1956-03-28

NATIONAL HOUSING ACT


Mr. Knowles: 1.	Has the government received, from the labour congresses and/or from other organizations, representations asking that the National Housing Act be amended so as to forbid any refusal to sell or rent homes built under the provisions of the said act, where such refusal is based on grounds of race, colour or creed?
2.	Will consideration he given to the introduction of such an amendment to the National Housing Act?


Mr. Winters:: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is yes, we have received one or two such representations. I am glad to say, however, that the cases of discrimination which have been brought to our attention have been very few.
Regarding the second part of the question, when the National Housing Act was being revised in late 1953 and early 1954 one organization did make representations. The government is firmly in accord with the principle of non-discrimination and we, therefore, had full and friendly discussions with this organization which was most co-operative and understanding. We concluded at that time, however, that nothing useful would be accomplished by amending the act.
We have subsequently again gone fully into the difficulties involved in any attempt to enforce non-discrimination, having in mind the nature of the transactions under the National Housing Act.
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is removed some steps from the vendor-purchaser relationship and the landlord-tenant relationship in respect of houses financed under the act. A loan is obtained by a builder from an approved lender, and the lender receives an insurance policy from the corporation. There is no contract in respect of an insured loan between the corporation and the borrower. In other words, the transaction is between the lender and the borrower, not between Central Mortgage and the borrower.
When the house or project is completed the owner is free to deal with it in accordance with the provincial laws, subject only to the
first mortgage on it. Sales take place and apartments are rented without the corporation's prior knowledge of the transactions. Even the approved lender, who is one step closer to the vendor-purchaser, landlord-tenant relationships than the corporation, would I believe find itself in an ineffective position in trying to enforce a clause such as has been suggested.
Under the circumstances and inasmuch as the government endorses the principle of non-discrimination, we have not been able to convince ourselves that the answer to the problem is through an amendment to the National Housing Act.



WHEAT SHIPMENTS

Mr. Balcom: 1.	What quantity of wheat (in bushels) has been shipped since January 1, 1956 to date through: (a) Saint John, New Brunswick; (b) Halifax, Nova Scotia?
2.	Of wheat delivered to Saint John for transshipment, what quantities were transported by (a) Canadian National Railways; (b) Canadian Pacific Railway?
3.	Of wheat delivered to Halifax for transshipment, what quantities were transported by (a) Canadian National Railways; (b) Canadian Pacific Railway?


Mr. Marler:: Mr. Speaker, this question
relates to overseas clearances from Halifax and Saint John of Canadian wheat from January 1, 1956. The transport controller has supplied the following figures for the period January 1 to March 14, 1956, inclusive;
Bushels
1. (a) East Saint John	 1,467,707
West Saint John	 12,019,593
Total-Saint John	 13,487,300
(b)	Halifax	 9,998,949
As to the quantities transported by the two railways, the Canadian National Railways and Canadian Pacific Railway, the figures are as follows;
Bushels
2. Canadian National Ry., East Saint
John	 1,379,206
Canadian Pacific Ry., West Saint
John	 11,187,516
Total-Saint John	 12,566,722
The answer to the third part of the question is as follows:
Bushels
3.	Canadian National Ry	 7,927,760
Canadian Pacific Ry	 nil

Questions



COAL PRODUCTION


Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain): 1.	What has been the annual coal production in the Bienfait coal field for the years 1950 to 1955?
2.	What companies are operating in this field and what has been the individual production for each year from 1950 to 1955?


Mr. Dickey:: The table is as follows:


John Horace Dickey: This question deals with the
annual production of coal by companies in a certain coal field. The answer is in the form of a table, and I would therefore request unanimous consent that this table appear in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the proposal agreed to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRODUCTION OF COAL IN BIENFAIT DISTRICT, 1950 TO 1955

[Stage Direction]
Name of Operator			Output in short tons			
1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955* **Harry Banks	2,905	2,914	2,322	1,706	1,919	1,597Manitoba and Saskatchewan Coal Co. Ltd	534,875	554,947	570,022	566,532	581,679	647,966North West Coal Co. Ltd	68,585	73,640	79,929	91,402	76,447	78,120Western Dominion Coal Mines Ltd..	1,110,092	1,071,839	994,811	930,152	1,019,280	1,125,264Eastern Collieries of Bienfait Ltd....	131,200	98,238	22,262	-	-	-Havanah Collieries Ltd	20,319	1,009	-	-	-	-Coats and Kingdon	1,390	475	-	-	-	-Wheeler and Enmark	4,915	9,427	2,384	**	**	**TOTAL	1,874,281	1,812,489	1,671,730	1,589,791	1,679,325	1,852,947
* Preliminary figures.
** Transferred to Western Dominion Coal Mines Ltd.
This information is published by the provincial government with the consent of the producers and is, therefore, not a violation of section 15 of the Statistics Act.

Mr. Michener: 1.	Has the Canadian government or any department received any requests for assistance in the construction of a traffic tunnel between the city of Toronto and Toronto island?
2.	If so, has any decision been made by the Canadian government, and what decision?
3.	Does the Canadian government recognize any obligation by agreement or otherwise to construct or share in the cost of constructing such a tunnel?


Robert Henry Winters: The records show that from time to time, almost since the beginning of the century, there has been correspondence in connection with a proposed traffic tunnel between the city of Toronto and Toronto island. In recent years, however, we have received no official representations.
On November 1, 1952, the then minister of public works wrote to the then mayor of Toronto, and I quote the last paragraph from his letter:
As representations have been made on numerous occasions, all informal, some of which favoured the

connecting of the island and the mainland, and others which opposed it most strongly, I do not feel that the dominion government should influence these two lines of thought by indicating their willingness to proceed with the construction of either a tunnel or a bridge. I think in fairness to ourselves, who, after all, entered into the agreement some 39 years ago, you should provide us with the guidance that represents the views of the city and thereby avoid our having to decide a problem on which there is divided opinion.
Apparently, the word "agreement" used in this context refers to an order in council, P.C. 1426, dated June 10, 1913. It was rescinded by order in council, P.C. 3926, dated December 23, 1935. In the meantime some of the work outlined in the order in council was completed at a cost considerably in excess of the total expenditure contemplated in the order in council.
Having in mind the federal government's attitude as expressed in the above-mentioned letter of my predecessor, as well as the fact that the only undertaking on record was made almost 43 years ago and has since been

rescinded, and that in discharging some of its terms considerably more money was spent by the federal government than was originally agreed, the Canadian government does not now recognize any obligation by agreement or otherwise to construct or share in the cost of constructing such a tunnel.



ALBERTA GAS


Mr. Castleden: 1.	Did the premier of Alberta make any representations to the Prime Minister or the government of Canada, since June, 1948, with regard to supplying gas from that province for eastern Canada?
2.	If so, did that include any condition with regard to arrangements to supply any United States market?


Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, the premier of Alberta has made representations to the Prime Minister and the government of Canada on several occasions since June, 1948, with regard to supplying gas produced in Alberta to meet consumer demands in eastern Canada.
The premier of Alberta has made it clear to the Canadian government that, in the opinion of the government of Alberta, that province has reserves of deliverable gas surplus not only to local requirements but to what eastern Canadian markets can reasonably be expected to absorb. Accordingly, to establish an adequate market, and in the interests of securing maximum return to western producers and the lowest possible prices to eastern consumers, any plan for transportation of gas from Alberta to eastern Canada should, if possible, provide for a reasonable export of gas to the United States market.


Mr. Coldwell:: Was this representation made by letter?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Major James William Coldwell: What was the date of the letter?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The letter was not addressed to me. I cannot say.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Thatcher: 1.	During 1955, did any ship or ships of the Royal Canadian Navy take a number of druggists and their families, attending a convention in Vancouver, on a cruise?
2.	If so, what was the purpose of this cruise?
3.	Are such voyages common practice on royal Canadian ships?
Motions for Papers


MINISTERS OP THE CROWN-TRIPS BY AIR
Mr. Dufresne: 1.	How many trips in Royal Canadian Air Force or Trans-Canada Air Lines aircraft, or hired planes, have been made, or taken, by ministers of the crown, since July 1, 1955?
2.	Which ministers of the crown were conveyed on said trips, between what points and on what dates?


CANNED VEGETABLE IMPORTS
Mr. Tustin: What were the total imports into Canada for the year 1955, giving country of origin, volume and value of (a) canned tomatoes; (b) tomato puree;
(c)	other tomato products; (d) canned com; (e) canned peas; (f) other canned vegetables?


CANNED FRUITS IMPORTS
Mr. Tuslin: What were the total imports into Canada for the year 1955, showing country of origin, volume and value of (a) canned peaches; (b) canned pears; (c) canned fruit salad; (d) other canned fruits?


EDUCATIONAL GRANTS
Mr. Siewarl (Winnipeg North): What grants or subsidies in aid of vocational or professional training or in aid of any educational activities were made by the federal government in 1954-55, and what were the amounts of such grants?


OFFICER TRAINING PLANS
Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North): 1.	What was the total strength of (a) navy regular officer training plan cadets; (b) army regular officer training plan cadets; (c) air force regular officer training plan cadets, at servioe colleges at: 31st December, 1953, 31st December, 1954, 31st December, 1955?
2.	What was the total strength of; (a) navy regular officer training plan cadets; (b) army regular officer training plan cadets; (c) air force regular officer training plan cadets, at civilian universities at: 31st December, 1953, 31st December, 1954, 31st December, 1955?
3.	How many graduates of the regular officer training plan entered the regular force of; (8) navy; (b) army; (c) air force, during 1954-55?
4.	What is the estimated number of graduates
of the regular officer training plan that will enter the regular force of:	(a) navy; (b) army; (c)
air force, in 1956, 1957 and 1958?
5.	What was the total cost of operation of the Canadian service colleges during: 1954, 1955, and what will be the estimated cost in 1956, 1957 and 1958?
6.	What was the total cost of the regular officers training plan during 1954, 1955, and what will be the estimated cost in 1956, 1957 and 1958?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No.	49-Mr. Knowles (for Mr. Maclnnis):
For a copy of all letters, telegrams and other communications, from August 1, 1955 to February
2692	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry 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. Kirk (Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare):: Mr. Speaker, because of the fact that the Postmaster General is unable to be present this afternoon I wonder whether the hon. member would agree to have this motion stand.


Mr. Knowles:: I am quite prepared to have it stand. I hope it is not being stood because of the temporary absence of my colleague. It is on his behalf that I have moved it and I trust that it may be available next time.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



INDIAN RESERVES, SASK.  WELFARE PAYMENTS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 53-Mr. Bryson:
For a copy of all letters, telegrams, and other correspondence, since April 1, 1955, exchanged between the band councils, or agency superintendents on Saskatchewan Indian reserves, and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration regarding welfare payments.
Mr. Pickersgill:: I spoke to the hon. gentleman and I understand he is willing to drop this motion.


Mr. Bryson:: Mr. Speaker, I will drop it on the advice of the minister that he refuses to give this information because these documents are privileged. If he is prepared to say that, I will drop it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I regard the documents, sir, as in the nature of a trust.


Mr. Speaker:: Therefore the motion is
dropped.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:	'
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinion):: May I
ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if the board of transport commissioners has disposed of the application of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines heard yesterday with the support of the government for an extension of time to November 1?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I received a copy of the order of the board this morning. The time is extended to November 1.
1Later:]


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Trade and Commerce table a copy of the order of the board of transport commissioners to which he referred?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Certainly.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Casileden (Yorkton):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the cabinet given consideration to the matter of postponing all executions in Canada until parliament has had an opportunity to deal with the recommendations of the joint committee on capital punishment now sitting?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to my hon. friend's question I apprehend that for the cabinet to give consideration to the postponement which he suggests would mean that the executive would be in effect repealing a law passed by parliament. The executive has no intention of doing this.


George Hugh Castleden: Under the minister's responsibilities as Minister of Justice would he undertake that responsibility?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The same objection would also apply in that case. I am sure my hon. friend is aware that at the present time the recommendations as to the commutation of the death penalty are made not by the Minister of Justice but by the Solicitor General. However, in either case a postponement upon the basis which my hon. friend suggests would mean that the executive or a member of the executive would be in effect not enforcing a law passed by parliament.


George Hugh Castleden: I should like to ask one more question. Would it not be possible to do it by commutation, which is the prerogative of the cabinet?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My last reply had to do with commutation, but if the commutation is based not upon those reasons that are ordinarily the basis for commutation but upon the principle now suggested by my hon. friend of postponing all executions until the house has dealt with this question, then it would be open to the objections which I have just stated.


Major James William Coldwell: May I ask a supplementary question? Is not that exactly what has been done in the mother of parliaments in Britain where the same laws prevail?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My answer to my hon. friend's question is no, that is not exactly what was done. As I understand it, what happened in the mother of parliaments was that the House of Commons-I am speaking now of a previous occasion-passed a bill abolishing-


Major James William Coldwell: No.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, not on the present occasion but on a previous occasion, on which there was a suspension of executions during the period between the time when the House of Commons passed the bill and when this bill was later rejected by the House of Lords.


Major James William Coldwell: It was never a law if it was rejected by 'the House of Lords.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No. It was never a law but the bill in effect was acted upon as a law and I think the action was much regretted by those who took it, after the bill passed by the House of Commons was rejected later by the House of Lords. That, of course, would be an additional reason why we should not do this here until a bill to abolish capital punishment shall have passed both houses of parliament.



WAR ASSETS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Wilfrid Dufresne (Quebec West):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production. Would the minister tell the house when it was decided that the Riviere du Loup arsenal would be sold and for what reasons? When were the public tenders called for? What is the deadline for submission, of public tenders?
Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Defence
Production): Mr. Speaker, I have no recent knowledge of the transaction referred to. I suggest that the hon. member place the question on the order paper.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. I might say that I am so boiling with righteous indignation that I find it extremely difficult to remain composed while asking the question. I trust his answer will soothe my ruffled feelings. The question is this. First, are Canadian citizens seeking employment in Labrador required to complete standard form 60 of the United States civil service commission, handed to them by United States army officials? Second, if so, do these United States army officials have the final say as to the employment of the applicants for employment? Third, why are Canadian security personnel not used for this purpose?


Hon. Milion F. Gregg (Minisler of Labour):: The hon.'member was kind enough to send me notice of his question but I received it just a 67509-1714
Inquiries of the Ministry few moments ago. I take it that it refers to the project at Goose Bay in Labrador under the United States air force. I am sure he will understand if I say that I should like to carry out more research into the matter and will give him an answer just as soon as possible. It will be given, of course, in the house on April 9 or immediately thereafter. But if I can get the information earlier than that, I will send it to him by mail so as to lower his temperature.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour) r
Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to the reminder yesterday by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and! also to some queries earlier relating to the same subject by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough). I have conferred with the unemployment insurance commission and am informed that the revisw of the operations of the act under section 45 (2>
and the relations to that of the reinterpretation under section 119 (b) is going forward as rapidly and as satisfactorily as possible but it has not reached the stage yet where any useful results can be achieved by an appraisal at the present time. However, I can promise my hon. friends to make a statement on the matter shortly after we come back.
Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question?' When we come back in April will the minister be prepared not merely to give the statistics asked for in my question but to say whether his appraisal indicates the desirability off amending section 45 (2) of the Unemployment! Insurance Act?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Whether or not I shall be aHe to include that in my statement to the house I cannot say at the moment, but I will tell my hon. friend that the matter will be given my consideration.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS

[Stage Direction]
CONSTRUCTION OF BRANCH LINE FROM BAjOTBOG, NEW BRUNSWICK, TO NEWCASTLE
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. McWilliam (Northumbeadancf-Miramichi):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport in connection with the statement he made on Monday concerning the government's intention to recommend legislation for construction of a branch line on the Canadian National from Bartibog to Little River, near Newcastle. Can the minister asSvisje

The Budget-Mr. Weselak the house if a preliminary survey has been completed for the construction of this proposed branch line?


George Carlyle Marler: I am advised by the management of the Canadian National Railways that the necessary preliminary surveys to develop the economic justification of this branch line have been completed. That is the only information I have at present as to surveys that have been made.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. S. Zaplitny (Dauphin):: Is the Minister of National Revenue in a position to reply to the question which I directed to him on Monday last with respect to the extension of C.B.C. television facilities in the province of Manitoba?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: I am sorry that I am unable to give a reply at this time. The board of governors are very busy in their sittings. Although the question has been sent over, I have not yet had a reply.



REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE OF SUPPLY OF GARRY 27

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Yes.\nOn motion of Mr. Dupuis the debate was adjourned.']
Mr. A. E. Robinson (Bruce):: The question I wish to ask should be directed to the Minister of Agriculture, but since neither he nor his parliamentary assistant is in the house I would address my question to the hon. member for Grey-Bruce, our house leader. 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?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: shall be glad to make inquiries and get an answer for my hon. friend.



[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, March 27, 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. A. B. Weselak (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, when I moved the adjournment of this debate last night I was discussing the proposition that the government should take steps to ensure the maximum processing of raw materials at home before export. In this relation I was also discussing the problem of the development of our secondary industries, and the effect that such a proposition would have upon the expansion of our primary industries. I pointed out that in my opinion the only way the government could step in to ensure the maximum processing of raw materials at home would be to artificially encourage the further expansion of secondary industries. I further submitted that if the government were to move into this field and encourage the establishment of such industries in Canada, and if these industries came in under circumstances where their operations were uneconomic, then those industries would have every right to return to the government and ask for subsidies or protection. I pointed out that the inevitable result of such a policy would be the complete dislocation and unbalance of our economy. It would result in the necessity of protecting these industries and the primary result would be that the expansion of our primary industries, which are so dependent upon foreign markets, would be curtailed and particularly in the prairie provinces the expansion of primary industry within those provinces would also be curtailed.
In my concluding remarks, Mr. Speaker, I pointed out that since 1932 the average ad valorem rate of tariff on dutiable imports had been reduced by 40 per cent, from an average of 30 per cent to an average of 18-1 per cent.
I would point out to the house that the export of raw materials from Canada has from 1939 to 1954 increased by 288 per cent. On the other hand, our exports of manufactured and partially manufactured products have increased by 280 per cent, which indicates that the expansion of our secondary industries has kept pace with our export of raw materials. This is further indicated by the fact that the index of durable manufactures in 1939 was 107 -9; in 1954, it had risen to 297-9; and in 1955, it had further increased to 324-9. In this category the index had practically tripled. With respect to nondurable manufacturing, the index in 1939 was 108-2; in 1954, it was 222-4; and in 1955, 235-3, which was more than double the 1939 figure. The partially and fully manufactured exports had risen from $511 million to $1,846 million, while our exports of raw materials had risen from $273 million to $1,062 million. These figures indicate that our secondary


195E
[Stage Direction]
industries have kept pace with the expansion of our economy. They have established themselves in this country where conditions have warranted it, and our exports have not been out of line as compared with the expansion of the Canadian economy. On the whole, I think this refutes the statement that Canadians are fast becoming hewers of wood and drawers of water.
The figure of $1,062 million which I quoted as the total exports will, however, stand further examination. When we break down these figures we find that the exports of agricultural products and of animal products, which are normally exported in the raw state, are approximately 75 per cent of our raw material exports. The remaining raw material exports which are mainly made up of forest and mineral products are roughly 25 per cent of our total export, or $303,700,000 in value. When we take a look at the import figures of raw materials we find that in this category, a category other than agriculture or animal products, our imports totalled $473 million as compared with exports of $303 million, which makes us not a net exporter but a net importer of raw materials in this class to the value of $170 million.
Reference has been made in the budget debate, Mr. Speaker, to the tariff board, which I understand was set up by the Conservative party, and which has been made full use of by the present government. The policy of referring tariff requests to the tariff board should be continued and encouraged. We had a report on the textile industry last year. A report on the potato industry is in the hands of the minister at the present time, and further inquiries are to be made into iron and steel. The tariff board makes a complete study of the need of the particular industry for further tariff protection. It makes a complete study of the impact that the granting of such protection will have on the Canadian economy as a whole. When these findings are put into the hands of the government it is possible for the government to make a rational decision in so far as any tariff adjustments are concerned, and these decisions are then made on a reasonable basis and not merely for political or other reasons.
I should like to refer for a moment to the question of sales tax. In the 1954 budget, equipment sold to or imported by municipalities for their own use and not for resale at a price in excess of $1,000 per unit, specially designed for use directly for road-making, road-cleaning, or fire-fighting, but not to include automobiles or ordinary trucks, was exempted from sales tax. Municipal revenues are dependent on the taxation of real property. This base of taxation has remained practically
The Budget-Miss Aitken constant, particularly with rural municipalities. In order to meet rising costs municipalities have found it necessary to substantially increase their mill rates and have had to go to their respective provinces for additional funds. In practically all the provinces these funds have been made available but they are not sufficient to meet the increasing expenditures of our municipal corporations.
The net result is that our municipalities are having a difficult time in meeting increasing demands for road building, drainage and road maintenance. If he cannot do it in this budget I suggest to the Minister of Finance that in the next budget he remove from the sales tax provision repair and replacement parts for the machinery which was exempted from sales tax in 1954. Repair and replacement parts for these particular items of equipment are quite expensive and form a large part of municipal expenditure. Therefore I would request the minister to give this matter his consideration.
Miss Margaret Aitken (York-Humber):: Mr,
Speaker, I wish to speak briefly on one phase of the budget because I feel that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) has a tiger by the tail in introducing a 20 per cent tax on the advertising content in Canadian editions of United States magazines. It seems to me that when such taxes are put on we just do not know where they will stop because even now there are rumblings-I am sure the minister has heard them-from Canadian advertising agencies. They are looking askance at branches of United States agencies in Canada. Will the government step in and put on a 20 per cent tax on all advertising placed by United States agencies in Canada or will the government claim that such agencies cannot come into Canada on a competitive basis?
What about the writers who supply fiction for Canadian magazines? I am sure the Canadian fiction writers would be only too happy to see a 25 per cent tax put on all fiction written by Americans and placed in Canadian magazines. However, I do not believe Canadian editors would be very happy with a tax like that because almost 100 per cent of the fiction printed in Canadian magazines is written by United States authors. Therefore I feel that the Minister of Finance has a tiger by the tail.
Since I came into this house I have heard quoted many words uttered by wise men of the past, and the other day I came across a quotation which I think the Minister of Finance may have heard. Sir John Macdonald once said:
Those who cared to be protected wanted all the protection they could get. They were like the squaw who said of whiskey-that a little too much was just enough.

The Budget

Miss Aitken
The Minister of Finance intimated the other night that this is not primarily a tax. I believe it is simply a discriminatory and punitive measure against certain magazines. On March 22 the Toronto Telegram called it a vicious tax and went on to say:
A striking example of the government's misuse of its taxing power to invade the right of free publication in Canada.
This tax is supposed to help Canadian magazines, and it may or may not do that. The advertiser still has freedom of choice as to where he will place his advertising. It is supposed to help Canadian magazines but what about the Canadian reader, the consumer? Will it help him? No, it will not. The two magazines most affected by this tax are Reader's Digest and Time, and these magazines are not duplicated in Canada and I do not believe that they will be duplicated in the foreseeable future because they are [DOT]costly magazines to produce and they can exist only on international mass circulation.
The Reader's Digest has an annual payroll of $1,250,000 in Canada. Time has 33 bureaux in Canada costing with taxes $4 million a year. If these two magazines decide to stay in Canada despite the 20 per cent tax the cost to them based on their 1955 advertising will be approximately $664,000 in the case of Time and $620,000 in the case of the Reader's Digest.
Quite aside from these two United States magazines published in Canada there are about seven others which will also be affected, although to a much lesser degree. That is, nine United States magazines are to be discriminated against at a time when there are actually 100 consumer magazines coming in here from the United States and circulating in Canada. Those 100 consumer magazines have a combined circulation of 5,929,329. This does not include trade journals.
If the two magazines most affected by this 20 per cent tax decide to get out of Canada and not try to compete with Canadian magazines it will mean that the government is penalizing the consumers as well as the publishers of the magazines. We readers will be deprived of magazines that we cannot get here under any circumstances.


Mr. Philpott:: Could we not buy them before they were published in Canada?


An hon. Member:: What about Harper's Bazaar or the Atlantic Monthly?


Margaret Aitken: I am not comparing Harper's Bazaar or the Atlantic Monthly with the Reader's Digest and Time. I am speaking about a special kind of magazine. As I said, we will be deprived of certain types of magazines because there is no Canadian magazine
IMiss Aitken.1

like these magazines. They are informative and popular and are not duplicated in this country. Personally I resent government interference in connection with my reading matter.
Then we come to another phase of this tax which can be interpreted as censorship. I feel that this tax is dangerous for the government to impose because of that possible interpretation. We do not like any form of censorship here in Canada. I think we are unanimous on that in this house. At the moment the Minister of Finance is confining himself to the advertising content, but what is to stop him from interfering with the editorial content as well? Or is this a form of censorship already? If these magazines move out it will mean that this is a form of censorship.
We know, for instance, that there is no love lost between Time and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann). We know that there is no love lost between Time and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). In that connection I found a report in the New York Times most interesting. This was a straight factual report, but in the middle I found what could be described only as a deadpan observation. This paragraph reads:
The new tax hits Time magazine and Reader's Digest hardest.
Time recently has been attacking Lester B. Pearson, Secretary of State for External Affairs, as an appeaser in the Far East, referring to him on one occasion as "Nehru in a homburg hat".
This is an innuendo to which we may not necessarily subscribe, but the fact remains that the Minister of Finance has laid himself and the government open to such accusations.
Then I find, in the next phase, that this is completely inconsistent with other actions of the cabinet. The Minister of Finance has expressed in a very paternal way his concern over the future of Canadian magazines, and that is his reason for this tax. On March 15 the Secretary of State for External Affairs was expressing paternal concern over another phase of our life. He was asked in this house if he had made any protests to the United States government over potential legislation in some states which would discriminate against or even put out of business some Canadian brewing companies that wanted to open branches of their industry in the United States. The minister said that he had conveyed our concern to the United States government, and I quote his words on that occasion:
That concern is based wholly on the principle involved and not merely on the situation of any particular industry.
The United States authorities, up to now, have agreed with that principle involved and

they shared the minister's concern. But it seems to me that the same principle of discrimination is involved in this 20 per cent tax introduced by the Minister of Finance, which was our concern last week, on the other side of the penny.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), on the other hand, has no compunction about ushering in United States capital to finance and control part of our national resources. The Minister of Finance stands guard over Canadian magazines. The Secretary of State for External Affairs stands guard over the rights of Canadian brewers. Yet the Minister of Trade and Commerce ignores any principle involved. He is quite prepared to give United States businessmen control of our trans-Canada pipe line. I find this all very inconsistent.
Then we come to the results of the tax. I cannot imagine where the minister got this brain-wave of a tax. It certainly was not from the Massey report and, if you can believe the Massey report, it was not from the periodicals, unless there has been a change since the Massey report, because in the Massey report there is this piece of information:
We were impressed by the fact that Canadian periodicals neither desired nor requested any protective measures apart from an adjustment of tariff rates on paper imported from the United States for publishing purposes.
That is why I say I feel that the Minister of Finance has got the tiger by the tail. This is a punitive and discriminatory measure against nine magazines, but it does not stop there. This 20 per cent tax can penalize the consumer or reader who wants to read those magazines and read the Canadian news in those magazines. It can penalize the Canadian advertising agencies who want to place advertising in those magazines. It can penalize the research bureaux which are used extensively by these magazines. It can penalize the newsstand operators who sell these magazines. Finally, it can penalize the Canadian postal department.
Ministers of the crown are not very receptive to suggestions from this side of the house, but I have a suggestion to make. As I mentioned before, there are 100 consumer magazines that come over here from the United States and they are competing with Canadian magazines. Nine of these are published, distributed and mailed here in Canada, and Canadian postage is used. Ninety-one are published and mailed from the United States, with United States postage used. If we must give some protection to our Canadian magazines, why not put a postal tax on these publications that come into Canada? Then, if Canadians want to buy the magazines and
The Budget-Mr. Legate absorb the postal tax, they can do so to the benefit of our treasury. If they feel the cost is more than the magazine is worth, then they have the freedom of choice to take it or leave it. But to put an unfair and punitive tax on just a few of the United States magazines and ignore the others is, to me, an unprecedented and an un-Canadian act.
(Translation) :


Mr. Gerard Legare (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes at my disposal, I shall emphasize some of the sound decisions that are found in the budget brought down last week by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris). The first that comes to my mind-no doubt because the opposition has been bitterly attacking it these last few days-is the government proposal to introduce a 20 per cent tax on advertising in Canadian editions of foreign publications.
What is the situation at this time? There are in this country three types of publications: Canadian publications put out by Canadians, for Canadians and for the benefit of Canadians; then foreign publications which come to us from great cities such as New York, London or Washington, which enter this country without difficulty and freely circulate here and finally a third and weakest type, that is Canadian editions of foreign magazines.
There is a tremendous difference between these various types of magazines. The proposed tax will be levied on the third type, that is on the Canadian editions of foreign publications. This 20 per cent tax will apply to the advertising content of those Canadian editions.
Most of those Canadian editions are, properly speaking, the original magazine from which a few pages have been taken out to be replaced by other pages containing material relating to Canada. They also contain advertisements from Canadian companies, generally obtained from Canadian advertising agencies, which means that those magazines, published for the most part in the United States and sold in Canada, are in a much better position than Canadian magazines.
In Canada, where the market is restricted by a population much smaller than that of the United States, we have modest magazines far less sumptuously garbed than certain foreign magazines, precisely because their circulation, equally modest, does not allow it. On

The Budget-Mr. Legate the other hand, in the United States, where the population is ten times that of Canada, huge circulations enable publishers to put out substantial magazines of a truly high artistic level. So the circulation of these American magazines being so much larger than the circulation of similar magazines in Canada, their advertising rates are bound to be lower than those of Canadian magazines. Consequently, Canadian editions published by Canadians for the benefit of Canadians cannot compete with American magazines that publish a Canadian edition.
I took it that the intention of this government was merely to balance the costs of production of these two types of magazines, so that the publisher would not have to cut down his budget which, to my mind, would be a very serious mistake. I must say right now that this decision was a very sound one and that it would have been highly regrettable to delay its application.
This decision will also have another effect when Canadian firms prepare their advertising budgets. Advertising in Canadian editions of foreign magazines means so much money lost to Canadian media. This I shall attempt to explain.
Let us suppose that a Canadian edition of a foreign magazine carries from $5,000 to $25,000 worth of advertising by Canadian firms. It is so much advertising denied Canadian publishers who cannot compete with the American publisher, whose production costs are lower because of very large circulation.
As a result of that 20 per cent tax-which, to my mind, is somewhat low, and which I would rather see a bit higher, because I believe it does not equal the production costs differential of United States and Canadian magazines-as a result of that 20 per cent tax on advertising in Canadian editions of foreign magazines, production costs will be better balanced, and so Canadian publishers will be in a better position to compete with those foreign magazines, most of which are but slightly modified editions of the original magazine published in the United States.
Approximately 250 magazines, called trade publications, are published in Canada, about half of them, or maybe less, printed in Ontario. Had the federal government delayed taking the steps announced in the budget speech, before long, and sooner than we think, we would have had to face a competition that would have threatened the existence and survival of numerous Canadian

publications. Let me give you an example. Practically all branches of commerce or industry have their own magazine. Jewelers have theirs, and so have contractors, hotel operators, etc. Let us, for instance, take the Canadian hotel operators' magazine.
It is an unpretentious, very well made and interesting magazine, but owing to the fact that we have a limited number of hotels in Canada its circulation is limited in this country. On the other hand, in the United States, with their much larger population, there are trade magazines for inn-keepers and hotelkeepers, and these magazines have a much larger circulation, which means that they are bigger and much more attractively printed. If the publisher of a trade magazine for American hotel-keepers decides to publish a Canadian edition, he will leave out a few pages of his national edition and replace them with some pages on Canada. And these pages will be accompanied by advertising of interest to Canadians, advertising of products or goods which are bought by hotel-keepers. Here you have two trade magazines. One is published by Canadians for Canadians, and it is small. The other, published in the United States for Americans, is much larger because, from its very beginning, it has enjoyed a large circulation in the United States, which means that it has been able to publish more articles in its original edition.
Of the two, the hotel keeper or operator will surely prefer the bulkier, more attractive one, with more reading matter, in short, the more complete one. The circulation of that foreign publication will inevitably rise in Canada at the expense of Canadian magazines for hotel men, builders or restaurant owners, in such a way that Canadian magazines will necessarily reduce their volume and, after "X" months,-I will not say "X" years,-will have to cut down further, or fold up, while the American magazine will establish itself in this country and will build up a circulation likely to compete unfairly with Canadian publications.
Another instance can be given to prove the soundness of this tax. We know that Life magazine publishes editions in many countries, France, England, Spain, Italy and that these editions are replicas of the American edition, published by the owners, in New York. Should the editors of Life decide tomorrow to publish a Canadian edition they will merely replace a few pages on their American national edition with a few pages

and photographs on Canada, and will then add pages of advertisements sought from Canadians through advertising agencies. This would be a Canadian edition of Life. But what would happen then? In each Canadian edition of Life magazine, if ever it comes out, we shall find 5, 10, 15, 20 or even 25 thousand dollars worth of ads that might otherwise have gone to the four advertising media in Canada.
My hon. friend from Calgary South (Mr. Nickle) said the other day that there is nothing to prove that this money would go to Canadian publishers. Nothing proves it, no, but we may rest assured that the budget not spent in foreign publications will be allocated to other advertising media in this country, such as magazines, newspapers, radio and television, or even bill boards. We are therefore assured that the advertising budget earmarked for Canada will be spent in Canadian magazines, published by and for Canadians.
It has been implied that by this measure we were seeking to bar the entry of foreign magazines into this country. This is quite untrue. Now or at any future time, any foreign magazine, of whatever origin, provided it passes the censor, will enjoy the privilege of entry into this country and of free circulation, unhampered by supplementary taxes, or higher postage rates.
Several members opposite have claimed that this legislation would deprive Canadians of magazines published outside this country, which is quite untrue. The purpose of the budget speech must be well understood in order to realize that the government does not propose to restrict nor embarrass in any way the circulation or the importation of foreign magazines into Canada. The only kind of magazines affected are the Canadian editions of foreign publications, whether they be published in the United States, in France or in London. Their number is now quite limited; but I think it could be said without exaggeration that certain signs justify the belief that their number will increase in the near future and that it would soon have constituted a serious threat to Canadian publishers. Had not the government decided to impose a tax on the commercial section of those Canadian editions, and it seems to me that the action of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) has been quite wise, this industry would have been seriously threatened in this country. I had already given some thought to this prob-
The Budget-Mr. Legate lem and 1 had been wondering what means could be found to force foreign editors to compete on equal ground with Canadian publishers. I think we have struck upon a happy formula, a genuine discovery, in taxing the Canadian advertising content of Canadian editions of foreign magazines.
I was astounded to hear the opposition criticize this measure. Why? Because, since the beginning of this session, the opposition has gone all out against United States investments in Canada, and hon. members will remember the protests raised by the opposition at the time the bill on the trans-Canada pipe line was introduced in this house. We were then told that control of the market was about to be taken over by the United States and that U.S. capital was encroaching upon our economy. Again a few days ago, the opposition criticized a bill concerning the extension of the Ungava railway. They claimed this was another privilege granted to the U.S., for the mere purpose of allowing them to take a firmer grasp on our country. And now, when the government is introducing a measure designed to protect the Canadian people, and to prevent Americans from taking too firm a hold on the magazine industry in this country, or even acquiring control of that industry, we see the opposition rise as one man in disapproval.
I hope that, despite those protests, the government will carry out its intentions, wishes and plans so that, at the beginning of January, as already announced, this measure will go into effect, because I believe that a remedy to the present condition has been long overdue, and so that a larger measure of protection be granted to our magazine publishers who, until now, have been alarmed by the encroachment of Canadian editions of foreign publications in this country, an encroachment which had tended to increase and which would surely have materialized, according to the information I can get.
I should not like to labour the point. I have tried to be as plain as possible about it. In my opinion, the situation is crystal clear; the government's intention is praiseworthy and should be supported because we will be the first to benefit from it.
If there is one field of which we should keep control it is that of culture, of thought. We must keep the privilege of editing and managing our own publications. It is a field in which we cannot let American or European people, or people from other countries, get control.

The Budget-Mr. Legare
If we want our press to remain free, the Canadian publishing industry should be able to live and live well. We have no objection to letting foreign publications enter Canada. Personally, I would oppose any proposal of the government aimed at preventing it. Far from it, I know that it is not the government's intention to take steps in that direction; the government's intention is solely, as I stated at the beginning, to try and balance the cost of production of those two types of magazines: the Canadian magazines controlled, managed and published for the benefit of Canadians, on the one hand, and on the other, Canadian editions of foreign magazines, published by Americans for the benefit of Americans.
Another decision of the government which pleased me greatly concerns the "Caisses populaires" and credit unions.
Through the budget speech we learned that the government intended to call a meeting in Ottawa of the administrators of our credit unions in order to discuss the possibility of placing them on an equal footing with chartered banks as far as loans guaranteed by the government are concerned. I remember that last year when a bill to provide help for fishermen was before the house, several hon. members asked that credit unions-caisses populaires-be placed on an equal footing with chartered banks. In fact, when the bill came back to the house from the committee, we found to our satisfaction that credit unions had been placed on a par with the chartered banks.
I believe-if I rely on what I heard from the budget speech-that the government intends to put credit unions on the same basis as the chartered banks. To my mind, it is a sound idea; it is even a recognition of the work done by credit unions-especially those in the province of Quebec, which I know better than those of other provinces-which have shown that they deserve the same treatment' as other more influential financial institutions in this country.
Credit unions perhaps deserve such treatment in recognition of their contribution in the field of house building. They have been leaders and pioneers in that field in Canada; they have made it possible for hundreds and even thousands of Canadians to own their own house. Today the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation follows the same policy and I believe that both institutions should carry on and extend their activities in that field.

I admire credit unions which, in some cases, attach a particular importance to the moral guarantee offered by the borrower, while the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation considers mainly his income or his salary, making sure at the same time that he has a permanent or steady position while the credit union, without neglecting such points, takes a much greater account of the moral guarantee.
The same can be said for the type of construction. A credit union will give more consideration to the wish of a borrower to build a house of a given type which is to his liking or which fits in a particular district while the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation will consider mainly whether the plan complies with the law and will stick to the standards set by the housing legislation.
Two other measures announced by the federal government the day before yesterday have also provided a great deal of satisfaction to the Canadian people, and more particularly to two classes.
The first was announced in this house by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) who told us that the unemployment insurance commission had decided to extend unemployment insurance benefits to bush workers even though in the past those workers might have refused employment in districts other than their own. This decision which came after a rather large number of meetings between the Department of Labour and the officials of the unemployment insurance commission has made it possible to correct an unfortunate state of affairs. In my own constituency, there were approximately one hundred lumbermen who had been deprived of these benefits because they had refused to take jobs in the Abitibi district, where conditions did not seem to be as favourable as in their own area. These hundred-odd lumbermen, on returning from the north shore-since most of our south shore lumbermen spend the winter on the north shore- were disappointed to learn that they were to be denied these benefits. I should think that our lumbermen, generally speaking, should be treated with a little more consideration. I am particularly sympathetic to the condition of this class of workers who, in this season of the year, leave their wives and children behind to go into the bush where they have to work hard, with axe or power saw, from sunup to sundown.
I suggest that if there is one group of people who deserve the benefits to which

they have contributed while on the job, it is those people. Unfortunately, there are instances where our bush workers are temporarily deprived of those benefits. Sometimes, the benefits are suspended for 5 or 6 weeks.
I have here a request made by a bush worker who, while in camp, learned that his house had burned down. He dropped everything, and rushed home to help his family and then, when he claimed unemployment benefits, he was told that an employee cannot draw benefits under the act when he leaves his job for reasons such as these.
It is the same thing with bush workers who are called back home on account of death in the family. These too are denied benefits for a period of some weeks. I believe that the arbitration board should be authorized to give all sympathy to such cases or given some latitude to judge on their merits, in certain cases, the reasons given for quitting the job.
The other measure I want to discuss is the decision of the government to continue for two years the floor price for butter. That decision was conveyed to us last Thursday by the Minister .of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). At the beginning of his statement the minister said that he would give the members an interesting message to take home with them for the Easter recess. Well, if the minister gave us that piece of news so that we would convey it to our electors, I have to tell him that the news reached our counties quite some time ago, for no sooner had it been broadcast on the radio than it was being repeated everywhere. I would say that no more interesting piece of news has been announced to our farmers since the beginning of this session.
Those who are in the dairy industry have been wondering for the past few months if the price of butter would remain stable or if it would come down to 55, 52, or 50 cents a pound because of the fact that this winter's surplus was slightly larger. This decision is to be commended and shows that the government was well acquainted with the farmer's position; indeed, the Minister of Agriculture and the members of the cabinet have immediately decided to extend for two more years the act relating to the support price of butter. As a result of this extension, I can imagine a sigh of relief from our farmers back home who find in the dairy industry a modest income to compensate for the losses they of necessity incur in other branches of their activities.
The Budget-Mr. Legare
It is a piece of news that rejoices the farmers and proves that this government is paying much more attention than might be realized to all the problems besetting the farmers.
In concluding, I would like to stress a very unhappy situation that exists in one of the Lower St. Lawrence districts, namely the present situation in the counties of Matane, Matapedia, and part of the county of Rimouski where drought caused damages valued at $5 million by the Catholic farmers' union. The farmers in these three Lower St. Lawrence counties suffered losses amounting to $5 million on account of last summer's drought, while they had lost hundreds of thousands of dollars on account of heavy rains the year before.
I am receiving petitions and requests from all over my constituency, from county and municipal councils, as well as from a great many farmers who are seeking federal support, because, they say, we will not be able to seed this coming spring, as the losses suffered last fall were too heavy. I sent the requests to the Minister of Agriculture, but he replied that he could do nothing unless requested to do so by the province of Quebec; it was the only reply he could give under the circumstances, as this is a matter of jurisdiction. It is recognized that no help can be given directly in the province of Quebec, either to an individual or a municipality unless a request to that effect is made by the provincial government. In recent days, the provincial government has decided to take the necessary steps, but by itself, and to spend between two and three hundred thousand dollars in the counties concerned. It will provide grants to some municipalities, asking them to distribute the money in the surrounding district to compensate farmers in drought areas for the cost of seed grain. The provincial government's grant might represent, let us say, half the cost of seeding in the counties concerned. I am confident that had the provincial government submitted a request to the federal government, the latter would have contributed a large amount, so that instead of receiving only partial compensation for the cost of their seed grain, our farmers would perhaps have been compensated for the whole amount. Had a committee been established to look into this matter, no doubt the central government would have investigated the possibility of compensating our farmers for the heavy losses they have sustained recently. Although a loss of $5 million in that area might not be a national calamity, it does

The Budget-Mr. Bryson affect the national economy, because that $5 million loss tor farmers of three constituencies will paralyse their operations, preventing them from buying farm machinery and improving their land as they would have liked to. Moreover, they will have trouble paying back their farm loan, at least those of them who had to mortgage their property.
In conclusion, I must say that I regret such a situation; I wish the federal government had been in a position to help alleviate the recent difficulties of farmers in that part of the Lower St. Lawrence. I hope that it is not too late and that the government of the province of Quebec will put its pride aside-if its decision was indeed inspired by pride-and will request the assistance of the central government for the benefit of those people whose difficulties I appreciate and to whom I extend my most sincere sympathy.
(Text):


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Mr. Speaker, during the course of his remarks on Monday last my deskmate, the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Cameron), pointed out to the house that he found to his amazement little or no reference of any kind whatsoever to the defence expenditures in the budget address. He concluded that among other things apparently the government expects the people of Canada to accept those expenditures as a matter of course, and it is quite unnecessary to explain these expenditures in spite of the fact that they do constitute well over half of government spending. I was rather amazed to find that in so far as agriculture is concerned little or no reference was made in the budget to that subject, either. It was rather astonishing to realize that the Minister of Finance found it necessary to use more than 12,000 words to set out Canada's economic position and to devote only two very short sentences to Canada's most important industry. Those two sentences are to be found at the bottom of page 2325 of Hansard, and I should like to quote them:
For example, wheat farmers had a much better than average crop, but during the first part of the crop year were unable to deliver as much as all of us would like to have seen. However, this has changed materially since the session began, and sales have greatly increased.
My first thought was that the minister had run out of paper. He would have given the house a more realistic picture of the agricultural position had he, following the word
fMr. Legare.l
"began", added: "and still the farmer's position is steadily deteriorating". I think that would have been a much more realistic statement. Therefore, the only conclusion I can come to is that this rather grave deliberate omission is further evidence that this government has relegated agriculture to the role of unimportance in this country.
The minister then went on to make some rather broad and general statements regarding the economic condition in this country. He said: "We have had a buoyant and successful year". Later on he said: "Our economy has advanced rapidly and continuously through 1955". It is because of those allembracing statements that I was prompted this afternoon to rise and take part in this debate. I feel that such broad and sweeping statements must not go unchallenged in view of the fact that we have in this country a very depressed section of our economy.
My concern for agriculture is basically justice for our farm families. I think it is undeniable-and it is something for which this government stands condemned and they must accept responsibility for it-that in the midst of this widespread prosperity in every other industry, to which the minister and his colleagues like to point with such pride, we have farm families and agriculture in general suffering from the heavy hand of poverty. I think it is clear that the government has failed to provide economic justice for that very large section of the Canadian people.
We talk about the great future of this country. I am sure that if we are to be a great nation this government must accept responsibility to see to it that all the citizens of this country are assured economic opportunities. Surely, it is the moral responsibility of any government to see that all of the people are guaranteed not only social and political justice but economic justice as well.
Every time agriculture is discussed in this house we have had it pointed out over and over again that that does not apply in so far as agriculture is concerned. When the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) rises in his place in this house, as he does on every occasion, and attempts to set out the farmer's position and the position of agriculture and quotes and persists in quoting gross farm income, he is doing an injustice; he is not only unfair to the farmer but he is casting doubt in the minds of great sections of people in other parts of Canada as to the

justification of the farmer in saying that he is not getting his fair share of the national income. This is a deliberate attempt to mislead and misrepresent the true position. I do not know who those economists are who bring those gross figures to the attention of the minister on every occasion, but I am convinced of this. If those economists had attended the school of hard economic facts that the farmers in Canada have attended they would have flunked out because after all it is the farm net income that is the important thing. It is the net farm income that pays the farmer's bills, and nothing else.
According to the latest dominion bureau of statistics' figures we have received, since 1945 there has been a steady decline in agricultural income in this country. Net income has dropped from a high of $2,154,527,000 in 1951 to $1,125,641,000 in 1954, a drop of 48-22 per cent throughout Canada. In that same period capitalization of Canadian firms rose from $5,671 million to $9,718 million, almost double. The prairie provinces suffered even worse, Mr. Speaker. In 1951, the net farm income of the prairie provinces amounted to $1,127,300,000. In 1954, the net farm income had fallen to $376 million, including inventory, a drop of 66-44 per cent. These are the cold, hard economic facts. That is the sorry record of agriculture in this country. Yet, on the other side of the ledger what do we find? We find that 25 companies in this country dealing directly with farmers had their average profits go up 402 per cent since 1946.
How does the government propose to solve the dilemma that agriculture finds itself in today? Well, apparently the best the government can do is to stand around like a stunned ox and hope that something turns up. The best they can do is to suggest that nothing short of an agricultural disaster is going to solve the problem. In the meantime the agricultural experts in the department continue to conjure up silly phrases. Seasonal fluctuations, they call them; temporary periods of adjustment. They say that slight difficulties are being encountered, that there is some buoyancy, and a good many other equally foolish phrases. The farmers are not impressed with that kind of diagnosis. They see in a 50 per cent cutback in their income, not something which is temporary, they see it as something which constitutes a major disaster.
I should like to ask members of the government who come from rural areas in
The Budget-Mr. Bryson Canada: Have you had any success in trying to convince the farmers in your area that their loss of purchasing power is not real? Have you had any success in trying to convince the farmers in your area that a 50 per cent drop in their purchasing power is just statistical? Such statements and such talk are possibly all right in the House of Commons or when used by the Minister of Agriculture, but I doubt if anybody could get away with it back in his own constituency.
I believe it is time that Canadian agriculture had a bill of rights, and I suggest that that bill of rights should be premised on the principle that the family farm should be assured a parity income. I would be the first one to suggest that under certain circumstances it might be necessary to make subsidy payments, that under certain circumstances some support would have to be forthcoming to guarantee a parity income to the family farm. I believe that we must reestablish in many sections of Canada the family farm because it is the best possible type of land tenure we can have, because it will give assurance that we are going to maintain in this country the kind of community which we need, and with the continuance of that community life guarantee the maintenance of local government which in my opinion is the most important level of government.
The tendency in many parts of Canada is toward the corporation farm in the name of efficiency. As I have said in this house on other occasions, I am firmly convinced that we could not make a case in support of the family farm in the name of efficiency, but I believe there is something more involved than mere efficiency. We should learn from the lessons of history, because it is a fact that political freedom tends to disappear in any country that fosters a system of land tenure that builds up the corporation type of farm. Whether the land is under the control of individuals practising private enterprise or under the control of the state, as it is in the Soviet union, is of little consequence as both systems tend to rob the people of their political freedom.
Millions and millions of dollars are being spent today by the United States and other countries of the free world in trying to once again establish small land holdings. Today the United States is spending millions of dollars in South Viet Nam to break up the

The Budget-Mr. Bryson huge land holdings by a few people. They are trying to return to the people the political freedom which they lost when their land was taken over by individuals and large land owners. One of the first things that General Mac Arthur did in Japan was to break up the large land holdings where the people were considered only as a part of the capital investment. So I say we should foster and develop the family farm as the best type of land tenure in order to maintain the political freedom and democracy which stems from local government.
I make my case for parity income on that basis. We are criticized when we talk about parity income or parity prices on the basis that it is going to cost the country something to maintain and support it. It seems to be perfectly all right for the taxpayers of this country to subsidize the Canadian Pacific, to subsidize the mining and oil industries, to subsidize by way of tariff the manufacturing industry of this country. We are told that that is wonderful, that is commendable, that is delightful, that is free enterprise; but when we ask that a subsidy be made available to agriculture we are told that is an entirely different matter, that is terrible, that is deplorable, that is impossible, that is socialism, that would be an attempt to corrupt and undermine the farmers' very moral fibre and would bankrupt the country.
As I listened to the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Thatcher) suggest that if all the legislation which had been sponsored and supported so far by the C.C.F. were carried out it would cost the people of Canada billions of dollars, I could not help but think how absolutely ridiculous such a statement was. As I said, I am ready to suggest that possibly some subsidy payments might be necessary under a plan which would assure the family farm a parity income, but let us not confuse the issue.
We are worried about surpluses in this country because of overproduction. I agree that surpluses do come from overproduction, but surpluses occur whenever production exceeds the demand. In ail cases demand does not reflect need. I think it is important to remember that. Demand is restricted by the ability of people to buy, by their purchasing power. Until the domestic needs of this country are met, the genuine human needs, we would be well advised to refer to it as underconsumption rather than overproduction. When purchasing power falls to low levels and manufacturers find that their

consumer goods are starting to pile up, they overcome that situation quite easily by turning off their electricity and laying off workers. The result of course is that they do not have overproduction, that they do not have surpluses, but what is more important is that they do create a surplus of idle workers which is something infinitely worse in my opinion than overproduction.
The government seems to feel that to maintain the purchasing power of the farmer by way of supports would place a great burden upon the Canadian economy, but I submit that if it is not done it is going to cost the Canadian people an extremely large amount of money which will have to be paid out in the form of unemployment insurance and other programs in order to maintain in small measure the income of the unemployed people in this country. There is no place in modern scientific agriculture for the argument that farmers do not necessarily have to rely on economics in order to carry on, that the farmer has some sentimental attachment, some sentimental affinity for the soil and for that reason will maintain his position regardless.
One of my constituents wrote to me and said, "I have a two-point program which I think would be very effective for agriculture in this country. The first point is to implement a system of parity prices, and the second is to fire Jimmy Gardiner." I agree that that is basically a sound program for agriculture. I am sure, too, that the Minister of Agriculture would like to quit his cabinet post and retire to his farm at Melville, Saskatchewan.


Walter Edward Harris: Wouldn't you be elated?


Hugh Alexander Bryson: On the other hand, he is in an impossible position. He cannot afford to do that because of the unrealistic and poverty-stricken agricultural policies in this country, to which he has been a party.
In conclusion I should like to say, in so far as a bill of rights is concerned, that apart from the basic and fundamental premise I mentioned in the first place, upon which such a bill should be designed, there should be a farm credit policy to provide for the efficient establishment of the family farm by means of short, interim and long-term credit. This is an absolute necessity if we are ever going to establish the kind of land tenure that I believe is best for this country.
I believe too that we should, as a third point, adopt the principle of orderly marketing through the government and co-operative agencies. Speaking of co-operative agencies, I should like to see this government set up a federal department of co-operation to assist in the expansion of these very important social and economic institutions.

I should like to see a comprehensive crop insurance program in all sections of Canada. I should like to see the establishment of an agricultural disposal corporation to negotiate intergovernmental trade and to co-operate with the food and agriculture organization. I believe the duties and responsibilities of such an organization should be to dispose of all agricultural products, both domestically and in the export market.
I was very happy the other day to hear an hon. member opposite suggest that the government should expand assistance to those in the low income brackets, to further augment their food requirements. I think it was an admirable suggestion, one I endorse and which the group to which I have the honour to belong has been suggesting for a long time. I should like to see a school lunch program instituted.
All these things would be under the jurisdiction of the proposed organization I have just mentioned. I believe that if such a program were adopted in principle it would solve in large measure the very serious plight of Canadian agriculture, and would return to that presently impoverished industry its fair share of the national income.
(Translation) :


Mr. J. A. Habel (Cochrane):: Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I ask you to convey to Mr. Speaker, in the name of the electors which I have the honour of representing here, our feeling of admiration for the dignity with which he presides over the proceedings of this house. I am often in sympathy with him, as one sometimes needs the wisdom of Solomon to make decisions with as much fairness as he does. There is however a consolation for us, members of the house, and it is to find that his work, hard as it is, does not seem to be too much of a burden for him since he does not seem to have aged since he was appointed to his present office which is, it is true, honorary. but which also involves great responsibilities.
Now, Mr. Speaker, conscious of the active part taken by my able predecessor in the debates of this house during the 27 years in which he has represented with such dignity, the constituency of Cochrane which I now have the honour to represent, I will not try to surpass his performance.
My predecessor, who is now sitting in the other house, has certainly done honour to his electors during these 27 years. His appointment to the Senate was the crowning of his career and the honour conferred upon him by the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) was reflected on the electors of his constituency who, on many occasions, in dif-
The Budget-Mr. Habel ferent general elections, had placed their trust in him.
As we are now discussing the budget, the house naturally expects me to talk about it, and this is just what I propose to do.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, through you may I congratulate the Minister of Finance for the clear and concise picture he has given us of the affairs of this country in his budget address. I think it would be quite in order also for me to have a word of praise for the whole cabinet. All the ministers deserve credit for having contributed by their teamwork in having managed to change a forecast deficit of $160 million to one of two-thirds less, that is to say to one of $51,700,000. I would be the last one not to give credit also to Canadians as a whole, who have largely contributed to such an achievement.
However, if the opposition parties can always blame the government when things are not as bright as they could be, would it not be in order for hon. members opposite at least to honestly recognize the hard work done by the Liberal government? After all, it was only a year ago that they were predicting in this house more unemployment and even the possibility of a great depression. Prophets of gloom, they now refuse to see the light, and in their speeches inside and outside the house are clamouring that had they been in office, they would have done great miracles.
Of the three opposition parties, one at least has so far plainly said what it would have done, and that is the Social Credit party. In his speech in this debate the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) left no doubt in our minds that they would have flooded the * country with phony money, under the policy of physical possibility. In this connection may I be permitted to give them a little food for thought. I now quote from an article in the magazine Labour Research, the title of which is "Physical Possibility v. Economic Possibility":
Someone once said that whatever is physically possible is financially possible. In one sense, of course, that is true: physically we could grow bananas in Canada, by reproducing artificially here in the soil, temperature and other conditions of the countries in which they grow naturally; and if we wanted hard enough to do it, no doubt we could find the money. It would be both physically possible and financially possible. But no one in his right mind would try to do it as a commercial enterprise. That is why "whatever is physically possible is financially possible" is, for practical purposes, dangerous nonsense.
On this ground I would also take the opportunity, knowing that the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) likes very

The Budget-Mr. Habel much to lecture the house on social credit, to suggest to him that in his next speech he explain to us paragraph No. 3 on page 42 of the book, "Warning Democracy", by Major C. H. Douglas, which paragraph reads as follows:
That the distribution of cash credits to individuals shall be progressively less dependent upon employment. That is to say, that the dividend shall progressively displace the wage and salary.
If these Social Crediters are willing to replace wages and salaries by dividends, let them say so.


Mr. Blackmore:: How about the unemployed?


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: As to the C.C.F. members, Mr. Speaker, their experience in public ownership in Saskatchewan was so dreadful that now they even accept the principle of United States investment to develop their natural resources.


Mr. Studer:: They are paying capitalists to come in there now.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Their Regina manifesto is so badly out of date that they do not dare mention it any more. The great majority of Canadians do not believe in socialism, and the C.C.F. are fighting a lost cause and know it.


Irvin William Studer: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre threw it out the window the other day.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: As for Her Majesty's loyal opposition, the Conservatives, they do not yet know where they stand. At this point, Mr. Speaker, may I say that quite often during the present session the Leader of the Opposition and some of his supposed followers, and I emphasize "supposed followers", have teased us many times by references to the importance of toeing the party line. Perhaps it would be better for the Leader of the Opposition to have his followers accept that policy rather than the one sponsored by a certain Tory at the annual Conservative meeting on January 16 of this year. I quote from the Ottawa Journal of January 17, 1956, in which I read the following:
Mr. O'Leary, introduced by Harvey Galbraith, Calgary, retiring Young Conservatives' president, first warned against attempting to draft specific remedies or blueprints to solve all the problems of Canada. Such action would only set up targets for opponents and deflect from them the force of criticism.
This represented no negative policy; the "No. 1 priority task of the Conservative party was the turning out of office of men no longer competent to govern this country''. That was the real task and problem.
"I beseech you, and the senior Conservative association as well, not to spend too much time rushing off in all directions pretending we have all the answers.''

Later on he said:
"Our task is to mobilize the spirit of discontent and channel it into support of the Conservative party and the people know we are the only alternative'', said Mr. O'Leary, and his audience applauded.
Of course they did believe in his credo.
People who asked what was the difference between the Liberal and Conservative parties showed an appalling degree of ignorance.
He was speaking of the people who do not support the Conservative party. He said they showed an appalling degree of ignorance.
The difference was in emphasis. The Conservatives emphasized the commonwealth but the Liberal government held the sceptre of commonwealth as if it burned its fingers and surreptitiously was trying to destroy the symbols of commonwealth.
The once great Conservative party is insulting the intelligence of Canadians in following that policy as they have been doing in the house since that day. The exaggeration in their speeches, such as the one given yesterday by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), clearly demonstrates their intention to adhere to that policy. A few days after the budget address was presented, here is what the Financial Times had to say to the Conservatives. I am not going to quote the whole editorial, but it reads in part as follows:
It is the traditional custom for the debate on the budget to be opened with a short comment by the financial critic of the official opposition immediately following the conclusion of the budget speech. The comments of J. M. Macdonnell on Tuesday evening provide an obvious clue to the main line of attack that will be pursued by the Progressive Conservatives during the course of the debate. Speakers for the two other parties, one of them at least, probably will follow a similar policy. He didn't know, Mr. Macdonnell said, why the Liberals should applaud expenditures of $5 billion; there was nothing else to applaud.
That is not a new criticism of the Progressive Conservatives. In the course of the last two or three parliaments, representatives of the party have been consistently hammering at the government for its failure to cut expenditures. Unfortunately, however, except for suggestions where there could be savings in the operation of certain government departments, savings that would represent merely a drop in the bucket from a budgetary point of view, there have been no recommendations forthcoming as to where and how there could be a worth-while reduction in federal expenditures. On the contrary, there has been criticism of the administration on the grounds of the inadequacy of Canada's defences, any improvement in which presumably would cost money.
From none of the three opposition parties has there been any serious suggestion whereby social welfare costs could be reduced; and, with defence expenditures, these constitute an overwhelming proportion of government expenditures today. The Progressive Conservatives are unlikely to do their cause very much good by attempting to draw the wool over the eyes of the electorate in their campaign for thrift. On the other hand, they could help their cause in some directions by calling for a halt to social welfare schemes or even calling for a re-examination of the existing social welfare structure.

On such matters, Mr. Speaker, the Conservative party would not dare commit itself. It prefers to sit on the fence so as to not hinder its policy of negation with respect to everything done by the Liberal government.
May I now be permitted to give to the members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition food for thought, and especially the Leader of the Opposition. In doing so I do not wish my remarks to be taken in any way as intending any discourtesy. I point to the statement that it was difficult perhaps for hon. members on the opposition side who spoke to point to any practical things we could have done. I recognize that perhaps that is the traditional approach of all oppositions. It is not their function to sing paeans of praise to the magnificent job the government has done, no matter how much they believe it in their hearts as most of them actually do.
Mr. Speaker, those words are not mine. I am quoting from page 346 of Hansard of the Ontario legislature of March 20, 1947. Those are the words of the then premier of the province, who now happens to be the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition in this house. They could very well refer to that statement of his and realize, from his own words, that perhaps they are saying what they do not believe in their own hearts.
I am not going at any length into the general discussion that has taken place. Naturally I can say definitely that I for one will be voting against the amendment and the amendment to the amendment, and I think I shall not be alone in doing so. These are presented as a matter of custom by the opposition. I may say that I really wonder if they represent the views of the opposition. But we shall expect them to vote in support of them, and then a vote will be taken which doubtless will sustain the government, having regard to the course the debate has followed.
Mr. Speaker, once more these are not my words. They are quoted from page 347 of Hansard of the Ontario legislature of March 20, 1947. These are words of the then premier of Ontario, who now happens to be the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition in this house. So he could probably refer his own members to the Hansard of that date and ask them at least to try to come to this house with a concrete suggestion, rather than merely opposing everything when they do not even believe it in their hearts.
Mr. Speaker, as much as I should have liked to see an increase in family allowances, old age security, old age assistance and all branches of social welfare, one must be realistic. As members of parliament it is our duty to help the people of this country
The Budget-Mr. Habel realize that there is a price to pay for democracy. That price is to make sure that it will survive. To make sure it does survive, we have to face the heavy cost of preparedness for our national defence, and we shall have to face it as long as threats of war hang over the world. I have faith in the good judgment of Canadians. They too believe in that.
With regard to federal-provincial fiscal policy, I feel that the Liberal government deserves credit for its achievements in this field. As a true Canadian I am one who believes that we should live as a family. The have-not provincial sisters, as we may call them, are entitled to and deserve brotherly assistance from the well to do provinces. As a Canadian and as a Liberal I was glad to vote for Bill No. 82 and Bill No. 83 to help the western farmers. I am pleased to know that freight assistance on shipments of western feed grain will be continued. This measure not only helps the western provinces but contributes largely to assist the farmers of the maritimes and Newfoundland.
For instance, here are a few figures. Freight assistance paid on shipments of western feed grain during 1955 to New Brunswick was $1,074,000; to Nova Scotia, $1,749,000; to Prince Edward Island, $398,000; and to Newfoundland, $409,000. Those amounts were paid by the federal treasury, and surely it helps those provinces as well.
The maintenance of the floor price on butter is another measure which will help the farmers of the two central provinces. All these policies mean that the federal government is alive to the need for a balanced economy. They have contributed to the welfare of the farmers in the past. It will keep their buying power at a level which will maintain the economy of the country on a sound basis.
(Translation) :
Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted a few more words. I have before me a leading article which appeared in Le Droit of Ottawa on March 20, that is, the very day on which the Minister of Finance made his budget speech. This article bears the title "A year of prosperity", and I wish to quote the last paragraph, which reads:
However, this prosperity is not without shadows. The danger could come from the fact that production could not keep pace with demand. If Canadians want this prosperity to continue, they must, during the 1956-57 fiscal year, show caution in their spending in order not to be victims of the latent forces of inflation.
Those are words which, I hope, will make people think. The article continues:

The Budget-Mr. H. O. White
If they are cautious, they can expect as good a year as, if not better than, the previous one.
On March 21, the same paper, Le Droit, published another editorial stating that, even if the hon. members of the three opposition parties seemed to think that there is nothing in the budget, some representatives of the people-on the whole newspapers represent public opinion-find there is something in it. I therefore quote:
Two important aspects stand out in the budget:
1.	Our economic recovery is proceeding. Next year, the gross national product will reach 28 billion dollars; this is why the minister foresees a surplus of $100 million.
2.	The central government is definitely turning away from tax agreements and is resolutely embarking upon a policy of sharing taxes, equalization and stabilization of provincial revenues.
Having discussed the budget, the editorial concludes:
This may be due to the fact that Mr. Harris does not regard the. budget speech as the summary of government policy, but is satisfied with making out of it an accounting document.
It must be recognized that, in this respect, his speech shows an unequalled clearness. We know where we are going, even if we are told quietly. And this is not a slight merit. We do not have to scrutinize the future beyond rhetorical fancies or the veil of allegory. We keep both feet squarely on the ground. And, after all, this is the main thing.
Our condition, as taxpayers, remains the same. All in all, it is an enviable one. There are many who are more, much more unfortunate than we are. We are still among the privileged people of our poor world rocked with agitation and disquiet.
(Text):
Now, Mr. Speaker, I shall conclude with these words. I do not think there could have been the alarming possibilities in the budget address that the members of the opposition parties have claimed. The Canadian people, regardless of the gloomy prophecies of opposition parties, have faith in the future of this great country of ours and they also have faith in the Liberal government.


Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: I rise to take part in this budget debate because of the various far-reaching effects that the budget is supposed to have upon our whole economy. The budget should affect nearly every individual and many of us, I think, hoped it would beneficially affect all the people. So far as I can see that has not occurred at this particular time with this particular budget. Down through the years I have endeavoured to interpret to the minister and to the house through you, sir, the opinions of my constituents and what they are thinking. After all, they are the people to whom you and I, as members, are responsible. What are they thinking?
[Mr. Habel.l
.This is what I find. It was a rather flat budget. It was certainly not inspiring. It was notable for what it did not do. It was not an election budget. When we come to this question of an election budget, quite a bit was said about it yesterday so I am not going to stress it very much. But this is what people are thinking. Only in an election year can we expect a sunshine budget. Then the next year the government takes away from you any benefits you received. I believe it was P. T. Barnum who said, "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time." I believe the people are beginning to catch on to what a former minister of finance was pleased to call cyclical budgeting. Back in those days we thought there was some system of budgeting, but over the years we have found that the needs of the day dictate the type of budget that is presented to us.
I said that in election years we can expect some reductions in taxes, but then they take those benfits away again the following year. This year the government is taking taxes from the people at the rate of $300 per year from every man, woman and child. This amounts to about $1,200 for the average family in Canada, and that is the amount they have to dig up before they can use any money for living expenses. The average family man in Canada can hardly realize that he pays this large amount in the way of sales taxes and hidden taxes which are included in the cost of the things he buys. A man who is in the income tax bracket also pays.


Walter Edward Harris: Does my hon. friend say that every man, woman and child in this country pays $300 in taxes?


Harry Oliver White: All I have done is to divide the $4,763 million-


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, I know that is all you did.


Harry Oliver White: -by the 16
million people in Canada, and that comes out to about $300 for every man, woman and child. If I understand taxation properly, it all comes out of the right hand trouser pocket of the people of this country. There is no hidden source of income of which I am aware. It is the people who pay. This is $23 more per person than was taken from the people a year ago. I think it was an unrealistic budget, and took no thought of the alarming trade deficit that has been growing for some three years now as between ourselves and the United States of America. I understand that in this past year the deficit stood at some $840 million. Actually the budget contains no measures to counteract that dangerous trend.

The other night the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Thatcher) mentioned the fact that almost half our total expenditure is used for national defence. When I compare the expenditures of municipalities and the difficulties they encounter in raising funds to meet those municipal expenditures, I am bound to say that there is no tax-spending government in Canada that is as careful of -the taxpayer's dollar as the municipalities. They are very close to the people. The voters in the municipalities carefully watch how their tax dollar is spent. They know what they get in the way of schools, roads and so on.
As I say, almost one-half our total expenditures are for national defence. While we as Canadians realize the seriousness of the world situation, I think we have less to show for our tax dollar than any other dollar that is spent. We hear of these D. E. W. line developments. I realize that research and the development of these modern planes is a very costly process. By the time they have left the drawing board and are in production they are obsolete and we must start all over again. I realize that is a costly business, but at the same time it does seem to me that there is inevitably a tremendous waste of the taxpayer's dollar in this Department of National Defence.
The minister has more or less admonished the Canadian people to be thrifty, hardworking and saving. But at the same time he did not do a great deal of that so far as his own financial housekeeping was concerned. We are told by the government that this is a booming economy and everything is going along fine. When I look at the position of agriculture I am not so convinced of that. But admitting that we are enjoying a booming prosperity, we are not able to retire debts or to decrease taxes. This cyclical budgeting has gone out of the window and, so far as this government is concerned, thrift, hard work and saving have also gone out of the window.
The hypocrisy of the whole thing is to ask individuals to practice those virtues and then after the individuals do so, along comes the income tax department and says, "Hand it over, we can spend it to better advantage than you can." It is no wonder Canadians are not able to invest in these enterprises that are developing our natural resources to the extent we wish they would. It is because they haven't the money in their pockets with which to do so.
There should be a realistic approach to the question of our trade deficits, and some drastic action should be taken in connection therewith. We are an agricultural country and we have surpluses of many farm products,
28. 1956
The Budget-Mr. H. O. White yet we import vast quantities of farm products. I realize that some of these products come from the southern United States and we are not able to produce them. On the other hand, vast quantities of farm products that we could well produce are imported from the United States. Since we have a surplus of other farm products, we could turn the acres that are used in the production of those products into the production of other products that we are now importing. If the farmer is to change his production from one line to another he must have some assurance that he will have more than a one-year market. He has to do some planning as well as anybody else, and he wants to know that if he changes his methods of production and invests in different kinds of machinery he is going to enjoy a market for some years to come.
The other day on the motion to go into supply I talked on agricultural problems. Just at the very time Canadian farmers were harvesting their onion crop a boatload of Egyptian onions was unloaded in Montreal, which more or less wrecked the market for the Canadian onions. What did the Egyptians do with the dollars they received for their onions? Apparently they turned around and bought war supplies to supply the trigger-happy Middle East to further increase the war tension in that area. At the very time Canadian farmers were harvesting their potato crop in June, July and August, 22 carloads of United States potatoes were unloaded in Canada per day, amounting to some 7,000 carloads.
These are just two items. I could go on down the list and give many canning factory crops that are produced in the southwestern Ontario area that were brought in to the detriment of Canadian producers. Canadians are becoming more and more apprehensive of the domination of the United States. We have reached the point where we are afraid to use the word "dominion"-at least some are-but the United States is going to have dominion over this country with their dollars. They are cutting off an increasing supply of Canadian dollars for investment in our natural resources. As I mentioned before, if the taxgathering facilities of the government continue to draw off Canadian dollars we shall never have the dollars to invest that we might have had.
Last year Canada imported 12 million pounds of cheese. The Minister of Agriculture well knows the difficulty he is having with the butter surplus, yet here we are a dairy country importing 12 million pounds of cheese. Last year we imported almost 12 million pounds of beef. We have so much
2710	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. H. O. White grain that we do not know what to do with it. It could be turned into beef, yet we import 12 million pounds.
Many municipalities hoped that some aid might be forthcoming in this budget. I have said time and time again that the government should assume the taxes on all the properties they own, regardless of whether it is 2 per cent, 4 per cent or whatever it might be of the total property in the municipality. If they did that they would be indicating to the Canadian people and the municipalities that they are a part of this country and are not above and beyond the law.	.
I want to touch for a moment on the $885,000 that is to be spent on foreign art. I am neither an artist nor a judge of art, but I have this thought. Why not encourage Canadian art and Canadian artists? The gallery is supported by Canadian funds for Canadians, or is it for Europeans? I wonder. Provincial and federal competitions in art could well be encouraged. If we spent some of our own Canadian money on Canadian art it would be well spent in comparison with some imported foreign art treasures at $885,000.
I am going to touch on the question of the disease called scrapie that is creating quite a bit of consternation in the sheep industry in Canada. I mention it because I understand it is proposed to pay $90,000 for one flock of sheep that has been destroyed. The first news item mentioned the fact that some 500 sheep were involved. I see the ante has been raised to 690 sheep. So far as I have been able to ascertain, inquiries show that only one of the animals in this particular flock was actually found with the disease. After the department had supposedly carefully scrutinized this flock of sheep for two years and had given it a clean bill of health, the owner was allowed to show his sheep at the royal winter fair. The breeding stock were sold all over the country. Now they have destroyed the rest of the flock and are going to pay the owner some $90,000.
What about the people who bought stock from this flock that was sold at the royal winter fair? Are they to be left holding the bag? Why are not those sheep all called in and their owners treated in the same way this man in Alberta has been treated? There is an old saying, "It smells fishy". Well, this smells woolly to me. I am wondering whether it is more of a political debt than anything else. On top of that, the export market the sheep breeders of Canada have enjoyed for many years is endangered. To my knowledge the constituency of Middlesex East has at least three exporters of high quality
IMr. White (Middlesex East).]


Elmore Philpott: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we are all glad to see both the Prime Minister and the Leader
The Budget-Mr. Philpott of the Opposition back in their seats this afternoon. We are all particularly glad to see the Prime Minister back after another step in the policy he has been following of bringing about better relations among the nations of the world, especially among English speaking people. I sometimes ask myself how this government will go down in history, and I think among other things it will be classed as a great peacemaker government. While this government is naturally open to criticism on many scores I think in some things its record is beyond criticism, and at the top of that list would stand its record in making better relations among the nations of the world as well as right here in Canada.
When I heard the Minister of Finance present his fine, stable budget the other night, I could not help recalling the budget that we heard two years ago presented by his predecessor, Hon. Douglas Abbott. I think hon. members will remember that at that time the relations between this government and one of the provincial governments in Canada, that is the relations between the government of Canada and the government of the province of Quebec, were none too good. I think it is a great tribute to the peacemaking abilities of the present Prime Minister of Canada that that situation, which loomed so dark at that time, has now been completely resolved and harmony reigns.
While there are not many members from British Columbia left in the house, I see one or two, my good friend from Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) and one or two others. Regardless of what political party we belong to, we shall all be glad that the relations between the government of British Columbia and the government of the Dominion of Canada-by the way, for the benefit of the last speaker, I am one of those who like the word "dominion" and I am proud of it-are now better than they have been since this strange government that we now have in British Columbia came into power a few years ago.
We will recall that at the second last meeting of the provincial premiers with the Prime Minister of Canada, if we can trust the newspaper accounts, the premier of British Columbia went home in a huff and would not even stay for the Prime Minister's tea party or dinner party, or whatever form the hospitality was taking. You recall that at the last meeting of the Prime Minister of Canada with the premiers of the provinces, the premier of British Columbia went home saying that all was sweetness and light and lauding the co-operation of this government to the skies.
I for one want to make it very clear that I hope that at the forthcoming meeting between

The Budget-Mr. Philpott the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and the premier of British Columbia, we go a long way toward reaching solid agreement on the development of the water power of the upper Columbia river. I believe there is no undeveloped natural resource in all Canada that offers so much in the way of prosperity for all Canada as does the development of that great national water power resource. If we do work out the proper kind of co-operation between the Dominion of Canada and the province of British Columbia in regard to the development of the waters of the upper Columbia, we shall not need to fear further encroachment of United States private capital in this Dominion of Canada.
Turning to the actual amendment, I must say that I am shocked and astonished at the strange and contradictory attitude taken by Her Majesty's official opposition, that is, the official Conservative party. Here we have the hon. member for Greenwood moving an amendment reading in part as follows:
"this house regrets that the budget is empty, negative and partisan: that the government shows no concern over either the serious problems of distressed groups and areas or the growing economic domination of Canada by United States interests . . ."
I listened with great care to the long two-instalment speech of the official financial critic of the Conservative party and I reread it very carefully in Hansard. I cannot find one single word uttered by the official critic of the Conservative party in support of one of the finest moves that has been made by any Canadian government in recent years to end the threat of United States domination in one of the most vital sections of our whole national life in Canada; that is, by the common sense imposition of a fair and sane tax on what I would call the United States by-product magazines, the United States magazines that publish by-product editions in Canada. Perhaps I should say I do not know whether we should even use that word "publish" in connection with by-product editions in Canada. As a matter of fact one magazine, Time, is not even printed in Canada. It is printed in Chicago, as we all know.
However, my hon. friends in Her Majesty's official Conservative opposition held up their hands in holy horror at United States economic domination. Then we had speaker after speaker, beginning with the hon. member for Calgary South, then that long, and at least loud, speech by the hon. member for Eglinton, then the gracious lady member for York-Humber. After the strange silence on the part of Her Majesty's official financial critic, who did not even mention the matter, the
[Mr. Philpott.l
lesser lights in the Conservative party rose one after another and opposed this tax on United States magazines.
Surely the Conservative opposition will never be accused of having little minds. Who was the poet who said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"? We have them protesting strongly against United States economic domination of Canada and then, almost in the very next breath, they are protesting because the government has taken a step to guard against spiritual and mental domination of the Canadian nation by these United States by-product magazines. We have the very same Conservative opposition opposing this tax on advertising.
To go back in history for a minute, we will recall that when the Conservatives were last in power, from 1930 to 1935, one of the acts of the Conservative government of the day was to put a tax on all United States magazines coming into Canada. We will also recall that one of the first acts of the Liberal administration, when it came back into power in 1935, was to take off that tax. As the Prime Minister of that day very properly said, it is not in accordance with the principles of this government, this Liberal government, to put any tax on information coming into Canada. However, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that anyone who faces the plain threat of these United States by-product publications, which are published half in Canada and half in the United States, can come to no other conclusion than that some such measures as are now proposed by the Minister of Finance are quite in order.
I would simply point out that if we take the 12 leading publications in Canada, including the all-United States by-product publications Time and Reader's Digest, at the beginning of the last seven-year period the United States publications between them had 20 per cent of the total advertising of that group. At the end of that seven-year period those same all-United States publications had 37 per cent of the total advertising in the whole of that group of leading magazines.
So I submit this. Of course, if we do not care whether or not we have in Canada vital, prosperous and thriving magazines; if we are simply willing to let the almighty dollar reach out on a catch as catch can basis, then we do not need to do anything about the menace to our own Canadian magazines. But believe me, the menace is very real indeed. For a country that is spending $30 million this year to keep the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in operation for the benefit of the Canadian people-and I venture to say there is not a single hon. member in this-

chamber who will not admit that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is a great and necessary asset for this young Canadian nation-it is also in line to make sure that our Canadian magazines are allowed to survive, also in the national interest.
I have been a writer and journalist for more years than I sometimes care to remember, 33 years to be precise. I started with the Maclean Publishing Company. At one time in my life I worked for four years in Montreal for a very fine publication which I venture to say a good many members in this chamber have read. I refer to World Wide, just as good a magazine as Reader's Digest can ever hope to be. You will not find World Wide in publication now because it has been out of business for a good many years. I am happy to say that occurred after I left it. No publication with which I have been associated has ever failed while I have been with it, though some think they had a narrow escape.
You will not find World Wide in existence now, Mr. Speaker, but in that same city you will find Reader's Digest published. If you read the Canadian edition of Reader's Digest you will notice the strangest thing. You will notice that in the Canadian edition, which is almost but not quite identical with the United States edition, there is voluminous Canadian advertising. But if you read the United States edition of Reader's Digest you will not find any such advertising. Of course to anyone who studies the background facts the reason is quite simple. These United States publications which publish editions in Canada publish what are first, last and all the time by-products of their main American works. They are able to publish at a fraction of what you might call the fair cost of competition in this country. It is almost like using the tailings from a mine to fill out the main product.


John Horne Blackmore: Will the hon. member-


Mr.   Pnilpoll@: I will be glad to answer questions at the end of my remarks, if my hon. friend wants to ask any. I venture to say that in no other line of business would we have tolerated for so long this strange form of competition against which our leading Canadian magazines are asked to compete. We heard today from the hon. member for York-Humber that the Minister of Finance perhaps had a tiger by the tail in having proposed a 20 per cent excise tax on these Canadian editions of United States magazines. I would say it was a truer description to say that these special Canadian editions of United States magazines almost constitute a tiger threatening our whole
The Budget-Mr. Philpott Canadian magazine field, and that we have to do something about the matter while we still have time.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I was certainly astonished by the remarks of that hard-headed publisher, the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Nickle), who so often takes such an intelligent and sensible line in the house. On many occasions I think he takes a more sensible line than do his colleagues who sit around him, but naturally that is a matter of opinion. I wish to deal with his remarks about the tax on these special Canadian editions. I sometimes cah them fig leaf editions because the little maple leaf on their front cover hides their true identity to about the same extent that the fig leaf did on Eve.
I am bound to say that in my opinion the hon. member for Calgary South did not come up with a very practical suggestion. He suggested that instead of imposing a tax on these special Canadian editions of United States magazines we should set up a fund of $100,000 or $200,000, a government fund if you please, and that out of that government fund writers of merit who wrote for our Canadian magazines should receive certain grants. I can imagine the unholy howl that would have gone up from the opposition benches if that same suggestion had been made in the budget of the Minister of Finance. They would have said it was debauching the press, prostituting the press, trying to hire a stable of writers in favour of the government.
Let us be absolutely clear on the matter, Mi. Speaker. I have been a professional writer for a third of a century, and I for one am absolutely opposed to anything in the way of a subsidy fund to subsidize writers. I think we are going about the problem in a much more straightforward way by putting a straight excise tax of 20 per cent on these Canadian editions.
I agree with some of the points raised by the hon. member for Calgary South. It is quite true that some of our Canadian magazines could compete better if they were better run. I will not mention any names in that regard, but if I recall correctly Liberty magazine was first established here as the Canadian edition of the main United States job. However, when the parent publication folded up Liberty carried on as a purely Canadian publication, and it is doing a far better job as a purely all-Canadian proposition than it ever did as a by-product of the publication published in the United States. When I see fine magazines like Maclean's that are well able to hold their own as long as they have a fair field and no favours, then

The Budget-Mr. Philpott I think this 20 per cent tax goes at least part of the way toward restoring a fair field and no favours.
There was one suggestion made by the hon. member for York-Humber that I think is well worthy of at least further study. She pointed out that 91 United States publications come into Canada under the treaty whereby each country gives the other country free postal rights. As we all know, these things are governed by an international treaty to which nearly all nations subscribe. But when you recall that practically no Canadian magazine is able to ship its product in any numbers into the United States; when you recall that nearly 100 legitimate magazines, as I would call them, come into Canada from the United States and are afforded free postal rights under the general postal arrangements treaty, then I think it is time we took a good, long, second look at that treaty. In my opinion a good many of these magazines are certainly not sufficiently worth while to entitle them to a postal subsidy by the Dominion of Canada.
I for one would have been glad if the Minister of Finance in his 1956 budget had been able to bring in some of these whopping tax cuts which his predecessors made, or more of the very courageous cuts which he himself made last year, but when I had time to think the matter over I came to the conclusion that he was absolutely right-


An hon. Member:: Next year.


Elmore Philpott: -to stand still this year, and I say so for this reason.


An hon. Member:: Be careful.


Elmore Philpott: 
Mr. Hector Dupuis (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say just a few words in English. All my notes are written in French. Of course, after I have spoken a few sentences you will realize that I am much more at ease when speaking my own language than when speaking the English language.
In my remarks on the budget I am not going to discuss it from its strictly financial aspect. That has been done in a masterly way by the Minister of Finance. We have heard spokesmen of the various parties sitting on the opposite side of this house. I wish to pay a certain tribute to the hon. member for Greenwood for the speech he delivered in this house. I do so not by reason of what he has said or by reason of any criticism he has made. He had a very bad cause to defend. He did it in a way that really took courage and at the same time a kind of spirit of invention to find some words with which to express a rather creditable criticism of such a good budget. I really congratulate him for having accomplished his task, though I am not going to admit that what he has said is really a true picture of the situation or that his suggestions represent the way this country should be administered financially.
Now, I also paid great attention to the hon. member for Lethbridge, who again explained the doctrine of social credit. Of course, according to his declaration, if we were to have the Social Credit party administer this country we would certainly be living in a kind of paradise, which I do not believe will ever exist under the sun. Sometimes strange coincidences do occur. On the same date that the present member for Lethbridge was delivering his speech, 20 years ago Mr. Aber-hart was declaring to Albertans that he could not give the dividend he had promised the citizens of that province. Really, I cannot see why the premier was not able to put into effect the policies which had won him the confidence of the citizens of his province.

The Budget-Mr. Dupuis Perhaps times were too hard, or perhaps conditions did not permit Mr. Aberhart to go ahead and distribute those dividends to the citizens of Alberta.
But now the hon. member for Lethbridge, to whom I always listen with great attention, has friends in the Alberta government. Perhaps with all these extra revenues the provincial government gets as a result of the discovery of oil it would be in a position to pay some dividends to the citizens of that province. I would suggest to the hon. member for Lethbridge that the present social credit government try, at least, to put into effect a promise which was made to Albertans 20 years ago and start to distribute dividends to the residents of that province.
I know it is the duty of the opposition to criticize the policies of the government. It is a right which-I do not know how it sounds in English but in French it goes very well- is sacred. In a democracy it is the privilege of the opposition to explain its point of view on any problems. However, I feel that once in a while we could expect from the opposite side of this chamber a fair dose of justice and logic; justice, by the recognition of subsequent actions of this government, and logic by trying to suggest measures that would certainly be of great advantage to this country. We should expect logic in this way, too, that the opposition would cease suggesting the lowering of taxes while at the same time asking this government to increase expenditures, especially in the field of health and welfare. Everybody from the opposite side of the house is asking for increased expenditures by every department of government, and at the same time expecting the government to decrease taxes. This is what I call illogical. I tried to find another word which would not be taken as an insult by those who do not believe as I do, but I could not find a softer word under the circumstances than "illogical".
Before each new budget is introduced we hear the people in all parts of this country asking, is the federal government going to lower taxes? Every year it is the same. I do not recall hearing one citizen in any province ask, is the provincial government going to lower taxes? Everybody has his eye on the federal field. Everybody wants the federal government to lower taxes. I want that too, and when the occasion comes I am glad to get a reduction in taxes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When is the occasion?


Hector Dupuis: When a lower expenditure will look after the safety of our nation; probably that would be the occasion that would be seized by the present government to allow


more grants, if you want to put it that way, to welfare or any other department that needed them. I was coming to that, and I shall have to discuss that later on in French. On such an occasion I am quite sure this government would be the first to give a little more to whatever department might need it, and especially in the welfare field.
When will the provinces lower their taxes? I never hear people ask that, not even in my own province.


Mr. Hahn:: British Columbia has.


Hector Dupuis: They may be thinking about it, but the people will be waiting for a long time if I can judge by the Social Credit government in Alberta.


John Horne Blackmore: Alberta has decreased taxes.


Hector Dupuis: They should have done it 10 years ago when their revenues were multiplied six times by the discovery of oil. Even today you live in a very happy province; and if you do not live there, certainly the citizens of Alberta live in a happy province. I am going to tell you one thing. Everybody is asking the federal government to decrease taxes. Every member on the opposite side of the house, and some members on this side, for instance, are also asking for an increase in family allowances. This is a very good thing, and I am in favour of it. But hon. members do not take into account the fact that this would cost some $100 million to this government, which is also asked by the opposition to lower taxes. Again, everybody is asking for an increase in old age pensions. I am in favour of increasing all the welfare allowances made by this government, but we must take into account the financial situation of our country and the uncertainty of the international situation as it exists now.


Mr. Martin:: This shows how illogical the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is.


Hector Dupuis: I would not mention the hon. member in particular, but I guess they are all alike on the opposite side. Mind you, some people on the opposite side of the house are the champions and defenders of the autonomy of their own particular provinces. As far as my province is concerned, I mention in particular the hon. member for Three Rivers, the hon. member for Dorchester, and the hon. member for Quebec West. They want to protect the autonomy of their own province, but they do not let an opportunity pass to prove that they are illogical when they want us to subsidize education in the provinces, which is absolutely the concern of the provinces and not of the federal government. Every one of the members on the opposition side of the house is asking us to take some steps to protect our

forests, which again are under the jurisdiction of the provinces. They are asking this government to spend money for education, to spend money to protect the forests. They are asking for all sorts of things which do not come under the jurisdiction of the federal government. Mind you, they are the protectors, they are the champions, they are the defenders of the autonomy of their provinces. I say it is nothing but hypocrisy.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Hector Dupuis: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would he tell us at the same time what portion of the Canadian tax dollar is collected by the federal government?


Hector Dupuis: 1 am coming to that. I will answer the hon. member right away. Does the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre not know that the taxes collected by the federal government are turned back to the provinces in the proportion of 98 per cent? 1 would say that only a small percentage is kept for use outside of this country. Indirectly and directly all the taxes collected by the federal government are spent in the different provinces through public works, through different services and through tax agreements. Therefore all the money that is collected by the federal government is returned to the provinces in the form of welfare in this country or otherwise. We spent $1,500 million in all the provinces for social welfare. That is what we did with the large amount of taxes that were collected in the federal field. The hon. member has been in this chamber for 20 years and he should know that. It is elementary.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why are you complaining about centralization, then.


Hector Dupuis: I am against everything that sounds like centralization. The hon. member can give centralization any interpretation he wishes. It is not centralization when we try to come to an agreement that would at last be satisfactory to all the provinces concerned. That is what happened when we had a conference of the premiers of the different provinces. We came to an agreement. It was not perfection. According to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre it is only the C.C.F. party that is perfect. I do not think perfection exists in this world. All the provinces came to an agreement which was at least much more satisfactory than the one of a few years ago.
Mind you, it was only under this government, under the Liberal party, that this conference was brought about. Never before was there a question of distributing funds to the 67509-1721
The Budget-Mr. Dupuis provinces. That took place only 10 years ago or since the last war, anyway. It is this government and the Liberal party that have made the agreement to give back what they thought was coming to the provinces and what the provinces thought was coming to them. We came to a satisfactory agreement on that ground. My hon. friend will admit that the steps that were taken by this government and the new initiative that was taken by this government were not taken by the Conservative party or any other government that existed in this country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member permit another question?


Hector Dupuis: Go ahead.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When the hon. member said that the action was taken by the federal government and the provinces in the last four years or the last 10 years, did he forget the subsidy provisions in the British North America Act back in 1867?


Hector Dupuis: I will tell you one thing. I am not forgetting the British North America Act, and I wish my friends on the opposite side would remember that when they are discussing this question. The federal government has some rights, but the provinces have some rights also. This government has never made an attempt to deprive the provinces of their rights. They have come to the better understanding which exists today, although it is not perfect, although the provinces may not be entirely satisfied with the present situation. But they will admit that this government and the government that preceded it made an effort and came to the conclusion that the provinces should certainly receive the treatment they expected. They received treatment which they were not actually entitled to under the British North America Act. I repeat that this government never negotiated by denying the rights of the provinces. They wanted to administer their finances in the way that would be in the best interests of this country. It was on that basis that the agreements came into being. Maybe some 25, 30 or 40 years ago agreements could have been negotiated, but this time a solution was found. All the solutions to the big national problems have been found by this government, by the Liberal party. The C.C.F. party and the Social Credit party have made promises. We have found that they were promises which could never be realized. They could not be put into force during this prosperous time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Hector Dupuis: Time passes so quickly.

Business of the House


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. gentleman moving the adjournment of the debate?


Hector Dupuis: Yes.
On motion of Mr. Dupuis the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, we shall continue with this debate on Monday and Tuesday when we come back.


Mr. Speaker:: Before we adjourn may I
take this opportunity to wish hon. members a restful recess and happy Easter. I would invite all hon. members and colleagues of the press to come to my chambers so we can shake hands before parting for Easter.
This house stands adjourned until Monday, April 9 next, at 2.30 o'clock p.m.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special 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. Herridge: 1.	With respect to aids to navigation, including
1. (a), (b), (c), (d):
	Salaries or wages	Contracts
1949-50 	
$1,933.74	$ 604.001950-51 	
2,803.90	604.001951-52 	
584.75	605.001952-53 	
426.00	605.001953-54 	
717.91	605.001954-55 	
902.75	705.001955-56 	
172.00	178.00Totals	$7,541.05	$3,906.00
Questions
lights, buoys, markers, and other aids, on the Columbia river, Arrow lakes, Kootenay lake and Slocan lake, how much was spent in each year since January 1, 1945, on (a) salaries or wages; (b) contracts; (c) expenses; (d) supplies?
2.	To what companies or persons were the amounts indicated paid, and what amount in each case?
Answer by: Mr. Marler:
Expenses	Supplies	Total$ 26.66	$ 2,468.03	$ 5,032.43259.76	3,975.57	7,643.2368.30	2,213.75	3,471.8039.80	181.73	1,252.533.97	3,316.47	4,643.3538.68	2,250.64	3,897.0763.00	931.13	1,344.13$ 500.17	$15,337.32	$27,284.54
2.
J. A. Irwin	$	247.50
J. M. Tillen	 234.00
J. Greenlaw	 849.00
C. A. Brady	 9.00
J. E. Donaldson	 8.00
C.	Baker	
25.00G.	Brown	
50.00R.	Raper	
52.00D.	E. Male	
237.36J.	H. Folkard	
77.00P. Gritchen	
15.00L.	Montelbetti	
30.00S.	Williams	
26.00W. D. Jowett	
105.50S. H. Morrison	
336.50A.	Johnson	
570.25F. Sutherland	
100.00S.	B. Massen	
525.00M.	O. Hougen	
196.50L.	W. Stanley	
542.10H.	Webster	
191.00W. Dunham	
5.00M.	T. Hoiholm	
60.82A.	Guidon	
182.65H. D. Gaskill	
24.00K.	Dixon	
63.00Canadian Pacific Railway	
2,005.00Arrow Lakes Transportation	
503.97B.	C. Power Commission	
24.00Denver Light & Power Co	
162.00W. J. Benting	
42.28Corp. City Kaslo	
1,215.00T.	E. Morrison	
236.36Nelson Marine Service	
190.41Wood Valiance Hardware	
109.65Stevensons Machine Shop	
6.82Ball Pole Co	
330.25Big Bend Lumber Co	
51.53Shell Oil Co	
60.66Dosenberger & McMullin	
4.20Bevan Signs	
4.50Imperial Oil Ltd	
150.61A. Guidon	
33.60Gutta Percha & Rubber Co	
2.03Crawford's Store	
10.40Ship Chandlers	
2.42Nakusp Hardware	
8.45Paylist-miscellaneous	
2,996.40Issued from depot stores	
14,371.79Total	$27,284.54Note:	Information for period 1945 to
1948 not available on departmental records. Accounting for 1955-56 fiscal year not yet completed; figures for 1955-56 are subject to adjustment.


SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN RIVER DAM
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	Have any companies, partnerships or individual contractors made known to the government that they would undertake to construct the South Saskatchewan river dam and irrigation project?
2.	If so, what are the names of such companies or individuals, the respective amount of the estimate furnished by each and the dates of such estimates?
Answer by: Mr. Gardiner:
1.	Yes.
2.	Three companies working together submitted a firm estimate at which they would be prepared to undertake the work in 1954 or later, based on 1953 prices, to the Minister of Agriculture. It was indicated that if a decision were reached to proceed with construction of the dam and reservoir their tender for all the different items including "townsite, camps, land purchase, railway and highway relocation and miscellaneous" would not exceed $83,000,000 but they insisted, and we think quite properly, that neither names

Questions
nor bids on separate items should be made public until and if tenders have been called and opened.


R.C.A.F. COMMISSIONS
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	What is the policy of the Royal Canadian Air Force as to granting permanent commissions?
2.	How many holders of temporary commissions have been released since December 1, 1955?
3.	How many temporary officers were released
since (a) on or about January 1, 1956;	(b)
January 1, 1955?
4.	How many temporary officers were granted permanent commissions, since January 1, 1956?
5.	How many temporary officers were given one year's extension, since (a) January 1, 1956; (b) July 1, 1955?
6.	As of January 1, 1956, how many officers in the Royal Canadian Air Force held, (a) permanent commissions, (b) temporary commissions?
Answer by: Mr. Campney:
1.	Two types of commissions are granted in the regular force, namely short service commissions and permanent commissions. The type of commission granted depends upon education, the list or branch to which the candidate is appointed and, qualifications and requirements permitting, upon the wishes of the individual.
(a)	As a rule, short service commissions are granted initially to the following groups;
(i)	Aircrew who are not university or
Canadian services colleges graduates;
(ii)	Non-university graduate direct entrants of the flying control, ground observer, ground defence, and fighter controller branches;
(iii)	Female personnel, e.g., nurses and messing officers; and
(iv)	Doctors that do not want a permanent commission.
(b)	Normally, permanent commissions are granted to:
(i)	University or Canadian services colleges graduates entering any list or branch;
(ii)	Personnel promoted from the ranks, except those selected for aircrew training; and
(iii)	Officers holding short service commissions selected in competition towards the end of their engagement period.
Permanent commission boards are assembled semi-annually to review records of each short service commission officer who is within a year to a year and a half of termination of his period of service. Officers are then placed in three categories:
(a)	Suitable for permanent commissioning;
(b)	Suitable for a one-year extension; to be considered again for a permanent commission;
(c)	Not suitable for a permanent commission or an extension; to be released on termination of short service commission.
2.	57.
3.	(a) 36; (b) 257.
4.	220.
5.	(a) 199; (b) 242.
6.	(a) 4,872; (b) 3,328.


CHIGNECTO CANAL
Mr. Van Horne: What action, if any, has been taken to build the Chignecto canal?
Answer by: Mr. Marler:
Since the report of the royal commission on transportation, submitted to the government on February 9, 1951, no further action has been taken.


CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING LOANS, MANITOBA
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 314
Mr. Pommer:: 1.	What amounts of federal funds were invested by loan in the province of Manitoba, by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, for housing construction in 1953, 1954, 1955?
2.	In which cities and towns were these loans made?
Answer by: Mr. Winters:
1.	1953, $4,462,000; 1954, $2,787,000; 1955, $249,000.
2.	Beausejour; Brandon; Dauphin; De Sala-berry; Emerson; Flin Flon; Gladstone; Hanover; Killarney; La Broquerie; Lac du Bonnet; McCreary; Minnedosa; Morden; Neepawa; Pilot Mound; Pipestone; Portage la Prairie; F.ussell; Selkirk; St. Clements; Steinbach; Virden; Whitemouth; Winkler; Winnipeg metropolitan area.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Balcer: 1.	Are steps being taken by the Department of Defence Production or the Department of National Defence to proceed with the construction of some 21 houses in Nicolet, Quebec, for which tenders were called and opened in October, 1955?
2.	If not, for what reason?
Answer by: Mr. Campney:
1.	No.
2.	The lowest tender submitted for the proposed construction of the 21 houses was $288,132, or an average of $13,721 per unit. In the light of this and in line with the rental policy for government-owned housing for civilian personnel, rental rates were worked out for these houses in the range of $62 to $102 per month, according to the accommodation being provided and excluding costs of

services. The employees concerned indicated that they were not agreeable to paying the rates of rents proposed. Consequently the houses are not being constructed.


INDIAN AFFAIRS-FARM INSTRUCTORS
Mr. Bryson: 1.	How many persons are presently employed as farm instructors by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, Indian affairs branch?
2.	Of these, how many are part time instructors?
3.	On what reservations are these instructors presently engaged?
4.	What salary do these farm instructors receive? Answer by: Mr. Pickersgill:
1.	The Indian affairs branch ol the Department of Citizenship and Immigration does not employ farm instructors as such. In areas where the chief occupation of the Indian population is agriculture, farming instruction is given by Indian agency assistants who also perform administrative and other functions.
2.	See answer to No. 1.
3.	See answer to No. 1.
4.	See answer to No. 1.


ARMY CADETS
Mr. Robinson (Bruce): 1.	How many Royal Canadian army cadets are equipped and dressed by the Department of National Defence?
2.	How many army cadets are equipped in each province?
3.	Is there a demand from schools for more equipment and dress?
4.	If so, from what provinces?
Answer by: Mr. Campney:
1.	64,993.
2.	British Columbia, 2,446; Alberta, 2,100; Saskatchewan, 1,989; Manitoba, 1,418; Ontario, 33,597; Quebec, 18,500; New Brunswick, 1,643; Nova Scotia, 1,885; Prince Edward Island, 405; Newfoundland, 985; Northwest Territories, 25.
3.	No. However, requests have been received from many schools across the country to authorize an increase in the number of cadets in training.
4.	Not applicable.
Questions


LABOUR INCOME STATISTICS
Mr. Sluder: 1.	What was the total amount or estimated total amount paid in Canada in 1955 in wages, salaries and supplementary labour income?
2.	What portion of this amount was paid by farmers to farm labourers?
3.	What portion of this amount was paid to parttime or full-time farmers?
Answer by: Mr. Howe (Pori Arthur):
1.	The estimated total amount of wages, salaries, and supplementary labour income paid in Canada in 1955 was $12,861,000,000.
2. Estimates at this level of detail not available.
3. Estimates at this level of detail not available.


WHARF SOUNDINGS, BRUNETTE RIVER, B.C.
Mr. Hahn: 1.	How frequently are soundings taken at the wharf on Brunette river (Mohawk Handle), New Westminster?
2.	When were they last taken?
3.	What were their readings?
4.	When was the last dredging done at this point?
5.	When is it expected to again do dredging about the wharf?
Answer by: Mr. Winters:
1.	The Department of Public Works has not sounded or dredged at this wharf which is privately owned.
2,	3, 4 and 5. Answered by No. 1.


MILITARY MEDICAL PERSONNEL
Mr. Nicholson: How many doctors per thousand are now on staff with the army, navy and Royal Canadian Air Force, and what was the ratio in these services during 1943?
Answer by: Mr. Campney:
Air
Navy Army Force
(a) 1956	
2-6	4-6	3-5(b) 1943	
4-9	4-5	5-0
Monday, April 9, 1958



STARRED QUESTIONS