buildings has to be borne by the district concerned. One-fifth of the cost of the buildings of that district has to be raised by another poll tax, and that poll tax we find runs anywhere from approximately $5 to $20. It will average possibly $18. So the individual has three poll taxes to pay.
In addition to that, every individual man or woman who owns any personal property- that is a car, livestock or any kind of personal property; anything except money or securities-is assessed on its value and the rate is fixed just as the rate is fixed on real estate, and he or she must pay that tax. If people have a truck or a car or things like that they must pay that tax. In addition, of course, we have to pay our tax on real estate the same as people everywhere else. I am speaking of rural districts and small towns such as I have in my constituency. That situation exists all over New Brunswick and I think quite generally in the maritimes. Our real estate is ' assessed. I have checked up on the matter and in comparison with Ontario, percentagewise on the actual value of our real estate, I think we pay higher taxes than are paid in the province of Ontario. I suppose the same comparison would apply with respect to other provinces.
You have that picture, and you can see what a narrow tax base we have. What have we left to tax? In the province of Ontario- I do not know about some of the other provinces-the municipality does not assess anything but real estate. There is no poll tax to pay. There is no personal property tax to pay. You just pay on your real estate, and the mill rate is no greater than ours down there. In some places it is less. I think this is a picture which is possibly overlooked.


Our tax base or whatever you want to call it is limited and our burden is heavy.
Yet with all this taxation, we have not the educational facilities and privileges that are supplied in some of the other provinces. I have mentioned the municipality but the province has to make up the balance, some 60 per cent of the cost; and it is done by grants to teachers on their salaries, grants to the municipality, grants to the school district that builds these schools, grants for transportation of the children and grants for general administration and the running of the schools. This cost is still going up. What has the province left to tax? When the municipality has been assessing the individual there is not much left to the province on which to levy a heavy tax.
In addition to all this you must remember that these small provinces have a difficult time to meet the new demands that call for increased taxes for many types of health services, increased costs of policing and administration, in addition to their regular costs of roads and bridges and all the old expenditures as well which have increased many times in the last few years. Hence my province of which I am speaking at the moment, like the rest of the maritime provinces, is carrying a heavy burden of taxation and is labouring under the difficulty of what we refer to as a narrow tax base. We are limited in area. We are bound by federal fiscal policies which so often operate to our detriment, owing to our location in the federation.
The fiscal policies of the central government which have been necessary and correct-I have no criticism of them-to build Canada into a nation unfortunately have at times handicapped our growth and our trade, and still do so, and have operated to encourage the development of other parts of Canada and the centralization of industry in which we have not shared. I think this has been one of the reasons for the lag in our general economy.
As I said, I am not criticizing this part of the fiscal policy. I think it is right, because this country as a country must grow. I do not think you will find anybody in the maritime provinces who is jealous of the rest of Canada for growing faster. We want to see the nation grow as well. But I think there is a strong feeling in the maritimes- and I do not hesitate to voice it because I feel that I am backed up in it-that there is a responsibility on the federal government to devise and apply a fiscal policy that will even up the whole national economy.
During the past 80 years these three provinces by the sea have contributed much to the progress of this country. I would refer

in particular to the human resources. Many of the leading men and women of our country, who were born down by the sea, have used their ability, initiative and resources in other parts of this great country to assist in making it the nation it is today. We are proud of the fact that wherever you go in Canada you meet hundreds of former maritimers or their descendants. But as a result of the combination of these circumstances and the national fiscal policy, the maritimes have suffered and now lack many of the industries which they ought to have had and which could have been supported. This area necessarily has a limited taxation base and, while a part of this confederation, has not shared in the growth of the nation. Taking all the circumstances into consideration this area has contributed much more to the growth of this country than the central government has properly recognized.
I say therefore, Mr. Speaker, to the Prime Minister and to this government that the proposals submitted to the maritime provinces, the cradle of confederation, in my opinion and in the opinion of many others are not fair, reasonable or realistic as stated by the Prime Minister. Such statements do not measure up to his promise that regardless of the taxation base the federal government should make it financially possible for any province, which would include the maritimes, to perform its constitutional functions and provide reasonable services without having an abnormal burden of taxation. Unless this government is willing to reconsider these proposals or accept other proposals or formulas such as the one submitted by New Brunswick last October, or the suggested appointment of another royal commission similar to the Duncan and White commissions of 1926 and 1934, then conditions will become more difficult.
It will be recalled that the Duncan commission soon found that the economy of these provinces was lagging far behind, and that this was the result of federal fiscal policy and other circumstances over which these provinces had no control. At that time the commission recommended immediate lump sum increases in the federal subsidies, and those recommendations were carried out. They further recommended that another commission be appointed to restudy and reassess the whole economic situation as between the maritimes and the other provinces. This reassessment was carried out by the White commission, and as a result of its report of 1934 the statutory subsidies were further increased in view of the recognition by the members of that commission that the maritime provinces had not received, nor had they any prospect of receiving, the opportunity of 67509-175J
The Budget-Mr. Mclvor access to the central market areas. The commission felt that this was not sharing to an equitable degree in the natural growth of the country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it has been over 20 years since the White commission reported, and in view of the tremendous economic expansion in which the maritimes, as some of the original partners, are entitled to share, I feel the time is overdue for another reassessment by another royal commission of the maritime economic situation as compared with the rest of Canada. I am sure that any commission going into this whole matter would, under all the circumstances, recommend a considerable further increase in our statutory grants or subsidies. In fact I feel that such an increase could run up to 10 times as much as we are getting.
In closing let me say that I feel the government should certainly be considering some of the arguments that were put forward by the maritime premiers during the last conference concerning annual grants and treating this area as a special area. If the government is not willing to do that it is going to be tough for these people to put themselves on an even footing with the rest of Canada. The rest of Canada can grow and will grow, and the gap between us will get wider. I feel it will be nothing short of a tragedy if the maritimes are not treated as a special area. Although it may sound harsh, I feel it will be a blight on this government if it refuses to face up to the situation which we in the maritimes feel calls for justice and a square deal.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that I am qualified as a financial critic. While I studied political economy some time ago, yet when I see a budget I feel the need of knowing more. I agree with whoever said that money comes slowly but it goes quickly. I suppose the Minister of Finance finds the same thing. I would say that this is a poor election budget, but it is a great budget for all of Canada. There are some members in this house who would like to have another budget like this next year. I admit that I would like to see another budget like this next year and hear the Minister of Finance say there would be no election that year-not that I am very frightened of anything the future may hold.
It has been said by many in this house and in many of the newspapers that this budget is just holding the line. There are a good many members in this house who have heard that phrase thrown at them enthusiastically, "Hold the line". That is just what our Minister of Finance is doing. There are those who

The Budget-Mr. Mclvor would attack the line. Let us consider inflation. There is a danger of inflation breaking the line. When we have less goods and more money, there is a danger of inflation and the minister has to watch that. There is a danger of unemployment. I sat in this house last year and listened to the oratorical efforts of the opposition in denouncing the government in the matter of unemployment, yet when the government has done its best this year to help cure unemployment we do not hear very much about it. That is one of the dangers of breaking the line.
I think I know some classes of people fairly well. There are those who would tell us to hold the line. Who are they? The big trade unions of Canada want the government to hold the line. They do not want any more unemployment than exists at the present time. The chambers of commerce and the taxpayers of Canada want the government to hold the line. City councils and industries certainly want the government to hold the line; and the question is, will the government hold the line? We call on the Minister of Finance to hold the line because he stands for three fundamental things in the Liberal party, the things on which our party was built.
When we heard the hon. member for Cape Breton South give us the foundation of the C.C.F. party I thought it went back to the Regina manifesto, but our friend told us just what the C.C.F. is. I think I have the right to say on what the Liberal party is built. The minister has shown us, and so has the Prime Minister. The first principle is unity. From Newfoundland to British Columbia we have unity throughout Canada today. Therefore the line is being held. I could speak for half an hour on that, but I do not think it is necessary.
The second thing is security. If you visited any of our schools today what would you see? You would not see what you saw some years ago. From the way the children were dressed some years ago you could tell the brand of flour that had been used in the home. Go out in the streets and look at the automobiles there. Oftentimes I have been ashamed to go around amongst these big cars in my tin lizzy. I know there are some people who are unemployed. The great Teacher said, "The poor ye have always with you." Take a young man who has prepared himself in his youth, who has slaved and toiled like the hon. member to whom we heard such outstanding tributes paid today, who has developed his gifts. Certainly he need not lack a job in Canada today.

The third principle is freedom. We have freedom in Canada. I admit I am free to worship as I like or not to worship at all. I am free to go where I like; I am free even to resign from this house if I thought it was the right thing to do. We are free from the Atlantic to the Pacific to change our employment, to live as we like, to go to sleep when we like and get up when we like and to eat what we like. Since the budget is based upon these three principles of unity, security and freedom we say to the minister, "Boy, you are holding the line".
The reason I rose to take part in this debate is that I have two things to tell the minister. I have been telling him about these things for the past four years. I have been telling him how he should spend some money. But before I do that I think it is my duty to tell him how he can get some. It is all right to cut taxes, but where are we to get some money? We in the Fort William and Port Arthur district have organized the northwestern development association. We put in as the head of that association the city editor of the Times Journal. They are doing an outstanding job in getting industries to come in, and in opening up mines. One of the most outstanding new mines- perhaps you have not heard of it but if you had watched the stock market you could have made a little-is the Iron Bay mines which develop taconite ore in the Red lake district. Dr. Barclay is the man who is taking care of it. He is the former principal of our technical school in Port Arthur.
I must admit that some time ago I was disappointed in our Great Lakes pulp and paper mill, perhaps because of friendship. What is happening? Our northwestern development association is co-operating. They are building two more mills at a cost of $40 million. Perhaps that might not be the correct figure, because I am not a financier, but it is costing a lot of money and it will employ many people. Therefore I say to the minister, you are going to get a lot more taxes from the people who will be employed in producing what will come from that mill.
The two things I am again going to ask the minister to consider-and it is the fourth time I have mentioned them; they say that constant dripping will wear away a stone- are, first, superannuated pensioners, men who retired before salaries were increased. I have a letter from a postman who served 37 years, until one of his legs played out and the other one was not very much better. He was earning $116 a month and when he retired his pension was $88.46 a month. When Blue Cross and hospitalization are taken from that what is left for a couple to live on, especially when his wife is seriously ill? His

salary was $1,600 a year, compared with $3,400 a year today. I should like to tell the minister just as emphatically as I can that this is one of the outstanding needs in Canada today. The pensions of these superannuated pensioners should be increased.
The second thing-and I have a resolution on the order paper today dealing with it-is that pensions should be provided without a means test to veterans 60 years of age and over who saw active service. I said before that I have known some men who had four Christmas dinners in the trenches. I was talking to one a little while ago. He is only 61 years of age, but I could handle him in any way I wished and I am 20 years older than he is. He lost more than 10 years of his life. Why should those men who sacrificed their lives, their home influences and sometimes their homes, not get their pension without a means test at 60? I think it is time we woke up. I just say to the minister I hope that the new money that comes from my district will be used for that purpose.
Our city of Fort William tried to cooperate with the Department of Labour in another way to cure unemployment. This year they decided on winter work. They decided to lay sewers and put a tunnel under the Kaministikwia river for their water which comes down from Loch Lomond. Instead of putting it through the pipes that were broken not long ago, they put in a tunnel where it will be safe for all time.
We think the work which is being carried on now should have some support from the government. I believe that $310,359 was spent on winter work including trunk sewers. I ask the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Finance-and I suppose the Prime Minister will listen-for 20 per cent of that cost. I think we should get 20 per cent of it because I believe it is better to pay out money for that type of work than to pay it out in the form of unemployment insurance or relief.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to express through you my appreciation for several improvements. I patronize the cafeteria upstairs quite frequently because the meals are well prepared; one can eat as much or as little as one likes, and one only pays for what one eats. The improvement in the cafeteria has been outstanding and in expressing my appreciation for this improvement I am sure I am speaking for a good many hon. members in this house.
I would also like to express appreciation for the improvement in the lighting in this chamber. We do like to see the light coming down from above, and with this improvement it is possible for one to see all the clocks in this chamber. We express appreciation for the
The Budget-Mr. Mclvor improved lighting arrangement. I am reminded of the quotation, "Let there be light".


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It is hard on the eyes, though.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I now wish to speak about a pet subject of mine. I think everyone should be interested in games. I am sure, however, that many of us have been disappointed in the great national game, hockey. I saw one game recently and it reminded me of what I wanted to see when I was a boy. I wanted at that time to go to Donnybrook fair where you could get a drink or two and where the slogan, "If you see a head, hit it" prevailed. That hockey game was somewhat like that. It is no longer a matter of playing the game and observing the rules.
I see great hope for the future, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps you have heard mention on the radio of a sports college in Canada. Among the personnel of that sports college is General H. D. G. Crerar. The college publishes a paper which is called Sports College News. This sport's college is a national non-profit organization which is dedicated to helping to raise the standards of amateur sports, efficiency, physical fitness and recreation in Canada. It has been operating on a national basis since 1946. I would like to read to you the objectives of this sports college, as outlined in the March, 1956, issue:
The fundamental objective of the Canadian amateur sports and physical fitness development service is to make Canadians the most amateur sports and fitness conscious and knowledgeable people in the world. In working to this objective the Canadian amateur sports and physical fitness development service will attempt to accomplish the following:
1.	Create increased interest and participation in physical fitness activities throughout Canada.
2.	Stimulate increased participation in amateur sport.
3.	Develop increased interest in and support for amateur sports and recreation generally.
4.	Provide an authoritative information-education service to Canadians (individually and in organized groups) on all matters pertaining to sports skills, training, conditioning, physical fitness programs, organization and all related subjects.
5.	Offer a national "voice" through which those at work in this field can receive publicity and promotional aid in selling their activities to the public and through which support can be generated.
I appreciate the contribution of this group of men who are devoting their time and energy to building up amateur sports in Canada. I must admit that I would rather see a group of pee wees play, go out and throw themselves into their game, than all the professionals in Canada. I think this sports college is to be congratulated, and I hope it will carry on and continue to do its best.
I congratulate the minister on his budget. He did not reduce taxes but he did not increase them very much. Therefore he is

The Budget-Mr. Hahn holding the line, and I expect he will hold the line in such a way that he will be able to hold up his head and look the whole world in the face.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your patience.


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Speaker, the comments which have been made concerning the budget were not totally unexpected. We have heard it referred to as the nothing-nothing and the zero-zero budget. Some people have referred to it as the six-bit budget. I found very little in it to talk about; therefore I do not intend to waste the minister's time in talking about it at any length.
Certain statements have been made, however, to which I would like to refer. An announcement was made with respect to an increase in wages for federal civil servants, which I am satisfied will be met with good wishes and applause from every part of this house. The announcement today that the temporary employees would receive increases along similar lines is also appreciated. My only hope is that those who are in the lower income brackets will soon be the recipients of a sizeable increase in salary. Certainly those who are in the top bracket are not quite so much in need of an increase.
I would also like to be associated with the hon. member for Fort William in respect to his appreciation of the lighting in this chamber. I find now that I can practically look the minister in the eye and decide whether or not he means what he says-


Lester Bowles Pearson: We can see you blushing.


Frederick George Hahn: -and this is very commendable.
In making his statement today in reply to a question the Prime Minister indicated that part of the discussion in the United States with the president of that country had to do with the imbalance of trade, and with the fact that Canadians felt it was rather undesirable to have too much United States investment in this country. We in this group have long associated ourselves with that theory and that thought. We feel that if possible Canada should be for Canadians. I am pleased, however, that the Prime Minister is realistic enough to realize, as is the Minister of Finance, that if we are going to have an imbalance of trade we had better correct it in some way and allow United States dollars to come in to assist us in expanding our economy.
I have said before, and I repeat, that it remains for us as legislators and for those in the provinces as well to see to it that Canadian interests are protected. As long as we do that I do not think we have too much to fear from any investments that are

made in this country. This, of course, depends on the particular policies which the government decides to follow. If it wishes to permit 70 or 80 per cent of our investment to continue to come into the country from the United States that would doubtless be very detrimental to the future of Canada. I am satisfied, however, that with a certain understanding as between industrialists and the Canadian public as to the gradual shift of the United States balance of holdings in this country to Canadian control, in all likelihood we can change that balance over a period of time.
I have one other observation to make, and that is that we should not be so parochial in our thinking that we put ourselves in the unfortunate position where we stop the progress of North America. It is most important, if we are going to develop this country, that it must develop in conjunction with our great neighbour to the south. We have not a right to expect that the United States will be our protectors in the event of a catastrophe without at least doing something to assist them, and for that reason I was very pleased to hear the Prime Minister say today that certain discussions were being proposed in respect to waters crossing the international boundary.
This afternoon the hon. member for Cape Breton South gave us in this house considerable food for thought. I for one have learned to respect his thinking and his statements, for he usually says what he thinks. I must say I cannot remember him saying anything he did not think and absolutely believe in. He was somewhat taken aback, I would say, when the hon. member for Trinity asked him a question relative to his statement pertaining to the Regina manifesto, and possibly for a very good reason. I was pleased that he did not deny that the C.C.F. is going to maintain the Regina manifesto, for I think the people of Canada will now be in a better position to assess exactly what the C.C.F. stands for.
This is the doctrinaire basis of that particular party. I would say, let the people of Canada decide whether the statement the hon. member for Cape Breton South read is the true statement of C.C.F. thinking, or whether certain other utterances that have been made from time to time are the true statement of C.C.F. thinking. I refer to the Avonlea-Rouleau Beacon of March 9, 1955. This particular newspaper has an advertisement which was a recopy of one published many years ago. In fact it was issued in 1935. It says:
Douglas has been a student of Social Credit for many years.
Douglas has endorsed Social Credit.
The C.C.F. will make the Social Credit scheme possible.


An hon. Member:: Which Douglas is that?


Frederick George Hahn: It says:
Vote Douglas.
Issued by the C.C.F.-Social Credit, Weybum federal constituency.
I take it that this is the same T. C. Douglas to whom the hon. member was referring. This man is now adopting certain of the Social Credit principles, and I am happy to see that the hon. member for Cape Breton South is seeing the light and is beginning to endorse them all.


Clarence Gillis: He is pulling you out of the fat.


Frederick George Hahn: I do not think you have to worry about pulling me out of the fat. I am quite capable of getting myself out of the fat. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker-


Stanley Howard Knowles: The fat or the fact?


Frederick George Hahn: The fact of the matter is that the hon. member for Cape Breton South might have gone further today and told us that there are three kinds of socialist or C.C.F. members in this house. There are the extremists, the middle of the road gentlemen, and the very moderate ones. I have yet to decide exactly which group he falls in, unless he belongs to the Social Credit group or is possibly thinking of joining this group, since Mr. Douglas has accepted so many of the principles that have met with certain success in his own government. Mr. Douglas tried mild socialism. He failed in many instances to implement it. I am not sure of the reason for that. However, I am satisfied that those of our socialist friends who have endorsed socialism, or our C.C.F. friends who have endorsed socialism, might be better equipped to tell us for what particular reason these socialistic businesses failed.
I am sure Mr. Douglas does not reflect the views of the hon. member for Vancouver East, who unfortunately is not able to be in this house at the moment. I am satisfied that this hon. gentleman, who is just as straightforward and has made just as many statements that have been accepted at face value, will be only too happy to agree that some of the statements I am going to read are rightly attributed to him. I have in my hand a copy of a statement in the Vancouver Province of April 17, 1943, six years prior to the change in spirit of the C.C.F. party. At the tenth annual convention of the C.C.F. party of British Columbia the hon. member is reported as having said:
We must make it clear that we are not a reform party, we are a militant and revolutionary party and intend to be a militant and revolutionary government.
The Budget-Mr. Hahn
On November 10, 1943, the Calgary Albertan reported a speech made by the hon. member on November 9 in Calgary. He had this to
say:
When we become the government we will institute socialism immediately, and would use the power of the police and the military forces to force those opposed to obey the law. Those who defied the government's will would be treated as criminals and if capitalism says "no" then we know the answer-so did Russia.
I believe-and rightly so, I think-that there are at least two extremes in this thinking along socialistic lines in that party.


George Hugh Castleden: Tell us about the $25.


Frederick George Hahn: The hon. member is very much concerned about the $25 a month. We shall deal with this later when we have a proper opportunity. I think the hon. member has heard from time to time that it is possible to pay a dividend once one gains control of this nation, rather than forcing one's thoughts and ideas on others who do not believe in them.
As I said before, and I must repeat, I am satisfied that the hon. member for Vancouver East would not disagree that the statements I have read are rightfully attributed to him. So I am satisfied that the people of Canada should know exactly what type of C.C.F. members we have in this country. I have beside me a copy of the Vancouver Sun dated April 7 of this year. In it I see that the C.C.F. party in British Columbia has elected a new leader. This new leader is a militant socialist, and qualified himself as such. Just exactly what a militant socialist is I shall leave to your own imagination.
I think I have said enough on that subject in so far as classifying the socialists or C.C.F. members is concerned, but 1 too should like to keep the record straight. My purpose in raising this point at this time is that I do not want our C.C.F. friends going throughout the length and breadth of the nation telling the people that they again have thought of something that I am satisfied the Minister of Finance and the government, if it is the government of the time, may decide to institute possibly even next year.
I should like to refer to a Searle Grain Company report of Wednesday, March 28, 1956, which contains an article headed, "The United States Farm Bill, An Interesting Feature." The article reads in part as follows:
Although the United States farm bill has now been passed by the senate various amendments injected in its final stages are likely to receive close scrutiny in the senate-house conference committee; for this reason it is difficult to know in what form it will ultimately reach the president's desk. One of the amendments referred to, the two-price plan for wheat, is a new departure, the outcome of which will be watched closely by Canada. Under this proposal farmers would have

The Budget-Mr. Hahn
the opportunity to decide by referendum whether effective 1957, they would be willing to accept 100 per cent of parity on that portion of the wheat crop entering domestic consumption, normally some 500 million bushels, and whatever price was obtained on world markets for the balance.
I want to keep the record straight, and the reason I raise this point is the fact that on May 17, 1955, as found at page 3829 of Hansard, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), speaking on the two-price system, had this to say:
Parity to us is equity and justice. We do not support, as some other parties in this house do, notably the Social Credit party, a certain percentage of parity for any commodity which is less than 100 per cent, no matter by what formula it may be arrived at.


Solon Earl Low: Prove that.


Mr, Argue:: I shall prove that to you in one
moment.


Solon Earl Low: You cannot.


Hazen Robert Argue: I will prove it right now by quoting the hon. member for Acadia who gave the Social Credit position on agriculture in the budget debate, as reported at page 3626 of Hansard, as follows:
"In this group we have been advocating a two-price system for a number of years; that is, that the domestic market for farm products should be supported at 100 per cent of parity and that farm exports should be sold at the best prices obtainable in the international market, preferably under international agreement but supported by a reasonable support price."


Hazen Robert Argue: The farmer should get parity for all his crop, not just for part of it.


Frederick George Hahn: The hon. member for Assiniboia has repeatedly said that the farmer should get parity for all his crop. I am not going to argue that particular point at this moment.


Hazen Robert Argue: Are you for it or against it?


Frederick George Hahn: No, I am not.


Hazen Robert Argue: You are just for a part of parity.


Frederick George Hahn: I am for what the hon. member for Acadia said we stood for, and I hope the hon. member for Assiniboia will remember when the government proposes to accept a similar plan that it was not his idea or the idea of the government or its supporters but that it was the idea of a bunch of crackpots in this corner of the house, the Social Crediters.


Hazen Robert Argue: You are right when you say "crackpots".


Frederick George Hahn: That is not so.


Hazen Robert Argue: The member is against full parity for the farmer. That is exactly what he is saying now.


Frederick George Hahn: I am saying that I am for the sale of our products, and I will continue to be for that. The fact is that I would apply that same formula to the sale of all our


surplus goods outside of Canada if and when we have surpluses, as we have had in the past.


Hazen Robert Argue: Keep on apologi2ing.


Frederick George Hahn: There are no apologies. I think I made myself quite clear, even as the hon. member did.


Hazen Robert Argue: You are making some progress.


Frederick George Hahn: Don't feel sorry for yourself.


George James McIlraith: Is that a private war going on over there?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Border tension.


Frederick George Hahn: There were two other problems I had in mind, but I see I will not have time to deal with both of them. I shall devote the major portion of the remainder of my time to the question of social legislation. From time to time I have heard utterances from the government side that there will never be a depression. We have old age pensions, we have old age security, we have war veterans allowances, we have pensions for the blind and for the disabled, we have family allowances and we have unemployment insurance. Undoubtedly all these measures are very valuable in themselves and should take us through a temporary period of decline or depression.
However, there is some difference with respect to this group of pension and insurance measures. There are one or two that are specifically insurance funds, and there are others which are completely dependent upon the ability of the taxpayer to keep the coffers of the Minister of Finance well supplied in order that he can continue to pay. That is completely true under the present orthodox system of finance.
I did note two years ago, however, that we were in a bad way so far as unemployment was concerned. We had the heaviest unemployment in the history of the nation since what are referred to as the dirty thirties. It was apparent to those who studied the situation at all that if such unemployment had continued the fund would have been depleted. However, such was not the case. Certain factors, to which the hon. member for Fort William did not refer, helped. More particularly, the rise of the prosperous economy in the United States helped to take us out of the throes of that very difficult period.
If unemployment had continued at that time there is very little doubt in my mind that the Minister of Finance would have found fewer, and fewer tax dollars in his coffers, with the result that he would have had more and more difficulty in paying for these services, for after all the dollars that our farmers and

labourers pay through income tax are just a reflection of the prosperity of the businessmen of this country.
I was very interested in the reference to small merchants made today by the hon. member for Cape Breton South. It is not an unusual thing for merchants to go bankrupt in this country at the present time. I believe I brought this particular question to the attention of the house a year or so ago. In my one small community alone we find that because of the no down payment cry, four television and electrical stores have gone out of business in the past few weeks. They just cannot compete under a system that permits the sale of goods with no down payment.
The government must make a note of these things if they expect those people to be contented and happy who have had to close their doors because they could not compete with the large merchants referred to a few minutes ago. Competition in itself is one of the finest things this country can possibly have, but not uncontrolled competition making use of the loss leader practice whereby you sell a teakettle costing you $9.25 for $8.95 and make up the difference by issuing credit through loan companies. That is where the bigger stores get their profit, and there must be some measure of control.
I could continue discussing this matter for some time, but if I did so I would lose the opportunity to tell the house how I and thousands of people in this country feel about the assistance that our senior citizens and others should be receiving. The hon. member for Fort William, to whom we listened with some interest, said it was time we woke up. He referred to people on annuities. Yes, it is time we woke up. It is time we woke up to the realization that the dollar of today is not the dollar of yesterday but is only worth 50 cents.
I know that in many respects these are just repetitious remarks so far as the Minister of Finance is concerned. He has heard some of these utterances before. But, Mr. Speaker, it appears that we must continue to draw this matter to the attention of the minister and the government. It is my opinion that in an expanding economy such as that which we now have, continued expansion depends, and should not, wholly upon social welfare. It should depend upon ability of the businessman to get money with which to progress and further expand his business.
Earlier in the session I among others drew to the attention of the government the decline in the return to the agriculturist in comparison with what he had a right to expect a few years ago. I believe the figure that
The Budget-Mr. Hahn was used was something like 6-7 per cent of the gross national income as the proportion received today by the farmer, as compared with the 20 per cent of the population which he represents; and that I think was compared with what we had back in the 1930's.
Mr. Speaker, the agriculturist is not the only man who suffers a decline. We have these people who are on fixed incomes suffering in exactly the same way. The old age pensioner no longer is asking for a hand-out. He does not have to. The old age pensioner of today in all likelihood contributed something to the compulsory contributory fund through income tax up to a maximum of $60 annually. So it is his by right.
This is not a pay as you go policy, it is admitted. Figures prove that the fund is not self-sustaining. However, it is necessary that these people get more money; that is, if they hope to continue living. We have too many instances-certainly they are not all accidents in the city of Vancouver-of people turning on the gas jet, failing to turn it off and being found dead the next day. These happenings, Mr. Speaker, are not just accidents. In many instances they are quite deliberate. I would say it is our responsibility to see to it that they shall not continue.
We have the problem increasing daily. Young men are forced into compulsory retirement. Who wants a man over 45 years of age, we are told. If he has not a trade or a profession he is just shoved from pillar to post. We have not any place for him in our society. We do not take him and train him as we might or as we should. Maybe he is incapable of being trained. But, Mr. Speaker, because he cannot be trained does not necessarily mean that he should be deprived of the right to earn money, or the right to sustenance. The cost of living is out of all proportion today to what the old age pensioner is receiving. I have here the dominion bureau of statistics Daily Bulletin of Tuesday, January 10, 1956, in which the lead item is as follows:
A survey conducted by the dominion bureau of statistics in five metropolitan areas across Canada indicates that families with two to six members in the nation's larger cities spent an average of $6.94 per person on food every week.
That is just under $7 a week, Mr. Speaker. There are four weeks in the month or approximately 30 days. Worked out on a daily basis, it amounts to about $1 a day. In other words, $30 is the average expenditure each person makes in Canada on food. It is little enough that we expect our senior citizens to live on, a mere pittance of $40 a month, especially now that we are paying into a compulsory contributory fund to make it possible for the government to collect a good portion of it back. After all, it costs only

The Budget-Mr. Hahn $50 million; I believe that is the figure we went into the red last year. That in itself should be little enough contribution from the people of Canada to keep these people alive.
I am satisfied that there are others who recognize the problem. They are closer to it than are we. We practically live in this house for six to eight months of the year. We do not see the poorer people in the cities unless we go home. When we contact them directly or indirectly we receive letters from them asking if we cannot do something to give them some help, somehow or in some way. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, the municipalities that have sent letters to me and the newspaper articles that we read from time to time would indicate that there are thousands of people who are aware of the niggardly way in which we treat our senior citizens.
I have one here. It is a year old; in fact it is two years old now. It is from the Vancouver Province of February 18, 1954, but it is just as true today as it was then. I shall refer to another one later. It is headed "Victoria Sets an Example to Ottawa" and reads in part as follows:
The British Columbia government, in promising assistance to old age pensioners who need it, is giving the government at Ottawa a much needed lesson in generosity and justice.
This is that bunch of crackpot Social Crediters in British Columbia. "Justice" is the word the editorial uses, and possibly it is well chosen. In this article they go on to speak of starvation. Later on they tell about the way they would propose to help these destitute people. Not all old age pensioners are destitute. Not all of them require additional help. However, there is a group that requires help or further assistance. Later on the article goes on to say something about recognition by the government here, by the government's own department, of how much it costs individuals to live. It states as follows:
After all, the Minister of Finance at Ottawa collects no tax on the income of a single person over 65 up to $1,500 a year, and none on a married person up to $2,500. The exemption admits that the single person with $1,500 or less cannot afford a tax and that the married person with $2,500 or less is in the same position.
Why, then, treat the pensioner differently? If the ordinary single citizen over 65 needs $1,500 a year, why pretend that a pensioner can get along on less than half that amount?
Mr. Speaker, I would not be one who would ask for $1,500 a year for these old age pensioners. However, I maintain that when in 1954 the government of British Columbia gave $5 more to the pensioners of that province, they required it; and the province recognized that need as does every self-respecting governing body within this nation. The municipalities are much closer to the
(Mr. Hahn.]
situation than we are, as are the newspaper men. They go to these houses where we find these poor, maimed bodies, and they see for themselves what has taken place. Then in 1956 we had a repetition of the same thing in British Columbia. The Winnipeg Free Press Prairie Farmer of February 8, 1956 had this to say under the heading "B.C. pensions to hit high":
Pensioners living in British Columbia will become the highest paid in Canada if budget proposals of Premier Bennett are implemented.
Incidentally I may say that they were implemented. The article continues:
The premier announced February 1 a $5 increase in the $15 bonus paid by the province above the $40 federal pension.
Only four provinces and the Yukon pay supplements to the $40 federal and provincial old age assistance, all of them conditionally, and mainly for shelter requirements.
British Columbia now will pay $20. Saskatchewan pays up to $20-
Perhaps I could be corrected in this, but I believe the Saskatchewan system works in this way. They will pay up to $20 on condition that there is only one individual in a particular household who is in receipt of the old age pension. Otherwise it would be $20 for two people.
-Alberta $15, Ontario $10 and the Yukon $10.
I believe the Yukon payment comes from the federal treasury. There is a recognition in itself of the fact-and it is certainly true, as hon. members will realize-that in the northern part of this country the cost of living is far higher than anything we find in the more densely populated areas.
There are many other articles to which I could refer, Mr. Speaker. Here is one that strikes me as quaint in its own way, when I contrast it with the statement of the dominion bureau of statistics in respect to the cost of living. I have a clipping from the Vancouver Province of Saturday, January 7, 1956, in which the heading is, in bold type, "You can feed 10 on $40 a week". This amounts to $4 per person per week. The dominion bureau of statistics found that it required $6 and some odd cents, on an average, to feed one person for a week. In the face of that finding this kind of trash has no value in so far as presenting the problem in its proper aspect is concerned. You could feed people on less than that. I have seen people go hungry for a day, but that does not mean that month after month from the time you are 60 or 65 years of age you should be expected to live on such a diet.
I do not know that the article gives the complete diet, but it gives the cost of some of the items, and I shall just use one or two to illustrate how misleading an article such

as this can be. It says eggs, $2.16, but it does not say how many or what price per dozen. It says milk, 40 quarts including dried skim, $6.80. I think it must be mostly dried skim, because I do not know anywhere you can buy milk for 16 and 17 cents a quart. The article refers to sugar, 10 pounds for 50 cents. I am not sure how many hon. members are familiar with the price of food, but I question that statement also. It is indicative of the same sleepy-eyed thinking that goes on across this nation. In the meantime, we do have starvation in the midst of plenty.
I have other newspaper clippings here. This one says, "Senior citizens line up for west van housing". It is dated January 12, 1956. These senior citizens require housing and there just is not any for them. This sort of thing is not localized in the city of Vancouver or New Westminster; we find references to it in the newspapers across this nation. Here we have a clipping on which the heading reads, "Oldster issue urgent". It is taken from the Ottawa Citizen of May 21. Of course this refers to a statement by Mayor Charlotte Whitton when speaking in New York, and possibly for that reason it may not be given the consideration here it should receive. Then there is another clipping from the Vancouver Province of September 14 which says, "Watch food, Father William". It goes on to explain how these senior citizens require dentures. I do not know how they provide them out of $40 per month. We have another clipping on which the heading is, "Housing other major family welfare poser". Still another says, "Montreal's old people need special housing". Here is a letter headed, "Help for old age pensioners". Another clipping has the heading, "Pensioners need homes and hospitals". I do not suppose any person ever thought they had to go to hospitals. Another clipping says, "Our aged accorded 'miserable' treatment".
These clippings are not taken from Hush publication or Tabloid or any of these other publications that are generally referred to as so much trash. They are taken from the leading newspapers in this nation, and I am satisfied we should pay attention to them. Another clipping says, "Pensioners in dyke shacktown fear eviction". These people fear eviction from old shacks in which we would not keep our pigs in the prairie provinces. There is no reason in the world for that, Mr. Speaker. These people fear eviction because there are no homes for them; they have no place to go. Here is another which says, "Let pensioners live where they please".
This raises another very important question. These people who are today the old age pensioners of this country have contributed to
9,	1956	2765
The Budget-Mr. F. G. Power that pension on a compulsory basis of up to $60 per year, depending on their tax rate. This plan is supposed to assist in meeting this particular problem. These people pay into that fund, yet we deprive the old age pensioner of the right to live where he wishes. Certainly once people reach that age we should take into consideration the fact that they will only be with us for a few years. Their sons and daughters are probably most important in their lives, and they want to spend their few remaining years with them. Perhaps it is a case of having to go to a particular area for health reasons. Possibly they are rheumatic or have arthritis or some other unfortunate sickness which causes them to want to live elsewhere. We deny them that right even after they have paid into this fund.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but I must inform him that his time has expired.
(Translation) :


Francis (Frank) Gavan Power: wish, Mr. Speaker, in these, my opening remarks, to offer my most sincere thanks to the electors of the county of Quebec South for the confidence they manifested in me and in the principles of the Liberal party under the distinguished leadership of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). My election was also, in large measure, a tribute on the part of the electorate to the innumerable and important services rendered to them over the years by my father and predecessor, Senator the Hon. C. G. Power, in whose eminent footsteps I hope to prove a worthy follower. The tradition which he has left me is one of unstinting and devoted service in the interests of the electors of Quebec South, of the city and province of Quebec and of Canada. It is also a tradition of party loyalty and service tempered with clearness and independence of thought. Indeed, it is a tradition which he continues to maintain in his new legislative function, and which I will also endeavour, to the best of my ability, to continue in and out of this house.
And now, Mr. Speaker, I crave your kind indulgence while I say a few brief words about the constituency which I have the honour of representing here and while I discuss certain problems of local interest.
The constituency of Quebec South comprises generally speaking that part of the city of Quebec where the Palais station, the harbour, the Battlefields park, the walled town and upper town are located. It also includes the. city of Sillery which is undergoing a rapid growth. Within its limits is to be

The Budget-Mr. F. G. Power found the first permanent European settlement in Canada. It has felt the tread of the most illustrious figures of Canadian history: Champlain, Maisonneuve,-whose house in Sillery still stands today-Frontenac, Laval, Montcalm and Wolfe, Cartier, Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier, to name but a few. The riding has been the site of the capital of French Canada and of the United Provinces of Canada. The Quebec conference preceding confederation was held there. And within its limits are to be found the provincial parliament buildings. In brief, my constituency is the birthplace of Canada and of Quebec.
While I am on that subject, Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest to the government that because of the historical importance of that city and consequently of the attraction it has for Canadians and Americans, consideration might be given to some financial assistance to the municipality in the form of subsidies or otherwise, especially if we take into account the value of untaxed crown property in the city. In this way the municipal government would be in a position to discharge its heavy responsibilities and to increase the beauty and attractiveness of the city.
But the constituency of Quebec South has more than a historical interest. It also is part of modern Quebec whose progress since 1941 has been truly marvellous. Quebec offers unique advantages from the point of view of the establishment of new industries.
Quebec is one of the main shoe manufacturing districts in Canada. There you find more than 500 industries including bookbinding, tobacco, cigar and cigarettes, ladies' wear, agricultural products, food, furs, iron works, breweries, clothing, wood, pulp and paper.
The town of Sillery which is going to commemorate this year, between the 2nd and the 11th of June, the centenary of the incorporation of its municipality and of its school board, is a pleasant residential town which has grown rapidly since 1945 and of which my forefathers have been among the first settlers.
Now I would like to say a few words relating to some problems with which we are particularly concerned. One of the most important factors in the economic life of my constituency and of the city and district of Quebec is the harbour of Quebec.
The harbour of Quebec, as well as those of Halifax, Saint John, Chicoutimi, Montreal,
fMr. Power (Quebec South).]

Three Rivers, Churchill and Vancouver, is administered by the national harbours board, an institution which was established under chapter 42 of the Statutes of Canada for the year 1936.
Before the adoption of this legislation, the harbour of Quebec was state property and was administered by three government officials called the Quebec harbour commission. The change in the administration was made following Sir Alexander Gibb's recommendations, which he formulated after carrying on, at the request of the government, an inquiry into Canada's national harbours. His conclusions' were to the effect that the administrative system used was not satisfactory.
Consequently, the setting up of a central authority was proposed in order to co-ordinate direction and to supervise finance and works of a technical nature. Besides the central authority, the recommendation was also made to substitute for the harbour commissioners a local civil servant who would be called port manager. This official would have the direction of each harbour under the central authority. The National Harbours Board Act, chapter 42, statutes of 1936, gave effect to the above proposals.
Another recommendation, subordinate to the one above but which, unfortunately, was not put into effect, called for the setting up of a local harbour board which was to represent local interests and those that used the harbour, and would also help out the harbour master in matters of purely local concern.
The partial implementation of the Gibb report, as I have just indicated, resulted in a centralization which evoked almost unanimous criticism throughout the country, criticism which took the form of speeches and resolutions recorded from time to time in the orders of the day of this house.
The policy implemented as a result of the very nature of this act administered by the national harbours board has prevented the adoption of any corrective measure which could have been brought forward so as to stimulate the export of goods through the port of Quebec.
Consequently, Quebec harbour, though showing a balance sheet which is favourable in appearance, is not as widely used and known as it should be. We must not forget that the Quebec harbour commissioners did much to attract business to Quebec and that they fought to obtain concessions such as the preferential tariff on grain carried from Fort William to Quebec on the national transcontinental railway in 1921 and 1926. Since the disappearance of this harbour commission,

its functions of promoting trade in Quebec city have, to a certain extent, been assumed by the Quebec city chamber of commerce. Be that as it may, promotion carried out by that organization is obviously not as wide in scope as it would be if it were carried out by an authority having direct connections with the harbour.
The inherent weakness of the National Harbours Board Act as' it now stands is to be found in the fact that it is not within the terms of reference of the board, nor even of the local port manager, to promote competition between harbours. With regard to Quebec, it would seem that the harbour authorities are completely indifferent to any encouragement or stimulation of local business or to promotion or growth of regional and foreign trade. Indeed, the material assets of Quebec harbour have been so sadly neglected that they have deteriorated in an alarming way. Yet, recently, and as a result of representations made by the chamber of commerce, and supported by all federal members for that area in this house, an impressive program of reconstruction and improvements has been launched and it appears that, following instructions by the government, the national harbour board intends to recondition Quebec harbour. Though such action would be of great help, it would not be enough to ensure the prosperity of this port. It is essential that the recommendations of the Gibb report which I mentioned before, and which have not yet been passed-or some similar legislation-be added to the act so as to improve our domestic and foreign trade and to promote the development of the city by giving the harbour administration a more complete autonomy in co-operation with local business, industrial and labour interests.
(Text):
I wish, Mr. Speaker, in these my opening remarks to offer my most sincere thanks to the electors of the county of Quebec South for the confidence they manifested in me and in the principles of the Liberal party under the distinguished leadership of the right hon. Prime Minister. My election was also in large measure a tribute on the part of the electorate to the innumerable and important services rendered to them over the years by my father and predecessor, Senator C. G. Power, in whose eminent footsteps I hope to prove a worthy follower. The tradition he has left me is one of unstinting and devoted service in the interests of the electors of Quebec South, of the city and province of Quebec and of Canada. It is also a tradition of party loyalty and service tempered with fairness and independence of thought. Indeed,
9, 1956
The Budget-Mr. F. G. Power it is a tradition which he continues to maintain in his new legislative function, and which I shall also endeavour to the best of my ability to maintain both in this house and outside of it.
Mr. Speaker, I crave your kind indulgence while I say a few brief words about my constituency, Quebec South. It comprises, generally speaking, the harbour of Quebec, the walled town and the upper town. It also contains the modern city of Sillery. Its population is composed of about 85 per cent French speaking Canadians and 15 per cent English speaking Canadians, and of the 15 per cent half are Protestant and half Roman Catholic.
It is a marvellously beautiful county, as have testified the thousands and thousands of tourists who visit this section of Quebec and district every year. It has felt the tread of the most illustrious figures in Canadian history, such as Champlain, its founder; Maisonneuve, the founder of Montreal, whose house in Sillery still stands today; Laval, the founder of the oldest university on the continent; Frontenac, one of the greatest of its governors; Montcalm and Wolfe, whose glorious deaths are commemorated by the battlefields park and by numerous monuments and statues; Macdonald, Cartier and Sir Wilfrid Laurier, to name but a few. It is the site of the first permanent European settlement in Canada; in essence it is the cradle of Canada and the repository of a major part of its history. It is not surprising therefore, that I am deeply honoured and proud of the fact that I have been chosen to represent it in this house.
Mr. Speaker, whilst I am a newly arrived member of this house I am not a stranger to politics. Although I would not by any stretch of the imagination describe myself as an expert politician, for I have a great deal to learn, I have had some seven years of practical political experience as my father's assistant, and since adolescence I have been exposed more or less to the pratical and theoretical aspects of politics. As a result there has been developed in me the following, and possibly not surprising, theory with regard to my conduct as a member of this house and of the Liberal party.
I believe very strongly in the general political principles and objects of the Liberal party and in the practical manner in which they have been and are generally applied. In consequence of this, and of the fact that I was elected as a supporter of the Liberal party and of this government under the distinguished leadership of the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, I owe loyalty to our party and to my chief. However, I do not believe that

The Budget-Mr. F. G. Power this loyalty should be either blind or unquestioning, nor has the Liberal party or its chief ever so held.
Just as this government, as a Liberal government, has a dual responsibility, on the one hand to the party for the carrying out of the party platform when the occasion presents itself, and on the other hand and more importantly to the people of Canada toward whom it has a responsibility to discharge its functions irrespective of and despite its political commitments, so also I believe that I and every other hon. member of this house has a dual responsibility to the party whose principles he upholds and a responsibility as a member of this house for judging and passing on legislation which is brought down by the government. As in the case of father and son or brother and brother, I feel that any disagreement or criticism which in the discharge of my parliamentary obligations I may be obliged to express should not, or would not, in any way affect my standing as a member, of the Liberal party.
In this connection I would like to cite a paragraph from one of my last campaign speeches in which I expressed essentially the same thought:
In the course of my various discussions with you I have endeavoured to place before you the point of view of one who whilst strongly attached to the party to which he belongs, believes that no candidate should pledge himself in advance to the extent that he be precluded from exercising full liberty of action and the best of his judgment and discretion for the attitude which he will take in
all or any public question which may be presented to him during the course of his mandate as representative of the people.
Mr. Speaker, I have thought it best to avoid in this section of my speech discussion of particular issues of the day for which more appropriate occasions will arise. However, there is one subject now before this house in the form of two bills which I would like to touch upon before I close. I refer to the matter of bilingualism. Representing as I do a constituency which is by a large majority French speaking, and being myself bilingual, although there is room for improvement, I most strongly urge that this house should, as a principle, adopt the extension of bilingualism in the public service and public printing of Canada.
I do not mean that all English speaking or French speaking Canadians should be forced to speak each other's language, but I do feel that a French or English Canadian citizen should be able to obtain information or service from government publications or from selected civil service personnel wherever he may happen to be in Canada. I think this would go a long way toward increasing our sense of national unity.
Shall I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
On motion of Mr. Power (Quebec South) the debate was adjourned.


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

[Stage Direction]
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Hodgson: 1.	How much land was purchased or expropriated
2.
Location	Owner
67 Sacred Heart Blvd., Beaudry, Yvanhoe
100	St. Henri, Belanger, Oscar E 118 St. Henri, Bourgeois, Mrs. Jeanne 114 St. Henri, Brais, Wilfrid 37 Sacred Heart Blvd., Charron, Alcide 37 Sacred Heart Blvd., Charron, Alcide 130 St. Henri, Charron, Philorum 15 St. Florent, Cote, Mrs. Charles 39 Sacred Heart Blvd., d'Allemagne, Mrs. Laure
84	St. Hyacinthe, Despati, Mrs. R. A 112 St. Henri, Drolet, Henri 111 St. Henri, Dubois, Mrs. P
101	St. Florent, Fortin, Aldege 107 St. Florent, Gagnon, Mrs. Florence
85	St. Florent, Giroux, Mrs. Irene 55 Sacred Heart Blvd., Gratton, Arthur 59 Sacred Heart Blvd., Gratton, Lionel 109 St. Florent, Groulx, Eugene 122 St. Henri, Hebert, Mrs. S City of Hull
116 St. Henri, Labarge, Mrs. Henri 120 St. Henri, Labarge, Henri 91 St. Florent, Landriault, Arthur 89 St. Florent, Landriault, Lionel 89 St. Florent, Landriault, Leo 97 St. Florent, Legault, Mrs. C 53 Sacred Heart Blvd., Moisan, Cyrille
105	St. Florent, Parent, Lionel 85 St. Hyacinthe, Pichard, Francois Part Lot 5, Pilon, Estate of 79 Sacred Heart Blvd., Pilon, Jos., Co. Ltd
106	St. Henri, Rouselle, Antonio 124 St. Henri, Raymond, Ovila
99	St. Florent, Tessier, Philias 103 St. Florent, Thibeault, Leo 41 Sacred Heart Blvd., Viau, Alfred
100	St. Henri, Villeneuve, Romeo...
Questions
for the government printing bureau in Hull,
Quebec?
2.	What was the cost of each parcel and total cost?
3.	What was the cost of foundations, alterations and other work?
4.	What is the total cost to date?
Answer by: Mr. Winters:
1.	An area approximately 1,250 feet square. (1,562,500 sq. ft.)
Amount of settlement .$	3,000.00
17.360.00 5,678.97
,	7,307.69
43.891.48 5,867.43
2.500.00
3.000.	00
.	51,132.32
2.500.00
5.000.	00
8.000.	00
5.000.	00
3.600.00 9,212.45
10,000.00
7.500.00
4.000.	00
7.375.00
11.957.00
3.500.00
3.500.00
8.000.	00
1.700.00
4.000.	00
4.000.	00
7.000.	00
2.355.00 4,407.69
20.304.48 235,548.00
7.615.38
8.615.38
4.500.00
2.500.00
8.350.00 5,302.10
Cost of site on which building is erected..
3.	(a) Cost of foundations-$480,684.27;
4.	Total cost to date-$13,540,988.81.


ATOMIC POWER PLANTS, NEW BRUNSWICK
Mr. Bell: 1.	Have official requests been received from New Brunswick to consider construction of an atomic power plant in that province?
2.	If so, when, and with what reply?
3.	Have engineers from the New Brunswick Electric Power Commission been working at the atomic power plant near Chalk River?
	$545,080.37
(b) alterations and other work-nil.
4.	If so, for what reason?
5.	Is consideration given to said power requests of the provinces on a need basis?
Answer by: Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):
1 and 2. No. In early 1955 Atomic Energy of Canada Limited invited proposals from the electric power utilities to join them in a small reactor project. This reactor would be a
i770

Questions
prototype or demonstration power reactor. The New Brunswick Electric Power Commission expressed interest but did not submit a proposal.
3.	No.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	This question has not arisen. The only atomic power plant which has been considered so far is for demonstration purposes only.


WESTERN SHIPPING CHANNEL, TORONTO
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 325
Daniel Roland Michener: What would be the estimated cost of moving the western shipping channel of Toronto harbour to a location south of the Toronto island airport and filling in the present channel so that the island airport would be connected directly with the mainland?
Answer by: Mr. Winters:
Not' known. Detailed engineering studies have not been made.


C.B.C,-TELEVISION NEWSCAST
Mr. Henderson: 1.	Could not the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation T.V. newscast be televised at an earlier hour than 11 p.m. in the eastern Ontario area?
2.	If not, for what reason?
Answer by: Mr. McCann:
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation advises as follows:
1.	The national television news could be rescheduled by dropping some programs and might be in the future, but 11 p.m. has so far been judged to be, on balance, the best regular time in the light of various considerations of programming and the interests of viewers.
2.	See answer to No 1.


DISABLED PERSONS ASSISTANCE-WESTMORLAND COUNTY, N.B.
Mr. Murphy (Westmorland): 1.	How many persons in Westmorland county, New Brunswick, are receiving assistance under the Disabled Persons Act?
2.	Are all such persons receiving the assistance either "bedfast" or "chairfast"?
3.	Are the regulations the same in all provinces?
Answer by: Mr. Martin:
1 and 2. A province is not required to furnish information to the federal authorities regarding disabled persons allowances paid in any specific area within the province. The information requested is therefore not available.
3.	The disabled persons regulations apply in all provinces.


NATIONAL HEALTH PROGRAM-SANITATION SERVICES
Mr. Houck: 1.	Has any federal assistance been provided under the national health program to provincial sanitation services?
2.	If so, what services have been assisted?
Answer by: Mr. Marlin:
1 and 2. Yes. Environmental sanitation services have been improved and strengthened in all the provinces. Special engineering investigations and research projects on environmental problems have been carried out, such as a study of rural domestic septic tank operation, a study of the nitrate content of ground water, studies related to the adaptation of recognized potable water standards to the natural water sources, and a special water resources survey in Ontario. Professional training has been made possible to 366 sanitary inspectors and 45 sanitary engineers. Environmental sanitation services were extended through the employment over the past eight years of 156 additional sanitary inspectors and 14 sanitary engineers.



NATIONAL HEALTH PROGRAM


Mr. Houck: 1.	Have any federal funds been provided under the national health program towards blindness prevention services?
2.	If so, what have been the purposes of the grants made?
Answer by: Mr. Martin:
1 and 2. Yes. National health grants have assisted in the establishment of glaucoma clinics at the Toronto General hospital, Montreal General hospital, St. Sacrement hospital in Quebec city and the Hotel Dieu hospital in Montreal. In 1955, a pilot glaucoma clinic was started for patients at the provincial hospital, Lancaster, New Brunswick. Research into various diseases affecting the eye were supported at the Banting institute and the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto. A special survey of visual needs in rural areas of Alberta was undertaken and extensive aid is being given in almost all provinces toward the cost of testing school children's vision.



NO. 5 EQUIPMENT DEPOT, R.C.A.F  CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES

Mr. Murphy (Westmorland): 1.	How many civilians are employed by number 5 Royal Canadian Air Force equipment depot, Moncton, New Brunswick?
2.	How many new civilian employees were taken on in the years 1953 to 1955, inclusive?
3.	How many of these employees were nonpermanent or hourly paid employees?

4.	How many positions formerly held by civilians have been filled by service personnel from 1953 to 1955, inclusive?
Answer by: Mr. Campney:
1.	553.
2.	439.
3.	437.
4.	1.



MARRIAGE REGULATIONS, R.C.A.F.

Mr. Pallet!: What steps must an officer or airman who is not deemed to be married under Queen's regulations (air) article 205.20(2) (a) take to be deemed to be married?
Answer by: Mr. Campney:
If the marriage of the officer or airman has been dissolved or annulled within the meaning of QR(air) article 205.20 (2)(a)(i), nothing can alter his status under the article except, of course, his remarriage.
In respect to (2)(a)(ii), it might be possible for the officer or airman to bring a motion in court for cancellation of the maintenance decree. If successful, he could then substitute a personal contractual arrangement with his wife, e.g. "separation agreement". If there are children, it might be possible to have the court order altered to decree payments in respect of the children and not of the wife. In either of the foregoing cases, the officer or airman would be "deemed to be married" within the meaning of article 205.20.



USE OF FLUORIDE IN TOOTHPASTE

Mr. Garland: 1. Has the Department of National Health and Welfare any evidence that toothpaste containing fluoride is effective in preventing dental caries?
Questions
2. Has any conclusion been reached by the Canadian Dental Association or by the American Dental Association on this subject?
Answer by: Mr. Martin:
1.	While evidence has been presented by one commercial source which strongly suggests that toothpaste containing stannous fluoride may be effective in reducing the incidence of dental caries this evidence has not been confirmed by other research workers.
2.	The research committee of the Canadian Dental Association has examined all the published evidence concerning stannous fluoride dentifrices and has published its findings. Its conclusion is as follows:	"A
dentifrice containing stannous fluoride has been reported to reduce dental caries significantly. This study awaits confirmation by other laboratories".
The council on therapeutics of the American Dental Association does not accept any evidence which they have seen to date as conclusive proof of its effectiveness.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Purdy: 1.	Does the Department of National Defence make use of radio in its advertising program?
2.	If so, (a) what stations in Nova Scotia have been used during the past year by various branches of the service and what was the length of the programs: (b) what amount has been paid or is payable to each station for the period under review?
Answer by: Mr. Campney:
1. Yes.
2 (a) and (b).
Station	Length of Program	Amounts PaidCJFX, Antigonish	One-minute	spot	announcementsCommercial portion of newscast	
$1,103.25CKBW, Bridgewater	One-minute	spot announcements20-second flashes	
139.40CHNS, Halifax	One-minute	spot	announcementsCommercial portion of newscast	
2,743.23CJCH, Halifax	One-minute	spot	announcementsCommercial portion of newscast	
2,244.63CKEN, Kentville	One-minute	spot	announcements20-second flashes	
105.50CFAB, Windsor	One-minute	spot announcements. 51.00CKEC, New Glasgow	One-minute	spot announcements20-second flashes	
500.00CJCB, Sydney	One-minute	spot	announcementsCommercial portion of newscast	
2,570.60CKCL, Truro	One-minute	spot announcements. 613.45CJLS, Yarmouth	One-minute	spot	announcements
Commercial portion of newscast
20-second flashes	 755.90

Questions



NATIONAL GALLERY PAINTINGS

Mr. Murphy (Lambion West): 1.	Did anyone on behalf of the federal government or the national art gallery have any dealings with one Gulbenkian in connection with the purchase of paintings for the art gallery?
2.	If so, what are the particulars?
Answer by: Mr. Pickersgill:
1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.



SHIPPEGAN ISLAND, N.B.  WHARF

Mr. Van Horne: 1.	How much did the wharf at Ste-Marle-sur-Mer on Shippegan island cost?
2.	How much money has been spent on dredging, maintenance, alterations and repairs in respect to the said wharf since it was built?
3.	Can this wharf accommodate trawlers?
4.	How many boats using this wharf belong to residents of Ste-Marie-sur-Mer?
Answer by: Mr. Winters:
1.	$263,945.00 (breakwater); $180,253.17 (pier).
2.	Dredging, $55,361.45; maintenance and repairs, $11,626.99; alterations, nil.
3.	The depth of water adjacent to the wharf is 5 feet at L.W.O.S.T. Boats with lesser drafts can use this wharf at all tides.
4.	Information not available.



D.E.W. LINE  AIR TRANSPORT FROM ALASKA

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 363*-Mr. Diefenbaker:
1.	Has the air transport board received complaints since December 1, 1955, that Canadian air lines were not approached for bids on the transport out of Eagle, Alaska, to D.E.W. line points in the Yukon?
2.	If so, from whom were complaints received, and on what dates?
Answer by: Mr. Marler:
1 and 2. Yes, a joint complaint was received from Callison's Flying Service, of Dawson, Yukon Territory, and Pacific Western Airlines Limited of Whitehorse, Y.T., on January 12, 1956.

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 371
Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: 1.	How many of the 140 books prohibited from entry into Canada under tariff item 1201, in 1955, were so prohibited as a result of examination in that year?
2.	Has the department of customs and excise a staff of readers to examine such books?
3.	If so, who (by name) are those readers?
4.	Were all the books submitted to these readers so submitted by customs officers at various points of entry?
5.	From what points of entry were books submitted?
6.	From what other sources were books submitted to these readers?
7.	In case of indecision on the part of readers as to suitability for admission, who makes the final decision?
8.	Are some books submitted to the department's readers for a decision before shipment is made in bulk?
9.	Are any such books submitted by authors or publishers?
10.	What instructions are issued to customs officers at ports of entry as to the admission of books not on the prohibited list? (a) Are such books automatically admitted? (b) Are they or samples of them sent to Ottawa for examination?
11.	Is there a minimum requirement of education for customs officers at all ports of entry, and if so, what is such minimum requirement?
Answer by: Mr. McCann:
1.	All.
2.	Books are reviewed by various members of the customs and excise division and not by a particular staff.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	No.
5.	From numerous and various ports of entry across Canada. No record of books submitted for review is maintained on a port basis.
6.	Individuals, publishers, public authorities, national, provincial and local organizations, and others.
7.	Final decision in all cases is made by the Minister of National Revenue.
8.	Yes.
9.	Yes.
10.	No special instructions are issued for this purpose. Officers are governed by the requirements of section 36 of the Customs Act and guided by the list of publications prohibited under tariff item 1201, as well as the supplementary listings of authors and publishers of matter appearing on the list, (a) No. (b) Yes.
11.	Yes. Various educational requirements exist for different positions in customs and excise, but the minimum requirement is two years' high school.



INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, MANITOBA   SOLICITORS' FEES

Mr. Pommer: 1.	Who are the solicitors for the industrial development bank in Manitoba?
2.	What fees have been paid these solicitors, and to whom, in the years 1953, 1954, 1955?
Answer by: Mr. Harris:
1 and 2. This information is not of government record.

Tuesday, April 10, 1956