1956-04-11

APPOINTMENT OF AN ASSISTANT PARLIAMENTARY


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance) moved:: That the report of the civil service commission respecting the appointment of an assistant parliamentary reporter, laid upon the table of the house Monday, April 9, be now approved.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition signed by 2,511 persons residing in Manitoba, most of them in my constituency of Selkirk, asking that this House of Commons consider the advisability of declaring the flooded Assiniboine river valley and the interlake area a disaster area; and also asking this House of Commons to consider the granting of financial assistance on the basis of $5 per productive acre flooded during the 1955 crop year.
I believe this petition conforms to the provisions of standing order 70, and I trust the house will give favourable consideration to its representations.



STARRED QUESTIONS


Mr. Trainor: 1.	What share of the cost of existing bridges over the Red and Assiniboine rivers in the greater *Winnipeg area between Headingley and Selkirk, was borne by the federal government?
2.	When were these bridges built?
Answer by: Mr. Winters:
1 and 2. St. Andrews lock and dam bridge at Lockport, Man., was built between 19081914, at a cost of $550,184.87. Total cost borne by the federal government. Selkirk bridge was built between 1935-38, at a cost of $283,008.07. Total cost borne by the federal government.


D.E.W. LINE  MID-WINTER HAUL TENDERS
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	Were Canadians given any opportunity to bid on the mid-winter haul to D.E.W. line points, out of Eagle, Alaska, into the Yukon, since October 1, 1955?
2.	If so. which surface carriers or air lines were allowed to bid or given a chance to participate in the said operations?
3.	If not, was there an exchange of notes between the Canadian government and the government of the United States of America, preliminary to the said work, and was it agreed that Canadian contractors would be given an opportunity to bid and would be asked to furnish tenders?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, to the first part of this question the answer is that the government has no information as to whether or not bids were invited on the midwinter haul to D.E.W. line areas out of Eagle, Alaska, into the Yukon, since October 1, 1955.
The second part of the question is answered by what I have just said.
The third part of the question can be answered in this way. The agreement between Canada and the United States for the construction of the D.E.W. line in Canada provides that Canadian carriers will, to the fullest extent practicable, be afforded the opportunity to participate in D.E.W. line transportation in Canada but does not provide specifically that Canadian contractors will be given the opportunity to bid or that they will be asked to furnish tenders.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: May I ask a question arising out of that?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member could do so when we reach the questions before the orders for the day.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	Have any complaints been received by the Department of National Revenue, since October 1, 1955, that Canadian income tax laws, customs and excise duties have been ignored by contractors participating in the haul from Eagle, Alaska, into the Yukon?
2.	If so, from whom were these complaints received?
3.	Has any action been taken by the government to assure compliance with Canadian law through supervision by Canadian customs officials of the freight traffic on the said line?


Mr. McCann:: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first part of the question I may say that

Questions
no complaints were received by the Department of National Revenue, but the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, acting on behalf of the department, reported the movement of goods from Eagle into the Yukon.
The second part of the question is answered by No. 1.
The third part can be answered by saying that immediate action was taken to ensure compliance with the law and all duties and taxes were collected on goods which had already entered Canada. The contractor immediately provided accommodation and expenses for the full-time services of a customs officer at a control point selected to meet the convenience of the contractor and the best enforcement of the customs laws and regulations.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Knowles: 1.	How many persons have died in Canada in each of the last five years as a result of automobile or highway traffic accidents?
2.	Has the federal government collected any information as to plans or programs designed to curtail loss of life from automobile or highway traffic accidents?
3.	Has the federal government taken any steps to distribute such information or has it taken any other steps to assist in curtailing such loss of life?


Mr. Pinard:: Mr. Speaker, as this question requires a rather lengthy answer and also involves several departments, I should like to ask that it be made an order for return. The return will be tabled later today.


Mr. Knowles:: Agreed.



HIGHWAY BRIDGES


Mr. Hahn: 1.	What are the names and locations of highway bridges in each province to which the federal government has contributed financial assistance in building and repairs during the past ten years?
2.	Which of these bridges carry both highway and railroad traffic, indicating the railroad in each instance?
3.	What was the total expenditure on each bridge for the above-mentioned period?
4.	How was the cost shared in each case?



SWIFT CURRENT, SASK.-RADIO STATION

Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace): 1.	Since June, 1955, have any applications for a radio station in Swift Current, Saskatchewan, been considered by authorities of the federal government?
2.	If so, what disposition has been made thereof?
3.	What were the reasons?



LIVESTOCK EXPORT AND IMPORT STATISTICS

Mr. MacKenzie: 1.	What were the exports of cattle and beef from
Canada to the United States, and to all countries, for the calendar years 1954 and 1955, respectively, under the following headings:	(a) cattle for
slaughter; (b) cattle for feeding; (c) calves; (d) beef and veal; (e) beef and veal as estimated cattle equivalent?
2.	What were the imports of cattle and beef into Canada from the United States, and all countries, for the calendar years 1954 and 1955, respectively, under the following headings: (a) cattle for slaughter; (b) beef fresh and pickled; (c) beef canned; (d) beef fresh, pickled and canned as estimated cattle equivalent?
3.	What were the exports of hogs and pork from Canada to the United States and to all countries, for the calendar years 1954 and 1955, respectively, under the following headings: (a) swine purebred; (b) swine n.o.p.; (c) total pork; (d) total pork as estimated hog equivalent?
4.	What were the imports of hogs and pork into Canada from the United States and all countries, for the calendar years 1954 and 1955, respectively, under the following headings: (a) total pork; (b) total pork as estimated hog equivalent?



FARM STATISTICS

Mr. Weselak: 1.	What was the total number of farms, by provinces, in Canada according to the 1951 census?
2.	What number of those farms, by provinces, were in the classification of (a) 3 acres or less;
(b)	over 3 acres to 40 acres; (c) over 40 acres to 80 acres; (d) over 80 acres to 160 acres; (e) over 160 acres?
3.	What was the total value of the agricultural production of farms, by provinces, within each of the above classes of farms?
4.	What was the total income, by provinces, reported from sources other than agricultural production by farmers occupying farms within each of the above classes of farms?
5.	For purposes of the 1951 census, what was the definition of a farm?
6.	Will the same definition apply to the 1956 census; if not, what definition will apply?



WASTE PAPER CONTRACTS, FEDERAL BUILDINGS

Mr. Fraser (Peterborough): 1.	What individuals or firms had the contract for all the waste paper in the government buildings during the year 1955 in: (a) Ottawa; (b) Montreal;
(c)	Toronto; (d) Winnipeg?
2.	What did each individual or firm pay the government during the year 1955?



PIERRE THIBEAULT AND SONS

Mr. Boisvert: 1.	Were any contracts granted to Pierre Thibeault and Sons, Pierreville, county of Yamaska, since 1950?
2.	If so, how many and what was the amount of each contract?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 49-Mr. Maclnnis:
For a copy of all letters, telegrams and other communications, from August 1, 1955 to February

24, 1956, between any person in the Post Office Department and any person or persons in Vancouver, British Columbia, relative to the change of location of the sub-post office Vancouver-Joyce (No. 9795), and the change of postmaster at the said sub-post office.
Mr. Kirk (Shelburne-Yarmouih-Clare):: I
wonder if the hon. gentleman would allow this motion to stand until the return of the Postmaster General?
Motion stands.



D.E.W. LINE-MID-WINTER HAUL CONTRACTS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 51
John George Diefenbaker: For a copy of all letters, telegrams and communications received by the departments of national defence, transport and national revenue, since December 1, 1955, containing complaints (a) that in the mid-winter haul to D.E.W. line points out of Eagle, Alaska, into the Yukon, Canadian surface and air lines were denied a chance to participate in the operations; (b) that regulations of the Canadian government dealing with licensing, income tax and other Canadian laws were ignored by contractors engaged in the said haul.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: As the minister implied in the statement he made to the house on Monday, April 9, the departments of national defence, transport and national revenue have received no letters, telegrams or communications since December 1, 1955, referring to the subject matter of this motion other than a copy of a letter from the Whitehorse board of trade to the hon. member for the Yukon. The hon. member to whom I have just referred has consented to the production of this letter.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: On March 20, Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence made a statement respecting the manning and operation of the distant early warning line and a number of questions were asked afterwards which I should like to deal with at this time. I wish to emphasize at the outset that this distant early warning line and other radar stations which have been discussed from time to time are for continental and not exclusively Canadian defence, just as certain joint defence projects in western Europe are for collective rather than merely national defence. That being the case, it seems to be appropriate that the United States, as the larger country with the most
Inquiries of the Ministry at stake, should have a major share of responsibility for these joint defence projects, even though they may be situated in Canadian territory.
As hon. members will recall, on February 22, 1955, I explained Canada's role in providing our share of these continental early warning arrangements. I pointed out then that as part of the over-all effort Canada had undertaken to finance, construct and operate the mid-Canada line. I also indicated that following joint Canada-United States announcements, which were made some months previously, and copies of which I tabled at that time, the United States had undertaken responsibility for the construction of a distant early warning line. Subsequently, an agreement, in the form of an exchange of notes, was made with the United States covering the construction of this line in Canadian territory. That agreement was tabled by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) on May 20 last. It outlines in detail the conditions under which the United States was authorized to build the line in the interest of the defence of our two countries. It also preserves, as the minister said, the principle enunciated in the joint declaration of February 12, 1947, on defence co-operation that all co-operative arrangements will be without impairment of the control of either country over all activities in its own territory.
If hon. members will recall, it was indicated in the exchange of notes that the United States would carry out construction of the distant early warning system through a management contractor appointed by the United States, and that in fact is what happened. They will also note amongst other things that Canadian contractors would be extended equal consideration with United States contractors in the awarding of construction contracts; that, as far as practicable, electronics equipment would be manufactured in Canada; that preference would be given to Canadian labour; that nothing shall derogate from the application of Canadian law in Canada.
Experience with respect to the construction phase of that line has been very satisfactory. Contracts have been awarded to two Canadian construction firms, Foundation Company of Canada Limited and another, the Northern Construction and J. W. Stewart Limited, who are employing Canadian labour. A large number of subcontracts for goods, materials and services connected with construction have gone to Canadian firms. Very substantial contracts for air transportation have been placed with Canadian carriers, and a number of contracts for electronic material have been awarded

Inquiries of the Ministry to Canadian firms. The closest liaison between the appropriate United States and Canadian authorities has been maintained from the outset of the program, and is still being carried on to ensure that the progress of the work is facilitated and the terms and the spirit of the agreement are observed.
This agreement for the construction of the line also stated, in paragraph 7, that the extent of Canadian participation in the initial operation and manning of the D.E.W. system would be a matter for later decision by Canada after consultation with the United States. That consultation took place and a decision covering the first three years was announced-the announcement that was made on March 20 by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer).
The same general terms and conditions laid down in the agreement for the construction of the line are to apply in its manning and operation, and these, as has been pointed out, fully safeguard Canadian rights and laws.
Now, I come first to the question the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) asked about contractors. The answer is that, while the civilian prime contractor for the D.E.W. line, for the construction phase, was a United States firm, there was, as I have pointed out, a very large participation by Canadian firms in the execution of the contract.
With respect to the operation and manning phase, proposals were invited from Canadian and United States firms and the best bid was that of the United States firm, and we were satisfied that this firm was properly selected to manage that part of the operation. In awarding this contract to the firm it has been understood that as far as possible Canadian personnel and facilities will be used in the execution of the contract. Perhaps hon. members will remember reading that within the last few days there have been applications to our employment agencies specifying the kind of qualifications that would be required and endeavouring to get as many Canadians as possible with such qualifications to take on work in that connection.	_
There has been close co-operation between the two governments in arriving at all decisions and this co-operation is expected to continue throughout the implementation of these decisions. I think the visit of inspection that has been made over the week end by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney) and the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) with the secretary of defence of the United States and his deputy is just an example of the close co-operation that is maintained in that regard.

The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold well) asked if there were any other agreements of the same nature as the one dealing with the D.E.W. line allowing, as he put it, United States contractors appointed by the United States government to take over. The hon. member also wanted to know if these contractors and their employees were subject to Canadian laws or if there was some agreement with regard to the legal standing of those people. I have perhaps gone beyond the express terms of the question because I wanted to be sure that I was not leaving out any information that hon. members might wish to have.
In addition to the D.E.W. line agreement and the leased bases agreement which I shall deal with separately there are, apart from projects for which Canada is responsible itself, eight Canada-United States defence agreements under which contracts might be let by United States authorities; but there is a stipulation in all the agreements that Canadian contractors are to be treated on the same basis as the United States contractors. Those agreements, which in every case have been tabled in the house, are as follows:
The first is the "Pinetree" radar agreement made by an exchange of notes of August 1, 1951. These notes were tabled on February 25, 1953.
The next is the global communications agreement made by an exchange of notes of November 4 and November 8, 1952, and tabled on February 25, 1953.
The third is the Goose Bay lease made by an exchange of notes of December 5, 1952, tabled on December 16, 1952, for a certain area within the R.C.A.F. station at Goose Bay.
The next is the Haines-Fairbanks pipe line agreement made by an exchange of notes of June 30, 1953, tabled on November 19, 1953.
Another exchange of notes of May 1 and May 3, 1954, deals with the Loran station at Cape Christian, Baffin island, tabled on February 22, 1955.
Another exchange of notes of June 13, 1955, provided for an extension of radar stations from the "Pinetree" radar line, tabled on February 10, 1956.
Another exchange of notes of June 15, 1955, provided for gap filler radar stations in the "Pinetree" line, tabled on February 10, 1956.
Finally, an exchange of notes on September 22, 1955, in connection with a Pepperrell pipe line from the harbour of Saint John to the base which is just outside Saint John to avoid the inconvenience and the possible danger created by trucks carrying oil moving through the city of Saint John.
It will be appreciated that Canadian contractors have been employed on the construe-

tion of a number of these installations authorized by the above agreements.
For the sake of completeness I will mention one further installation even though it does not actually appear to come within the purview of the hon. gentleman's question. On July 9, 1954, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney) announced the establishment of an oceanographic research station at Shelburne, Nova Scotia, which is now being operated jointly by the Royal Canadian Navy and the United States navy under Canadian *command.
As hon. members will note when referring to the documents which were tabled, the terms of these agreements vary somewhat, but latterly we have been trying to cast them in a more or less standard form, similar to the terms of the distant early warning line agreements. In each case, except in the case of the leased bases agreement which was originally made between the United Kingdom and the United States as a wartime necessity in 1941, Canadian law is fully applicable, and it is expressly stated that Canadian law shall apply.
With respect to the leased bases agreements, it will be recalled that on May 1, 1951,
I announced in this house that agreement had been reached through the permanent joint board on defence for the voluntary relinquishment by the United States of certain rights conferred by the leased bases agreement relating to income tax, customs and excise duties, postal privileges and, most important, the jurisdiction of the courts. A formal agreement to this effect was concluded by a subsequent exchange of notes which were tabled on May 2, 1952.
In all these arrangements for the providing of facilities on our territory Canadian sovereignty is fully recognized by the United States.



UNITED STATES CONTRACTORS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to the question of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Pearkes) as to the possibility of the application of the Visiting Forces Act to personnel of United States contractors. The answer is that such personnel, being employees of contractors rather than of the United States armed forces, do not come within the provisions of the Visiting Forces (North Atlantic Treaty) Act. I do not think this is important because these agreements stipulate that the general Canadian law shall apply to those who are not provided for specially by the Visiting Forces Act.
11. 1958	2819
Inquiries of the Ministry



FLYING OF &quot;STARS AND STRIPES&quot; AT U. S. MILITARY BASES IN CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: My question relates to the subject matter of the statement made earlier by the Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister tell the house whether the terms of the leases to the United States of the bases on Canadian soil authorize the United States authorities to fly the Stars and Stripes above the Canadian flag on those bases?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I have never heard of the Stars and Stripes being flown over the Canadian flag. Perhaps the hon. gentleman means in the place of honour, instead of the place of honour being occupied by the Canadian flag.


Solon Earl Low: That is right.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There is nothing expressed in these leases with respect to the flying of flags. I understand that there is an administrative arrangement between the R.C.A.F. and the U.S.A.F. about the flying of flags in all the places where there may be American personnel, outside of the leased bases and that the agreement provides that the Canadian flag will have the place of honour. They will both be flown at equal height. I understand that the place of honour is the left side. I understand that it was readily agreed that, it being Canadian territory, the Canadian flag should have the place of honour.
With respect to the leased bases to which my hon. friend's question refers, what we regard as the leased bases are only the base in Newfoundland and a part of the R.C.A.F. air base at Goose Bay. Of course at Goose Bay it is the R.C.A.F. base and it is the Canadian officer in command of that base who has the place of honour for the Canadian flag. It may be that within the portion of the base that is occupied by American forces the officer in command would fly the Stars and Stripes. However, there is no arrangement as to any joint occupancy nor any conflict as to occupancy of the place of honour.
On the leased base in Newfoundland proper, which lease was made under the 1941 agreement by the government of the United Kingdom, of course there was no stipulation made with respect to the Canadian flag and there has been no stipulation made since then with respect to the Canadian flag within that base, but that being an American base for which they have a long-term lease- the lease was made by the United Kingdom
2820	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry government for 99 years-I would imagine that the American officer commanding that base would fly the Stars and Stripes as his flag within that base. However, I have never heard of there being any conflict there with respect to the Canadian flag and I would imagine that the Canadian flag would be flown within the base just as a matter of courtesy whenever it was being visited by Canadian officers.



ALLEGED DEROGATORY ACTIONS BY UNITED STATES CONTRACTORS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: With further reference to the matter just dealt with by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent),
I should like to ask this question. Would the Prime Minister say whether or not there has been any investigation into the allegations of the Whitehorse board of trade relative to what they stated were derogatory actions on the part of United States contractors in derogation of Canadian sovereignty? If so, were any representations made to the United States government in order to assure equality of opportunity for Canadian contractors which was apparently denied them in the Eagle, Alaska, D.E.W. haul?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can answer that question as I have just returned from Point Barrow where I discussed the episode. There are certain emergency lifts required in the winter months that present tremendous difficulty. Of course there are only two ways of getting a lift into certain warning line sites in Canada during the wintertime. One is by air and the other is by tractor train. In this particular case the nature of the lift was such that a particular machine was brought in for that purpose.
It is known up there as "the monster". It was built in the United States. It has wheels which are, I think, six feet in diameter, each driven by a separate motor. It is the only one of its kind in the north country and it was used for certain lifts into the D.E.W. line. As I say, it is the only way in which to get heavy material from the railhead to these sites.
I would remind all hon. members that the D.E.W. line is a protection for Canada just as much as it is a protection for the United States. It is regarded as being of tremendous importance that the two lines-the distant early warning line and the mid-Canada line -be completed on a certain date. In order to bring that about emergencies must be taken care of. This movement amounted to 

very little in dollars and cents and it seems to me to be rather ridiculous to make a great fuss about the fact that the Canadian contractor there-and it was a Canadian contractor who was installing the equipment -made use of the only suitable equipment in the area-which happened to be United States equipment-to move in certain material for the D.E.W. line.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not the record at all.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: With respect to the question asked by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) on unemployment insurance coverage, this was answered by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) on March 27, who described how the Canadian Unemployment Insurance Act applied to the work done under these conditions.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinion):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if he will acquaint the house with the nature and the result of his discussion today with officials of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps at my next meeting with Trans-Canada directors I can ask the hon. member to attend, but at the moment I have nothing to report.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Can the minister tell the house whether the government has under consideration any alternative means of constructing the pipe line than through the agency of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines? Or if any variations or changes are under consideration with respect to the terms of the agreement and the understanding with Trans-Canada Pipe Lines?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I read in the paper this morning that we are going to have many months of discussion on the pipe lines bill so perhaps we can wait until we resume discussion on the bill before I answer this question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In view of the importance of the matter and the general interest will the minister not find it in his heart to give the

house some information as to whether the government would consider some alternative?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall be pleased to let my hon. friend know of any change in the present arrangements that the government in its wisdom may decide upon.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration? Will the minister inform the house of the reasons for the reported refusal to admit Mr. Paul Robeson to Canada to give a series of concerts?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Yes, sir. As I think hon. members are well aware, it is not the policy of the government to admit known communists to this country, either as immigrants or as visitors. An exception has, however, been made in the case of Mr. Robeson and of one or two other persons who were coming here as artists for purposes which appeared to be purely artistic and to have nothing to do with politics in any way. It must be within the knowledge of most hon. members that Mr. Robeson made such a visit to Canada quite recently.


Major James William Coldwell: In February.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It has been necessary for the government quite recently to give consideration to what attitude would be taken to applications from prospective visitors from the Soviet union to visit this country and it has been decided, as a matter of policy, not to give visas to visitors from the Soviet union who are proposing to visit Canada under the auspices of communist or communist front organizations.
When my attention was drawn to the fact that Mr. Robeson was proposing to make a tour across Canada, I felt it was proper for me to make certain inquiries as to the auspices under which that tour was being made. Having made those inquiries, it did not seem to me to be reasonable to admit from some other country a person who is a known and, I believe, a professed communist, who was coming here to perform under what were, according to the information I have, communist auspices. That, sir, is the explanation.


Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the explanation that has just been given by the Minister of
67509-179J
Inquiries of the Ministry Citizenship and Immigration, I wonder if he would say whether it is proposed to bar the visit of the Russian women who are coming under the auspices of the Canadian Congress of Women.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not believe that any application has yet been made by these proposed visitors, about whom we read in the press, but I should think that, in view of the statement I have just made, the hon. lady would conclude that a visa would not be granted in that case under those auspices.


Major James William Coldwell: May I ask a supplementary question, following the question I asked just now? I understood from the newspapers-I do not know anything about it-that the organization bringing Mr. Robeson was Jerome Limited. If that is a limited company, is that a communist front? Is it a legitimate company? That is the point I am raising. I think this is a matter of civil liberties. I am not in sympathy with Mr. Robeson's political views by any stretch of the imagination.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, I am not a policeman myself, and I have to rely for information on the properly constituted authorities. The information that has been given to me, which I believe to be quite reliable, is that this organization is a communist front organization.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: May I ask a
question of the Minister of Transport or, in his absence, of his parliamentary assistant. My question arises out of a press release stating that contracts will be or have been awarded by his department to a United States company for radar equipment for installation at 15 Canadian airports. My question is this. Is no suitable radar equipment manufactured in Canada? If none is at present being manufactured, are there not Canadian manufacturers with whom arrangements might have been made for its manufacture?


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Mr. Speaker, since I received no notice of this question, may I take it as notice?



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. C. Van Horne (Resiigouche-Mada-waska):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct
2822	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry a question to the Minister of Labour with regard to the figures submitted in the house by the Minister of Labour, in answer to my question, stating that 3,654 unemployment insurance cases from Campbellton and 3,452 unemployment insurance cases from Edmund-ston-a total of 7,106 cases altogether-had been referred by those two offices to the Moncton office of the unemployment insurance commission. I still want to know-and I wonder whether the minister can now tell us after all this time-how many of these cases have been delayed from their dates of origin in their respective offices for more than two weeks.


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to answer my hon. friend's question-which came up some time ago

in which he asked why the Minister of Labour did not tell the house how many of the 7,106 cases were delayed more than two weeks, cases that had gone from the north of the province to the regional office in Moncton. At that time I carried out a full investigation and I found that the figure that my hon. friend used covered those cases from September 1, 1955, to March 1, 1956.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: They are your figures.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes; they are my figures of my unemployment insurance commission. They were claims that were referred during those months from those two northern offices to the regional office in Moncton. He also knows, as do I, that to go back now and to look over those claims in retrospect would be an almost impossible job to get the required information that he has asked for. It is information that I am sure would be of no intrinsic value at this time and I know it would not reflect anything to the detriment of the administration of those two offices or of the Moncton office. What it would do, however, to attempt to undertake it, would cause delays in current assessments of claims, something which I know he does not want and which I certainly do not want.



INQUIRY AS TO SITTINGS OF STANDING COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to a member of the government or perhaps to the chairman of the standing committee on agriculture and colonization. Can the house be informed when sittings of the committee on agriculture will be commenced and when it will be determined whether officials of the wheat


board and of the board of grain commissioners will appear before the committee at an early date?


Mr. Rene N. Julras (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I have asked the Clerk to call a meeting of the committee for tomorrow for organization purposes. It is hoped to get on with the reference which has to do with the Farm Improvement Loans Act early next week.



REQUEST FOR ANSWER TO QUESTION ON ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. E. Robinson (Bruce):: Mr.-Speaker, I have a question which I intended to direct to the Minister of Transport, but in his absence I hope his parliamentary assistant will take it as notice. Will the minister arrange to have my question No. 377 on the order paper answered as soon as possible in view of the pending appointment in the very near future of a lighthouse keeper at Kincardine?


J. G. Léopold Langlois: The hon. member can be sure that the arrangements he requested will be made.



CIVIL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
"operation alert 1956"-canadian-united

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare with regard to civil defence, and with particular reference to "Operation Alert 1956". Is Canada to participate in this civil defence exercise in co-operation with the United States? If so, to what extent?


Hon. Paul Marlin (Minisler of National Health and Welfare):: The answer is yes, and the details of our participation are now being worked out with the government of the United States and will be announced later.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, April 10, consideration of the motion of Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Macdonnell.
(Translation) :
Mr. Edgar Leduc (Jacques Carlier-Lasalle):: Mr. Speaker, I did not have the opportunity to speak in this house during the debate on

the speech from the throne, the time allowed the house under the new standing orders having prevented me from doing so. That is why I avail myself of the opportunity offered by the budget debate to give my views on certain questions that are related to it and on certain others with which I will deal only briefly so as not to take too much of the time other members could use to their advantage.
I come to the suggestions I wish to make in order to bring my contribution to a worthwhile discussion. The suggestions we make here cannot all be carried out, but they are often productive of ideas and pave the way to future legislation improvements in the enforcing of regulations. Thus the government is able to introduce measures calculated to improve existing legislation. Such is the purpose of the suggestions I am about to make.
(Text):
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) was wise and made a good move when he introduced his 1954 budget and reduced some of the taxes, especially the income tax. He then pointed out the necessity for reducing expenditures and forecast a probable increase in the value of the gross national product. This inspired the confidence of the public and the manufacturers so that the goal was obtained to such an extent that the anticipated deficit has been greatly reduced and limited to $52 million.
When participating in the budget debate last year, I indicated a way in which a reduction in expenditures might be achieved and that was through a closer examination of the estimates. Another way in which improvement may be obtained, in my estimation, would be through the proper selection of government employees. The civil service commission looks after the hiring of government employees and the degree of the applicant's knowledge is the only barometer used in deciding on appointments. I believe that great care should be taken in ascertaining the moral character of the applicant, his ability to work and his desire to adequately fulfil the tasks to be performed. These other qualities in new employees would bring about efficiency in carrying out their duties and help in reducing the expenditures of the departments. The chiefs of the various departments should be men of ability and willing to supervise fully the efficiency of the employees under their control. If the staff is left without supervision in so far as quality, ability and willingness to work are concerned, this will soon result in extra expenditures.
More and more people are considering government jobs and therefore the choice should be properly made on the basis of a
The Budget-Mr. E. heduc proper investigation. With proper choice and proper supervision by the heads of the departments, the results will be advantageous and will bring about substantial savings thus leading to lower taxation. If the right kind of employees are selected, the work of the heads of the departments will be made easier. The delay before permanent appointments is made should be extended from six months to one year in order that the approval may be based on a more adequate period of review.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to express an opinion as to how expenditures might be cut down. I believe that a reduction of expenditures, through a further lowering of income tax, would have stimulated business and industry and this would have been a factor of progress, as was the case last year. The hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) told us why he could not lower taxes this year; he said that owing to the present buoyancy of our economy, it might have brought on inflation which would have easily cancelled out the benefits of any tax reduction,
For the past few years, and especially last spring, the opposition severely criticized the Minister of Finance when he decreased taxes in the face of a probable deficit. But what has happened? Later developments proved that he was right. The opposition strongly criticized the government for real or seasonal unemployment last year and they could not believe that the situation would improve. But what happened later on? The last quarter of 1955 saw an unprecedented level of production and employment in Canada.
The opposition does not admit that the government promoted business recovery by creating a favourable atmosphere to private enterprise, but when there is a drop in production or employment, the government gets all the blame.
Again, the government is blamed when strikes slow down our economy.
But according to the opposition, when business is looking up, as it did after the war, and in 1955, they contend that the government had nothing to do with it.
Let us have criticism, but let it be constructive and not given for the mere satisfaction of criticizing. However, the public is a good judge; they have proved it many times in the past and, I am sure, they will keep on trusting the present Liberal government.
While speaking in English, a moment ago, I suggested two methods that would permit
2824	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. E. Leduc tax cuts. Here I mention them briefly in French: a close study of appropriations compared to previous appropriations; adequate hiring of government employees by the civil service commission which, besides looking into educational qualifications, should require moral training, application at work and efficiency, without forgetting that most important factor: recommendation by department heads who supervised the new employees during their trial period.
While regulations provide statutory increases in salary over a certain number of years, these should not be granted unless the supervisor is satisfied with the employee, and I submit that if such a provision were included in the application forms, the chief of a division would make sure of the efficiency of the employee before granting his final approval.
The civil service commission should provide in addition to the basic salary, yearly increase which would go only to deserving, faithful and punctual employees.
In my opinion, the pre-permanency trial period should cover twelve months instead of six months in order to give department heads proper time to assess a new employee's skills and the value of his work. Thus, the increase would go only to the deserving.
Let us now mention a matter which concerns the Department of National Revenue. I refer to the rate of interest claimed on anticipated tax payments by merchants, salesmen on commission, etc., in cases of insufficient payments. This rate does not sound fair to me, since payments are based on a future income assessment.
If the taxpayer has obtained an income higher than the amount foreseen in his estimate, he is penalized by a 6 per cent interest, while if he has overestimated his probable income and made his payments accordingly, he receives but a 3 per cent interest for the overpayment.
I do not believe that a penalty should be levied unless the taxpayer has underestimated his income by more than 10 per cent. A taxpayer sometimes finds it difficult to determine in advance his exact net income. Since the departmental officer has no leeway and must apply the law as it stands, a margin of 10 per cent should be tolerated.
The taxpayer who is of good faith does not relish the fact that he has to pay interest. If my suggestion were accepted, it would avoid much resentment on the part of taxpayers, especially since between the final date for the payment of the tax, that is April 30, 

and the date when his return is assessed there is a few months' delay. If an error is found, the taxpayer must pay for the delay between the time when his return was filed and the time when it was checked.
I draw the matter to the attention of the Minister of National Revenue in the hope that he may remedy this deficiency and apply the law in a more equitable way.
I believe that the provincial income tax act contains a provision to that effect and it seems to be the only provision of that act which is sound. However, I make it a point to mention it.
The federal government has created a favourable atmosphere for the expansion of business and industry.
Today the eyes of the world are turned towards Canada. An energetic and determined nation as ours, with its oil, its iron ore and uranium, with its forests and its mines, with its farms and its manufactures, can show right here what it can accomplish given the necessary will, leadership and resources.
The records achieved by our domestic and international trade, by our agricultural and industrial revenues, by the new constructions and investments prove the wisdom of our population and the vision of its leaders.
The main cause of Canadian prosperity is that the industrialization of Canada and the discovery and development of its resources are going on at the same time.
At the present time Canada is in approximately the same stage of development as the United States were at the end of the Civil War, but it is in possession of the scientific knowledge and tools of the twentieth century. That is an advantage over the position of the United States at that time. We are able, because of this, to go ahead more rapidly and to forego costly experiments.
With decades of preparation behind it, Canada has made it possible for its twentieth century prospects to move from the realm of dreams to that of reality.
Over the past ten years, Canada has made giant strides. World war II gave us a push along the road to industrialization, and postwar demands have maintained our economy at a high level.
The people of Canada have so well explored our forests, prospected our underground resources, cultivated our plains and constructed hydro electric power stations to move our industrial machinery that this country is now among the foremost providers of the world's needs.
May I be permitted, Mr. Speaker, to ask the Postmaster General (Mr. Lapointe) to

consider the advisability of building post offices in Dorval and Vilie LaSalle, two municipalities that have made great progress in the past few years and which are about to obtain their civic incorporation. I should like the minister to have plans prepared with a view to having post offices built in these municipalities within a year or two.
In the speech he made in this house on March 30 last, the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Perron) stated that federal-provincial agreements were not appreciated and that no provincial premier had accepted them. That is quite natural. When a child is taken to the store by his parents and keeps asking them for this or that, the father agrees only when he can do so and when his budget allows it.
The federal government spends a great deal of money in the provinces in the form of old age pensions, family allowances, pensions to the blind, health assistance. These considerable sums of money are given to the provinces out of the money collected by the federal government.
Projects undertaken by the federal government, such as the St. Lawrence seaway and the setting-up of a radio and television network across the country, help the provinces. In other words, the federal government spends in the provinces of the country and in proportion to their needs part of the money which it receives from the general tax so that everyone may benefit from the wealth of Canada.
(Text):
There is another matter on which I desire to speak, since I have as many as 400 constituents who are interested as employees of the British Rubber Company Limited, located in Lachine. This firm manufactures rubber footwear for winter, and summer canvas footwear. Before the war this industry enjoyed a substantial export business and did very well in the local market, but during the last few years the export business has been eliminated and imports from foreign nations have taken away 53 per cent of the Canadian market in canvas shoes and 15 per cent of the domestic waterproof shoe market. These imports come largely from Hong Kong and Japan where salaries are very low in comparison with the average of $1.45 an hour paid to Canadian workers. The solution, to my mind, is to place imports on some restricted basis, as it would be impossible to lower wages and the standard of living to the level of workers of the countries just mentioned. This will help to keep the industry operating pending developments. A brief of the manufactures was presented to
The Budget-Mr. Balcer the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) in June last, and more recently, the labour unions feel just as strongly as management does that the situation will have to be corrected if the industry is not to be wiped out.
The Minister of Finance, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) met with the representatives of the labour unions and it was finally agreed to form a committee composed of the representatives of the departments of labour, trade and commerce and finance to join with representatives of the unions and management in order to seek methods of saving this industry. I sincerely hope that favourable progress will be made before the end of this session in order that we may study the recommendations of this committee and take whatever action is necessary during this session to permit the manufacturers to prepare their plans in time for next winter.
I wish to thank the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) for the improvement which is being made by the widening of the canal bridge at sixth avenue, Lachine. The present bridge, which was built over 60 years ago, no longer complies with the present heavy traffic requirements and therefore the improvement is badly needed. The widening of the bridge will improve conditions for pedestrians and traffic at that point.
Another thing for which I and the public of Lachine and Vilie St. Pierre will be thankful to the Minister of Transport is his help in bringing about a change in the exit of the sorting yard contemplated to be built at Cote de Liesse by the Canadian National Railways, the exit of which was to be in a residential district of Lachine. The public of Vilie St. Pierre will benefit to a great extent through the alleviation of its traffic problems and the removal of a dangerous spot where many fatalities have occurred in the past. This improvement will be made through the reallocation of the actual railway line.
The suggestions I have just made are offered in a spirit of co-operation with a view to improving the complex administration of government.
(Translation):


Mr. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in this debate, I want to deal briefly with a certain report which has just been released by the dominion bureau of statistics, a report which is of interest to everyone concerned with the economic independence of Canada. I mean the report entitled: "The Canadian International Investment Position 1926-1954". It is a report which shows fantastic figures in respect of U.S. capital investments in Canada.
2826	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Balcer
It says for instance that in 1953 United States capital controlled 55 per cent of mines, oil industries and refining plants in Canada. It shows also that Americans own 43 per cent of the whole amount of capital invested in our manufactures. It shows that from 1948 to 1953, American holdings in Canadian mines and oil refining plants have increased from 37 to 55 per cent, and their holdings in our manufactures have increased from 38 to 43 per cent.
From 1946 to 1955, U.S. capital investments in Canada have grown from $5 billions to $9,600 millions.
The report also reveals that nearly $7 billion 500 million was made up of capital invested in foreign owned companies.
These figures will undoubtedly create worry in several quarters. What is happening before our very eyes is nothing less than economic invasion by our neighbours to the south. It is all the more disturbing when we see that our provincial governments, our municipalities, our chambers of commerce are doing all they can to bring about the establishment of new industries in their own provinces and municipalities in order to create jobs for Canadian workers. And every true Canadian wishes to see our country develop as rapidly as possible.
On the other hand, we can well wonder if the time has not come to ask ourselves what is going on, and whether that invasion by American capital, through our present legislation, is not becoming a serious threat to Canada's economic independence. That danger is even greater as is often the case when American companies come here to establish subsidiary companies of which Canadians cannot get control and in which they cannot even become shareholders.
We can well ask ourselves if this country is not falling into an economic colonialism which may be different from political colonialism but which can be one just the same, and have nefarious effects on the sovereignty and population of Canada.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Léon Balcer: I beg the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transport to be kind enough to let me finish my speech. I shall then gladly answer his questions.
Shall we keep on sending our unprocessed natural resources to the United States and buy them back in the form of finished products?


There can be no better instance of colonialism than the resolution concerning the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited, now before the house, whereby American financiers are requesting this parliament to give them permission to transport natural gas from Alberta to eastern Canada and especially to the United States, and are also asking the Canadian taxpayer to assume part of the costs involved.
Frankly, this is a definite reminder of the treatment which the United States meted out for years to the so-called banana republics of Central America.
The Canadian government has adopted certain attitudes, which have encouraged Americans to act in this way. We have seen the Canadian government, through a crown corporation

in this instance the Canadian National Railways-build a twenty million dollar hotel at public expense and then turn its management over to an American company while all this time we have in this country first class hotels and trained hotel operators. If the Canadian National Railways could not find within their own organization people qualified to manage their hotel in Montreal, which I doubt very much, they only had to turn to the Canadian Pacific Railway which administers hotels such as the Chateau Fron-tenac and the Royal York in a way that is as good as any to be found in other hotels' anywhere in the world.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Will the hon. member permit me a question? Surely, he will not make me wait till he is finished.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member who has the floor at the present time does not wish to be interrupted, he is in his right.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: I merely want to point out an error.


Léon Balcer: I will gladly listen to the speech of the hon. member for Gaspe, when his turn comes. Everybody will be glad to listen to him. He will then have an opportunity to answer me if he wishes to do so.
If our government does not resort to all means at its disposal to encourage Canadian capital to play its part in the development of our resources and factories, then, economically, we will merely become a 49th state of the neighbouring republic.
There is no doubt that this invasion of U.S. capital helps us to develop our country, but one wonders if in allowing so much American capital to develop our country, we

are not serving the best interests of the United States rather than our own.
It is quite true that an extraordinary attraction has always existed between our country and the United States. There is an economic north-south attraction which seems just about inevitable between our two countries. Our country is a geographical heresy and the international boundary is purely artificial. And our whole history shows that our country has made its choice for a long long time. Our people, like our ancestors and the past generations, have in turn made up their minds that they want Canada to be a great country, a country independent from the southern republic.
History tells us that Americans first attempted to take a military hold on Canada by attacking us in 1776 and in 1812. Englishspeaking and French-speaking Canadians decided to unite in order to repel this American military invasion.
In 1867, when we gave ourselves a constitution, again our two great races joined in a common front against American invasion once more, but a political invasion that time. That decision on the part of our ancestors entailed economic sacrifices, but they accepted them and resisted. Today we should be inspired by the courage they have shown. Let us' not give away our natural resources, our industries, our manpower to American interests without first taking every possible means of ensuring that Canadian citizens will benefit as much as possible. Through legislation the government should strive to help Canadians to take full or at least partial control of that capital used to develop our natural resources.
Of course, many of our natural resources could not be developed without the help of foreign capital. But it is tragic to think that in many cases those natural resources only serve to improve the standard of living of the American people and not ours.


Mr. Leduc (Gatineau):: Especially in
Quebec.


Léon Balcer: If American investments in Canada are getting larger for no other reason than the fact that we are giving away our natural resources to American investors so they can develop them by paying low wages, that is not very beneficial to Canada. It is also far from comforting when we see the Canadian government request from parliament the authorization to appropriate $125 million for the construction of a pipe line for the benefit of an American company.
The Budget-Mr. Balcer
In his budget speech the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) spoke of Canada's great prosperity; he is so proud of himself and of his colleagues of the government that he did not want to change anything in his budget and he served us exactly the same dish as last year. But one thing he forgot is that salaries of Canadian workers are much lower than those of American workers and that, in general, the standard of living of American workers is higher than that of Canadian workers.
Mr. Speaker, if American capital continues to flow into this country at that rate while the gap remains between the standard of living of the Canadian people and that of the American people, we will be unable to withstand the economic invasion which is going on from day to day across the border. Already many young Canadians emigrate to the United States, because of the higher salaries they can get over there. If we want Canada to remain independent of the republic to the south, we must take steps to give Canadians a better standard of living. If, for instance, we compare the average salary paid in June 1955 in Canadian and American cities, we note that in Detroit, the average salary was $5,057 while at Windsor, which is just opposite, the salary was but $3,692; at Cleveland, the average salary was $4,470 while in Montreal it was only $2,896. The same thing happens almost everywhere. Thus we see that in Seattle the average salary was $4,173 while in Vancouver, which is quite close to Seattle, it was only $3,354.
If we compare the average salary paid in American industries, according to their production and their products, again we find a substantial difference. For instance, in the soft coal industry, the salary paid in the United States is $2.43 an hour while in Canada it is only $1.48. For steel workers, the average rate is $2.24 in the United States and only $1.73 in Canada. In the aluminum industry, the salary paid is $2.14 in the United States while in Canada it is only $1.47 an hour. In copper mines, the rate is $2.12 in the United States and $1.64 here. In packing plants, the rates are $2.05 and $1.52 respectively; in construction, $2.93 and $1.49 only. And so on and so forth all along the line. In the automobile industry, the average salary is $2.20 in the United States and $1.72 only in Canada.
Such a difference between the standards of living in the United States and in Canada
2828	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Balcer should be the main concern of the government. By all available means, the government should strive to eliminate this difference which is responsible for the emigration to the United States of so many young Canadians and which leads to that attitude of defeatism which we are showing towards American capital.
This salary gap is still more striking when one considers the situation of our technicians, our engineers and our specialized workers and becomes particularly impressive when we see that the engineers needed in our industries for the development of our natural resources leave Canada for the United States. Not only do we not train a sufficient number of engineers, but we keep sending many of them to the United States.
We cannot blame those people for migrating to the United States, where, as I have just explained, wages are much higher than in Canada, while the cost of living, at least in respect to many items, is lower than in our country.
The hon. Minister of Finance told us that there was nothing to be changed and that he could come back with the very same budget as that of last year. Well, he has only to look at the prices which prevail in the United States and those which prevail in Canada, and he will find there a target to help him correct his budget.
We can see, for instance, that clothing is much cheaper in the United States than in Canada. The same thing applies to footwear and automobiles.
In Canada, for instance, some people buy a small car which they consider among the lowest-priced available; but then they are told by American garage operators that over there they could have got a Cadillac for the price they paid for their small car.
The same holds true for electrical appliances, television sets, furniture and even foodstuffs, in certain cases.
Another concrete example-and that is a case which comes under federal jurisdiction-[DOT] is that of the cost of cigarettes which are much cheaper in the United States than in Canada.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: They sell three cents a pack more in Quebec.


Mr. Dufresne:: 22 cents federal tax.


Léon Balcer: The standard of living of the Canadian taxpayer is inferior to that of the American taxpayer.


Let us take for instance personal income tax. A Canadian taxpayer with two dependent children who receives family allowances and whose annual revenue is $3,000 pays $113 in income tax. On the other hand, in the United States, a father with two children, whose annual revenue is also $3,000, pays only $60, having deducted-


An hon. Member:: The figures don't come out right, do they?


Léon Balcer: Yes, that is right: the Canadian taxpayer pays $113 in taxes, whereas the American taxpayer pays only $60.
A father with two dependents, whose annual salary is $4,000 must pay $287, whereas the American taxpayer whose salary is the same only pays $240. The same increase appears at the $5,000 annual salary level. In this case the Canadian taxpayer pays $481 as against $420 for the American.
A Canadian worker who earns $6,000 a year-I should say a superintendent since workers who earn $6,000 a year in this country are rather rare-pays $666 in income tax, as against $600 for his American counterpart.
That is another anomaly we can point out as a target for the efforts of the government and the Minister of Finance if they want to accomplish something in the next twelve months.
We are told that the Canadian citizen enjoys a wonderful social security system. We hear a lot of boasting about family allowances, old age pensions, pensions for the blind, pensions for the veterans of the two world wars, unemployment insurance, etc. Well, there is nothing very original about that system since such social security legislation exists in all the civilized countries of the world. Furthermore, that Canadian legislation loses some of its real value and of its purchasing power from day to day, with the government doing practically nothing to prevent such a situation.
Let us take for instance the case of old age pensions. The bill setting up the pension at $40 a month was passed in 1949. Today,
7 years later, the purchasing power of this $40 pension has been reduced considerably, in fact, it has gone down from $40 in 1949 to $32.29 in 1956.
Unfortunately, the situation is worse with respect to family allowances of which there is so much talk during election campaigns-


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: The campaign platform of the Liberal party.


Léon Balcer: Yet, the federal government obstinately refuses to increase family allowances, though they have been in existence for 11 years-


Mr. Mallais:: Thanks to the Liberal party.


Léon Balcer: And here again we have the .Liberal party doing absolutely nothing.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Despite the opposition of your leader.


Léon Balcer: From $5 that they were worth in 1949, they have gone down to $3.20; from $6 to $3.84 and from $8 to $5.10. If their rate of devaluation continues, 10 years from now, they will be worth only $2.05, $2.46 and $3.28.
In short, the situation is such that the Canadian worker sees American capital invading Canada and our natural resources alienated to Americans-


Lauréat Maltais: Ungava, for instance.


Léon Balcer: The Canadian worker finds out that he is paid less than the American worker, that he pays a higher price for the things he buys, for his essential needs. He finds out also that social security measures existing in Canada are worth less and less every day.
If there is to be created in Canada an atmosphere that will permit all Canadians to stand firm in the face of this invasion of American capital, if Canadians are to keep this pioneering spirit that has always been their characteristic, they must, I believe, be put in a position of superiority with regard to the Americans and all efforts of the federal government should aim at eliminating this difference between the two standards of living. The federal government should avail itself of every means to encourage our Canadian industrialists, our Canadian financiers to promote the development of our natural resources. These means should include the reduction of personal and corporation income taxes, depreciation allowance and all such measures, in order to help Canadian capital to take its proper place in the development of our country, if in a few years from now we do not want to see Canada become a state in the republic.


Mr. Boisvert:: Will the hon. member for Three Rivers allow me a question?


Léon Balcer: Certainly.


Maurice Boisvert: When the hon. member spoke about the invasion of Canada by American capital, did it apply to the province of Quebec as well as to the rest of the country?
The Budget-Mr. Balcer Mr. Langlois (Gaspe): To the Ungava district in particular?


Léon Balcer: If my friend had listened carefully to my speech, he would have found his answer; if he did not understand what I said, he will be able to read it tomorrow morning, and I am sure he will understand.


Maurice Boisvert: If the hon. member for Three Rivers does not mind, I think I asked a very clear question and am entitled to an adequate answer. I listened carefully to your speech.
I do not want to make a speech, but I believe you should answer my question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Maurice Boisvert: Mr. Speaker, I feel the hon. member for Three Rivers-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Three Rivers may not have answered the question of the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Boisvert) in a manner satisfactory to him, but if the hon. member for Three Rivers does not choose to give another answer, the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska will have to be satisfied with that.


Maurice Boisvert: I am satisfied, but I would like to ask the hon. member for Three Rivers another question.


Léon Balcer: I just concluded my speech, and I think it contains the answer to the question of the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska. If he thinks differently, I am sorry.


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


Mr. Speaker:: I think that if we are to continue this debate-


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: I only wish to ask one question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand perfectly, but it is very difficult to decide upon the number of members who should be allowed to ask questions of the member who has just finished his speech. If, for example, there are 30 members who wish to ask questions, there will be very little time left for those who wish to speak today.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: This is just as well. He will be less embarrassed.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: I would think that it would not be out of order to ask a question.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member agrees.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Would the hon. member tell us what is the percentage of American capital invested in the Wabasso, St. Lawrence Paper

The Budget-Mr. Bryce Mills and Wayagamack companies in Three Rivers?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: He is not a director.


Léon Balcer: I will be glad to tell you.
(Text):


William Scottie Bryce: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I again want to direct attention to the predicament in which the farmers in the constituency of Selkirk find themselves. I have heard remarks to the effect that I have made things look worse than they really were. I want to contradict that statement right away. Conditions in Selkirk constituency are really bad and I have not made them look any worse than they really are.
When speaking in the house on a previous occasion I said that there would be people starving in the Selkirk constituency unless something was done to relieve the situation. When I said that people were going to be starving, I did not figure that anybody was going to die because out west they do not let a man die if they can possibly help it. In looking through the dictionary I find that the meaning given for "starve" is to die or suffer from the lack of food, go hungry, keep without or be short of food. These are the things that are taking place in Selkirk today. There is nobody dying but the people are in bad shape. I want hon. members to believe me when I say that is what I meant the last time when I used those words in this house. I did not figure that anybody was going to die but I figured that they were in fairly bad shape and needed attention.
I am going to put on the record one or two letters in order to back up what I am saying and to prove that I am not coming here and speaking just for the sake of speaking. When I rise in this house I do so in order to direct attention to the problems of the people that I represent. I want you to believe me, Mr. Speaker, when I say that. I have no political axe to grind. I am the representative of the people of Selkirk as long as I am here, and their problems will come first with me. This letter that I am going to read is from a man at Washow Bay in my constituency. He writes as follows:
Dear Sir:
I refer to the prairie farm assistance. I live here in this newly-settled country, 9 miles north of Riverton town. Since the last 2 years we received too much rain and thus received little or no crops. So therefore, the P.F.A. has paid to low township land owners, cheques of $200 per year and more. I don't get any. I am in the same township where the other farmers here received it.
[Mr. Habel.l
My land has been broken the same time as theirs and competes with theirs in every way. They had none broken before 1940.
The P.F.A. says we can't get any P.F.A. cheques since we bought our land since 1940. That does not encourage the Manitoba public. In my case we are in extreme need of this assistance, since it has been collected from us in good years.
I have a lame back and cannot work. I have to hitchhike to a doctor or chiropractor for aid and the bills are running too high. The land payments are past due and taxes need paying. We have to pay them this spring or else. I have a wife and 4 children to care for besides myself. We own no new car or unreasonable equipment. Thirty-five acres are broken on this quarter which I did to our own expenses in hope of returns. These last 2 years very little to account for puts us far behind. It would be enough if we got the fair P.F.A. cheques, the same as the rest. It would put us in fair terms again if we could receive this P.F.A. assistance or some kind of relief which we need badly. I ask you kindly, is there something that you can do for us? We do not intend to give up if we don't have to.
I am going to read another one from another part of Selkirk constituency, about 75 miles from there. This one is from Eriksdale and reads as follows:
Dear Sir:
I am writing you in regard to the payments that have been made to farmers during the month of December 1955, by prairie farm assistance.
As I believe you do know just how hard hit the farmers in the interlake district were hit by excess rainfall causing our land to be completely flooded. Some farmers being luckier than others due to their land being higher, but those of us that have to take the run-off of the higher land really haven't a chance to get on the land.
Now here is the part that is so unfair. P.F.A. has been paid to most of the farmers around here even those that never do cultivate their land. Some have been paid $120 to $200, this to be 60 per cent of their payment. Some do not know what they were being paid for, as they got the large amount of $13 to $14 which surely could not be called assistance. But we were completely left out, we did not get any and as I said before, we are living in the valley of the run-off waters from higher lands. We have 90 acres to crop and for 3 years now have had a total loss, yet expenses are piling up-just trying to get the land seeded only to lose it all.
Now I am asking you to see what can be done about this. Why should we not be paid assistance when practically the whole municipality has received some except I doz. farmers all in one locality. And a fair share, not $200 to some or somewhere about that and others a few dollars which isn't more than a barrel of fuel.
No one knows on what grounds the P.F.A. is making assistance as some do not even expect any have gotten assistance-others know they are entitled to P.F.A. do not receive any.
It would be greatly appreciated if you could help us to get our fair share of P.F.A. as I have mentioned before, if they have paid P.F.A. to some in this district, why just leave a few out.
That is another problem. I am putting these on the record because sometimes I think, when 1 go back home-and I was back home at Easter-that people think I have been sitting down here and have never brought

these complaints to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). I am quite sure that the Minister of Agriculture gets from me more letters than he gets from other members in the house, all on the same subject. This one is from Fisher Branch and it reads as follows:
Dear Sir:
I will need some assistance for my complete crop flooded out for 1954-1955. X wrote to P.F.A. in Regina, Sask., but they refuse assistance. They say X bought my land too late after the war. But I had been farming on the other land at Fisher Branch before the war, and they had been collecting on every load that I brought to the elevator.
Try and give me help some way. I have no income, no job out here, and the taxes are behind. I have 72 acres under cultivation but that was a complete loss for 2 years.
This one is from Arborg, in another part of my constituency:
Dear Sir:
I just received a cheque in regard to prairie farm assistance for $97.50.
I had 144 acres summerfallowed and it comes up to about 65* an acre. The farmers were asking $2.50, but then since it was refused they asked at least $1.25.
How much help can a cheque like this be when we have to buy feed, seed, fertilizer and fuel?
What about taxes? It is just terrible the way the farmers are treated. We havn't received much help just these past 2 years when we were flooded out, and now we get such a miserable aid.
The best solution would be to quit this darn farming and hit for the city.
When we sell something, eggs, hogs or cattle, its just a disgrace. This year we have to buy feed at the elevator for poultry, cattle, hogs, and they charge us 81 cents a bushel for oats. There is no dockage, and no question of damp or tough. But what did we get when we were able to sell? Forty cents a bushel, and, of course, dockage, and if it wasn't damp it was tough.
Just how will the farmer survive? When he has to buy something, he sure pays for it too.
I have two boys 12 and 13, and they already don't want to hear anything about making a career of farming.
I hope you can. point up a few things to the Liberals. What the farmers are up against, and get more assistance-this at least for spring work.
It sure burns one up how they expect the farmer to work for nothing-as that is exactly what he is doing now.
To think Canada is so rich in food, and here we farmers cannot afford to buy fruit and vegetables in winter for our kids.
Hoping this will give you an idea of our situation. Here is a letter from Fisher Branch, Manitoba:
As you are well aware of the conditions on the farms in this area in the last few years, most of farmers are in a very bad shape financially due mainly to crop failures. And now the P.F.A.A. has turned down some of us, others are getting 75 cents per acre, which of course is very little. We don't know how they figure out but the crop was so bad in this township and other townships here that it certainly did not average 4 bushels to the acre as only an odd spot in some higher field had a bit of crop on it and all the rest was flooded out or even could not be seeded because of flooding. We never asked for assistance from anyone
The Budget-Mr. Bryce when we had fair crops, but now we don't know what the farmers around here are going to do this spring-they need seed and fuel for their tractors and repairs, etc. Not mentioning their debts that are long overdue.
Now, Mr. Bryce, we know there are many others like us writing you but we don't see where else we can go. Our provincial government doesn't want to hear about our troubles, sometimes they are nice enough to say they are going to look into the matter and that is how far it gets.
You will recall in the war years the government paid the farmers in Canada $4.00 per acre if they did not seed wheat on those acres and that cost this country a lot of money. But now this crop failure is only a very small area in Canada in the interlake area that was flooded out, so certainly our government can assist these poor people this time.
We are leaving this to your kind consideration.
I received a copy of a resolution from the Fisher Branch Manitoba Farmers' Union, Local 16, which reads as follows:
Whereas the farmers who bought land from the government after 1940 are not able to participate in the P.F.A.A. assistance-and as these farmers contribute into this fund when they deliver grain to any elevator-and as these farmers are in a desperate need of assistance in this area
Be it Resolved: That we urge the government to consider these needy fellows and bring them into the P.F.A.A. program so they may participate in the assistance along with the other farmers.
Now, on March 15 I asked the Minister of Agriculture a question, reported on page 2159 of Hansard for that date, as follows:
Can the minister inform the house when he expects to bring before the house the amendments to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and what they will cover?
The minister answered me the same day, and this was his answer:
Mr. Speaker, hon. members will recall that we made rather material amendments to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act last session. When we were preparing legislation for this session or the items upon which legislation might be required, we were having considerable difficulty in the administration of the amendments which were made last year. We therefore made provision for the possibility of bringing in amending legislation. However, I am now informed that, with greater experience in the administration, the difficulties have become less and less, and I am not sure that it will be necessary to bring down legislation.
I had hoped that some temporary amendments would be brought in to help the farmers who have not been able to participate in P.F.A.A. I still do not think it is right or proper for the government to collect 1 per cent from farmers who can never expect to derive any benefits from that fund, and especially the man who is dependent entirely on his farm. I do not know the law as well as I should like, but it seems to me it must be an injustice to collect a tax of 1 per cent and refuse the farmers any benefit from it.
The minister has explained that when the provincial government took over crown lands in Manitoba it was made quite clear to that
2832	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Bryce government that the federal government would not be responsible for any assistance or aid at any time. Now, I took that up with the Hon. Mr. Robertson, the Manitoba minister of agriculture, last year, and he claimed that he knew nothing at all about such an arrangement being made and he would not have anything to do with it. According to Hansard of June 21, 1955, the Minister of Agriculture when speaking on his estimates said that approximately $300,000 had been collected from people who, according to the provisions of the act, could never participate in any of the benefits. This $300,000 had been collected from people who were on crown lands. These farmers are not receiving P.F.A.A. aid because the act says they are not to get it.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) is looking at me and I venture to say he believes there is something wrong with my argument. I certainly do not know the law, but 1 per cent of the proceeds of every load of grain the farmer delivers to the elevator goes into the consolidated revenue fund of this country. The act says that if he bought his land from the government after 1940 he cannot participate in any benefits. Then, why take the money from him? I wonder if the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Agriculture could not take that $300,000-I was going to say obtained under false pretenses, and it is very nearly that- and give some of it back to these fellows.
It seems so ridiculous when you have a section of land consisting of four quarters and three fellows who own three quarters get $200 each because their crops have been drowned out for two years, but the other fellow whose crop has also been drowned out gets nothing because he bought his land after they bought theirs. If you analyse the thing you will find that perhaps the fellow who bought his land after 1940 had it broken and in cultivation before the other fellows had theirs. That is the position today. If the government would take some of that $300,000 and divide it among those fellows who are in need it would be of great help to them. They have paid into the fund; they have the same kind of land as the other settlers but the purchase date is different. People who have been able to participate in the benefits of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act find it hard enough to get along, and with no help it is so much worse.
I do not want to repeat my arguments. I do not believe in repeating a thing for some other body's benefit. If they do not listen to me the first time I make the argument they will not listen to it a second time. Why can a government collect a tax and refuse the benefits? I wonder whether the minister has
IMr. Bryce.]

ever had a legal opinion to see whether they really can do that? A lot of things go through the Exchequer Court for legal opinions that are not as worthy as this, because it would protect many farmers. I hope the minister will consider this matter of paying part of the $300,000 to the people on crown land who have paid into the fund.
One other thing that concerns the farmers in the Selkirk constituency is getting seed and feed this spring. After losing their crops for two years running, a very large percentage of the farmers have no seed or feed left. There are many fortunate farmers in the constituency of Selkirk because we have some very wealthy people there who have been in the farming business for a long time and who have weathered the storm in good years and bad years right along. It will not affect them. They will come up shining in the spring and they have money to take care of their operations. I am thinking of the boys who were sent overseas. They are not in the same position. They are still paying for their land. They are struggling to get along. These are the fellows who are going to be hard hit, the younger generation. I know the situation and I do hope that they will do a little better than they have been doing. It is the rising generation, the 25 and 30-year olds, the men and women of tomorrow, who are concerned. If you make it difficult for them they will go back to the cities and agriculture will be the loser. This is air agricultural country, and it is the young people who are to carry on, not old fellows like me.
About a month ago a survey was taken in Fisher Branch, Poplarfield and Chatfield districts. Those districts have no seed or feed. A survey was taken to see how much they need in the Fisher Branch district. Ninety-three farmers were consulted. They need 8,500 bushels of oats, 3,800 bushels of barley, 5,400 bushels of wheat and 600 bushels of flax. In the Poplarfield district there were 51 farmers canvassed. They need 9,000 bushels of oats, 1,155 bushels of barley, and 2,000 bushels of oats. In Chatfield, 12 farmers were canvassed. They need 755 bushels of oats, 200 bushels of barley and 65 bushels of wheat. As near as I can estimate there is a population of about 700 in these three districts. If they could get seed it would lie of tremendous benefit to them.
Some farmers have written letters to me requesting that I take this up. Some of them have said: "If the government will only give us this seed we shall take the seed back to them in the elevator in the fall, but do not ask us to pay interest because we are deep enough in the hole now." They would pay back bushel for bushel in the fall for the seed borrowed. What the farmers do not

want to do is to go to the municipality and borrow at 6 per cent. This only puts the farmer deeper in debt. I hope the government will make it possible for farmers to get seed this way should they so desire it.
I have received a copy of a brief presented to the municipality of St. Andrews in Selkirk constituency by the farmers union at Petersfield and Clandeboye. I am not going to read the whole of it. It shows the trend of thought and what they are trying to do. The brief reads in part as follows:
It is evident that there are a number of farmers who, due to crop failure, have been forced to seek other sources of income in order to maintain their livelihood. These farmers are not eligible for payment under the regulations of the act. We realize that you cannot do much about the regulations of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, as it comes under the jurisdiction of the Canadian parliament, but we do feel that your council, being the first phase of local government, does have certain powers and could make recommendations that would be of assistance in solving some of our agricultural problems.
The final point that we wish to discuss with you is the seed grain and farm fuel assistance through the legislation available under the seed, fuel and fodder act of Manitoba. It is apparent that many of our farmers will require assistance if they are going to get any crop this year. The financial situation being what it is, many will not be able to purchase seed and fuel requirements this spring. We therefore wish to request the council's immediate consideration of assistance through seed, fuel and fodder act.
We believe that the support of your council is necessary before the government will take an interest in this issue. We wish to impress upon you that we cannot minimize the danger that exists in the Interlake area for 1956. The moisture condition of the soil last fall was not as dry as some people would like us to believe. When we realize that it was not possible to work some of the land until late summer and when we consider the heavy snowfall this winter, it is obvious that many of our farmers may be hard hit again. Should this happen, it will mean that some farms will have been flooded for four years in succession.
I presented a petition this afternoon on behalf of 2,511 petitioners. Since I did that this afternoon I have received in the mail another 125 signatures, which brings the total up to 2,636. It deals with the advisability of declaring the flooded Assiniboine river valley and the interlake area a disaster area.
The second section asks for the granting of financial assistance on the basis of $5 per productive acre flooded during the 1955 crop year, which would assist them to maintain their farm homes and to put in a crop this coming spring.
This petition brings the plight of the farmers in the flooded Assiniboine river valley and the Interlake area of the province of Manitoba before the government again. In the majority of cases, farmers have suffered from flooding for the last two or three years. In such a large area as the Interlake country, from the Assiniboine river north, a great
The Budget-Mr. Bryce many different phases of agriculture are in operation. In some places it is grain, in some places it is cattle and in other places it is mixed farming. If you take the districts of St. Laurent, Oak Point, Lundar and that part of the country bordering on Lake Manitoba, cattle raising or beef production is how the farmers make their livelihood. The P.F.A.A. has never been of any benefit to them. However, their pastures both tame and wild have been flooded and they have suffered a great deal. Last year, the second year of flooding, left them with no place to pasture their cattle and many of the farmers have had to dispose of their cattle as feeders when with good pasture they could have finished the cattle and realized a much better price.
The mixed farmer has had similar problems. He has been short of pasture and has not been able to grow any feed. This has cut down his cream production and has left him short of cash with which to carry on. I have already dealt with the man who grows grain.
As I said before, this petition endeavours to get the government to look at the situation and see what can be done. An arrangement like this based on productive acreage would be of assistance to the cattlemen, the beef producers, the mixed farmers and the grain farmers.
When I was home at Easter I was approached by a farmer who told me that he had been forbidden to use his tractor until he makes a further payment. Another farmer has written to tell me that action was commenced against him by filing a statement of claim in the county court for a debt. Surely some arrangement can be made to ask creditors to wait until the farmers get a crop.
My time is just about up but in the time left at my disposal I would like to go into the debt situation. I know from my visit to my home last week that not only one or two but a great many people are in difficulties. I would like now to quote from the submission made to the government this year by the interprovincial farm union council. I have just about three minutes left and I think I can deal with it in that length of time. I shall read from page 20 of the submission, the paragraph under the heading "Debt Adjustment Laws", which says:
The drastic fluctuation in farm income in Canada makes it very difficult at times for even the most efficient farmer to meet his liabilities as they come due. When that happens the farmer is faced with the prospect of being sued and having a judgment against him, or having his mortgage foreclosed or his agreement for sale cancelled, and in either case of losing his land.
There are some creditors who deal leniently with their farm debtors and help them over their difficulties, but some refuse to be influenced by these considerations and insist on strict enforcement of their contracts. The result is that many hardworking farmers are being driven from their land-

The Budget-Mr. Robertson a situation which clearly is against not only the interest of the individual concerned but of the country as a whole.
To meet this situation, debt adjustment laws have been placed on the statute books from time to time in the various provinces, for the protection of farm debtors who, because of circumstances beyond their control, became involved in financial difficulties. However the history of this type of provincial legislation has been that the courts have always held such laws to be invalid, because under the British North America Act the right to legislate with respect to bankruptcy and insolvency was designated to the Canadian parliament. The most recent example along this line is the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, delivered on November 15, 1955, which declared the Moratorium Act of Saskatchewan to be ultra vires.
In the depression years of the thirties, parliament did legislate to protect farmers who could not discharge their obligations, by passing the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act-a most useful statute a few years ago, but of practically no use just now, at a time when a similar up-to-date law is perhaps more needed than ever.
Therefore, we suggest that efforts should be made at this time by the government to have legislation passed creating a board empowered to give protection to unfortunate farmers against being forced into bankruptcy.
I support that submission. I think the recommendations it outlines are necessary and I hope my remarks will be given some consideration.


Mr. F. G. Robertson (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, the budget as presented by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) was realistic, responsible and encouraging. It is realistic because in view of high expenditures we could not expect more reductions in taxation. It is responsible because it is prudent in prosperous times to pay our way and have a balanced budget. It is encouraging because of the minister's forecast of continued or even expanded development in our economy for the coming year.
It was a source of great satisfaction to me, Mr. Speaker, to hear the review of our economic prospects as given by the Minister of Finance. He told us of the high production, of the high employment and of the high income in Canada; in fact, these were at an all-time high for the last year. He predicted there would be a total national production of $28 billion for the coming fiscal year. Other important Canadians agree with the Minister of Finance and I would like to quote from the Ottawa Citizen of February 2, 1956, an opinion expressed by the president of Imperial Oil Limited, Mr. J. R. White. This is headed, "Canada producing equivalent of country with 100 million people."
The report reads:
Canada, in terms of what she produces, is the equivalent of a country of 100 million people rather than 16 million, J. R. White, president of Imperial Oil Limited, said Monday night in an address to the Halifax board of trade.

The figures, he said, reflect the fact that in terms of the world's production Canada ranks six times greater than her population.
Looking ahead, Mr. White predicted for 1980:
A population of 25 million, nearly 60 per cent more than now.
A total gross dollar volume of business nearly 24 times that of today.
Two-thirds more homes, more than 7 million passenger automobiles compared with today's 24 million and twice as many farm tractors.
Discoveries of up to 30 billion barrels of oil, compared with current known reserves of 3 billion -and an investment of up to $22 billion, or more than seven times the ?3 billion already invested in oil development.
One is sometimes staggered by the predictions made for the development of our country, but I venture to say that within the next 20 or 30 years, as our country develops, many of these predictions will have been found to be far too low. Fortunately the cost of living during this period has remained relatively stable so that our people have enjoyed a higher level in their standard of living than ever before. As the minister pointed out, however, some sections of our economy did not share in this general prosperity. The minister mentioned agriculture as an example and I would like to add to that the textile industry. I believe that the government should give serious consideration to the position of the textile industry and give it all the relief it can under present circumstances. I will have more to say concerning agriculture later on in my speech.
The government is certainly consistent in its finance policy. When he budgets for a surplus of $125 million the minister is simply following the wise example laid down by previous finance ministers. Ever since the war and up until last year the Liberal government has been budgeting for surpluses because they believe that in periods of prosperity we should pay our way and balance our budget. However, last year when conditions were less encouraging the minister did not hesitate to budget for a deficit and I think the wisdom of his decision has been more than substantiated at the present time.
I do not believe that many people in Canada expected a tax reduction because they are aware that our estimates this year indicate an expenditure of nearly $4-75 billion. In addition to this the government has indicated that it is willing to support a health insurance scheme costing $200 million a year.
In addition again there will be the expenditure on the Trans-Canada pipe line and I hope that before long this parliament will pass the necessary legislation because I believe that this pipe line is necessary for the further development of this country. I hope that there will be no unnecessary delay in making this feasible in our country. It has

been indicated by the opposition groups that they will likely oppose the present suggestion of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). Of course we acknowledge their right to do so, but I would suggest to them that once they have placed their position on the record there will be nothing but delay gained by discussing the matter at any length. I for one am prepared to be found in the camp of this government and I support the measure as laid out by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I also know that the government of the province of Ontario supports this procedure.
There were few tariff changes in the budget presented by the minister, but I was glad to see that what tariff changes there were were changes that will help agriculture. They cover repair parts for farm machinery, equipment for artificial breeding units and other items for use on the farm.
I should like to mention briefly the fact that the government is going to spend another $9 million in the form of further aid under the Colombo plan and the United Nations technical assistance program. I believe that these [DOT] programs have the wholehearted support of the vast majority of the Canadian people and that they are making a real contribution to peace in this world.
I should like to speak for a few minutes about federal-provincial relations, and in this connection I should like to pay tribute to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) for their efforts to bring about agreement in this matter. During the past year we have had four meetings of premiers as well as conferences of ministers on other occasions. They have dealt with the following questions: Unemployment insurance, hospital insurance, the trans-Canada highway and fiscal relations.
We all know that the federal government has made a proposal to the provincial government's under which they would be prepared to assume 50 per cent of the cost of unemployment assistance whenever the number of people on relief in a province rises above a certain nominal figure. I know that the federal government proposals have few if any limitations except this fact. They do not ask whether a person is employable and there is no limit placed on the amount which a province or municipality may grant to these persons if they are in need. That is left entirely to the province. I think this is another indication of the good will of the federal government in arriving at a reasonable agreement on this matter.
I have indicated also that the federal government have made proposals regarding hospital insurance which if accepted by all the provinces of Canada will require $200 million
The Budget-Mr. Robertson a year from the federal treasury. I want to say at once that I support wholeheartedly a program of hospital insurance because I believe there are many people in Canada who cannot afford proper hospital treatment. This need is very great indeed. In saying that I speak from my experience as a medical practitioner in the province of Ontario.
Further, the federal government has also made a liberal proposition to the provinces in connection with building the trans-Canada highway. We in this parliament will be considering this legislation at some future time.
I come now to fiscal relations which after all is the most important feature of federal-provincial relations. I believe that in a federal state where inequalities exist one duty of the federal government is to minimize such inequalities. The present tax rental agreements have sought to accomplish this, and in my opinion they have done so. Our objective has been to share with the provinces our direct taxation revenue in order to produce equity and stability in the revenues of the provinces, to eliminate the duplication of direct taxation and bring about the simplification of our tax laws. 1 submit that these tax rental agreements have accomplished these objectives.
In dealing with this matter I think we must have in mind three important factors. One is that the various provincial governments have very different degrees and types of tax potential. Second, while the costs of various services vary in the different provinces they do not vary as greatly as do the tax potentials. Third, with the development of large-scale enterprises operating on a nation-wide basis usually the income and profits of these industries which are earned in all the provinces of Canada can be taxed effectively only in the province in which the head office is located, which is generally either in the province of Quebec or in the province of Ontario.
According to the speech made by the minister when presenting his budget, if the proposals recently made to the provinces were applied to the present tax rate they would yield them a total of $640 million, whereas the tax rental agreements which were previously in effect yielded $531 million. This is an increased offer by the federal government of over $109 million. In my opinion that is a most generous offer, bearing in mind the tremendous responsibility of the federal government. We have been spending and must continue for some time to spend nearly $2,000 million on national defence.
The federal government has already relieved the provinces of huge responsibilities. Consider for a moment what we have done in

The Budget-Mr. Robertson the way of social security which under our constitution is a provincial responsibility. We pay the full amount of family allowances and of old age security and we share with the provinces the cost of old age assistance, allowances for the blind and disabled persons' allowances. The federal government has made an offer to share with the provinces the cost of unemployment assistance and to bear half the cost of a hospital insurance scheme. Surely the federal government has done what any reasonable person would ask it to do in this regard.
I believe that the residents of the wealthier provinces must not-nor do I believe they do -object to assistance to the less wealthy provinces. Only in this manner can confederation develop in the spirit of unity and cooperation. I believe that first of all we are Canadians. While we wish to see every province have what revenue it requires for its essential purposes, nevertheless we must have a broader vision and do what is best for the nation as a whole.
In this regard I should like to quote, from the Financial Times of March 23, 1956, an article written by the celebrated correspondent Tempus. It is headed:
Government Under Fire For Saving the Taxpayers' Money.
It states:
You remember how Stalin has tried to rewrite history. Well, the Tory press of Canada has attempted the same thing in commenting on the recent provincial-federal conference. The 1956 federal-provincial conference was George Orwell's "1984" again.
All the Prime Minister tried to do was to save the Canadian taxpayer money.
For doing that, he was given the works; and so was the finance minister Walter Harris.
Here is what happened; Prime Minister St. Laurent chose to hold on to the taxpayers' money against ten provincial panhandlers. Never, even in some Arabian Night story, have such elegant "hand it over" fellows shown up here on the hill to grab money. If they had gotten their way Canada would have been bankrupt for years.
Rather cleverly, and with insidious deviousness, the provincial premiers have tried to show themselves as merely wanting to get their own money back. Well, if everybody had got his own way, the federal government would have had no money for any public business, welfare or otherwise.
St. Laurent had already given the provincial premiers a take it or leave it dictum. They could come to Ottawa, if they liked. But-they were not going to get any extra money. They had had enough . . .
The Prime Minister promised them nothing. The provincial premiers came because it was a glorious toot for them. Let not the taxpayers be fooled. The provincial premiers all love to come to Ottawa on expense account. Then they get enough anti-Ottawa ammunition to last them half a year. Besides a couple of them figure they acquired enough material for a political platform to carry them into power on a provincial election. But more than one such anti-Ottawa platform has turned out to be a political hearse!

So now the provincial apologists call the St. Laurent government deceptive. One of the premiers wanted to gouge the federal treasury for a cool $100 million. It used to be the criterion of political excellence if you could grab enough post offices; you were a great success. Now the test of provincial excellence is to take from the federal treasury the maximum amount of hard cash.
There is only one set of taxpayers. The provinces keep forgetting that.
I believe that editorial was written in a somewhat jovial vein, but I suggest there is great food for thought for the Canadian taxpayer in that article. I would ask the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the government to continue their efforts to build a stronger and even more united Canada.
There is another matter that I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Finance. I refer to the grants to the municipalities in lieu of taxes on federal property within the municipalities. I would congratulate the government on the steps it has taken in this matter. The Municipal Grants Act was enacted on June 30, 1951. Very briefly I might point out that there are three kinds of grants; first, the annual grants in lieu of real property taxes; second, transitional grants which afford relief to the municipalities for-loss of taxes where taxable property has been acquired by the federal government after December 31, 1948; third, grants in lieu of special assessments for local improvements.
I believe that in the municipalities where these grants are functioning there is general satisfaction with what the government has done in this matter. As most hon. members know, these grants are paid to municipalities only when there is abnormal concentration of federal property within their boundaries. At first it was paid to municipalities that had over 4 per cent of federal property as compared with the total value of taxable and federal property in the municipalities. Last year the minister reported to this house that 48 municipalities in Canada were sharing in the benefits of that legislation. At that time he introduced legislation which broadened the base so a larger number of municipalities could qualify. This was done by reducing the minimum percentage factor from 4 per cent to 2 per cent; by relating the grant to the ratio of federal property to taxable property only, instead of the ratio of the federal property to taxable and federal property combined; and, third, by the removal of the 75 per cent factor. At the present time the grants are calculated at the full property tax rates.
In my opinion, the government might very well give consideration to paying taxes on federal property in all municipalities. I do not believe this would mean a terrific increase in cost, because the municipalities where the heavy concentration of federal property does exist are already receiving by far the greater

proportion of their normal taxes. However, I believe that other municipalities, particularly those which are just under the 2 per cent, should be given further consideration. In my opinion, of course, the provincial governments should do likewise; but I believe that if the federal government would give leadership in this regard, the provinces would soon follow suit. The provinces, it is true, do make generous grants for education, for road building, for welfare and other purposes, but these grants are paid irrespective of any provincial property in the municipality and cannot be considered grants in lieu of taxation.
I should like to put on the record some assessment facts concerning my own town of Cobourg. I know there is a total taxable assessment of $9,140,000. The federal and provincial property in that town consists of $2,373,000 federal and $356,000 provincial, making a total for federal and provincial property of $2,729,365. When we add to that other exempt property in the town, we find that there is a total property exemption of over $5 million and a total taxable assessment of only $9,140,000. I must, however, thank the government for its very liberal grant to the town of Cobourg in lieu of taxes. As I have indicated, we have federal property in that municipality of over $2,373,000. This is due to the fact that the large No. 26 central ordnance depot is located in this area. The grant to the town of Cobourg amounts to just under $100,000, which, in a total budget of just over $700,000, is a very considerable sum.
We hear much of the need for further assistance to the municipalities, and I believe the provincial and federal governments can provide very necessary assistance to the municipalities by paying their full taxes wherever this property exists.
Now I come to the last subject I wish to discuss today, namely the situation of agriculture in our country. Earlier in my remarks I indicated that I wished to discuss this problem at some length. The Minister of Finance in his budget address, and the Minister of Agriculture have already told this house that agriculture is not sharing fully in the general prosperity of this country. As the representative of a riding half of whose citizens follow agriculture, I am naturally concerned with the fact that farm income has not kept pace with income in other industries in our economy. Agriculture, for a period up to 1951 enjoyed a period of great prosperity, 1 think the greatest in its history. However, since that time farm income has declined. Not only has the farm income declined but the expenses of farm operation have actually
The Budget-Mr. Robertson increased. I am told that the costs of farm operation are 2 per cent higher today than they were in 1951.
I believe that the prosperity of our agricultural citizens must be a primary concern of any government. I would ask this government to look very carefully into the situation to see whether anything more can be done to aid the farmers with their present problems. However, I must pay tribute to the policies of this government, which I believe have been of great aid to agriculture over the years.
I place first among these the farm price support policy and I should like to deal with this matter later in my remarks. However, in addition to that we have paid subsidies on various agricultural products. We pay a large part of the transportation cost of feed grain to eastern Canada. We have premiums for higher grades on many of our products. We are spending money on research in order to learn how to deal with various agricultural problems. We have provided credit for farmers in various ways. Hence, Mr. Speaker,
I think this government has done much for our agricultural citizens.
I support wholeheartedly the farm price support policy of this government because I believe it has made a real contribution to stabilizing, to some extent at least, farm income in this country, thereby making a real contribution to the economy of Canada as a whole. The purpose of the farm price support policy, as I understand it, is to make sure that the farmers receive a reasonable return during periods of high production and to prevent the consumer being charged an unreasonable amount during periods of low production.
I think a classic example of how this policy has worked is the butter situation as we have seen it develop in this country over the last 10 years. Prior to 1949 the government had been supporting butter at 58 cents a pound. In 1949 this support price was lowered to 53 cents per pound. Immediately production was decreased. In 1950 and 1951 we had to import some 22 million pounds of butter from New Zealand. In February of 1951 the consumer in Canada was paying 90 cents a pound for butter. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this proves very well indeed the high value of our farm price support policy.
I would ask the government, through the Minister of Agriculture, for the continuation of all the present floor prices, because I feel they are vital not only for agriculture but for the prosperity of the country as a whole. I believe that the citizens living in the cities should be somewhat better informed of the purpose of these farm price support measures because I think the farmer, the businessman
2838	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Robertson and the wage earner are each dependent on the prosperity of the other. National economic policy, if it is to succeed, can neglect neither agriculture nor the maintenance of high industrial income and employment. We must seek to obtain for the farm family a standard of living comparable with that enjoyed by workers in other industries.
At the present time the hog situation is not too satisfactory. In reading the paper today I notice that hogs have dropped to the floor price of $23 per hundredweight, although I doubt whether as yet the government has had to purchase any of these hogs.
I believe the reason for this depression in the hog industry is the terrific production which took place in Canada last year as compared with that in previous years. We are fortunate, however, that there has been such an increased consumption on the domestic market, and that we have been able to export some of our hog products to the United States. I think we should certainly continue this support price of $23 per hundredweight for hogs, I think the Minister of Agriculture could very well give consideration to having increased premiums for grade A hogs.
I believe this suggestion was put forward yesterday by the hon. member for Grey North (Mr. Bennett). To me it is a means of assisting the farm producer, and more particularly of ensuring a high quality in our hog products, something which will make it much easier for us to export to the United States, as they desire this type of bacon. We should also keep in mind the British market, should dollars become more available in that country.
I have already indicated that the butter policy of this government meets with my wholehearted approval. I am pleased that we are able to get rid of some of our surplus in export markets, and I hope the government will endeavour to do more of this in the future. If we are able to export even a small percentage of our butter we shall have no need to worry about the disposal of the remainder of the butter produced in our country.
I believe the success of the government's policy in this regard is shown by the fact that the farmer's share of the retail price of butter increased from 60 per cent in 1939 to 78 per cent in 1955. Possibly this fact explains the attitude of the National Dairy Council, composed as it is for the most part of the large dairies of Canada, in opposing the government's present policy on the marketing of butter. We are noticing an increased domestic consumption of butter and cheese in Canada, and I have been informed that


there is every hope that this year the production and consumption of butter will be more in balance.
I would also ask the government to restrict the importation of New Zealand cheese into Canada. If we can arrange it, I think it would be as well not to have any New Zealand cheese coming into Canada, though in saying this I believe our decision must be made in the light of the general international trade picture. We certainly must realize that international trade is a two-way street and that we cannot expect only to export as we certainly do not want to return to the Canada-first policy of the Bennett government which was so disastrous to the Canadian farmer.
I believe the farmers themselves recognize this fact. I should like to read from a statement of policy by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture published in January, 1955. It reads as follows:
Whatever protection to the farmer from import competition may be found necessary, it must be provided in such a manner that the legitimate interests of consumers are protected. Moreover, Canada's and the farmers' fundamental dependence on a healthy and expanding foreign trade must be recognized and taken into account.
There is another matter which I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Finance. I would ask for a reconsideration of the tariff which is imposed on turkeys coming into this country. As hon. members know, there are three types of turkeys, live, dressed and eviscerated, and the large proportion of the trade both ways is in eviscerated turkeys. At the present time the Canadian tariff is 12-5 per cent ad valorem on each of these classes of turkeys. On live turkeys this Canadian tariff amounts to 4 cents per pound, whereas the United States duty is 2 cents per pound. On dressed turkeys we have the 12-5 per cent ad valorem which I believe amounts to about
4	cents per pound, whereas the United States tariff is 10 cents per pound. Then in the field of eviscerated turkeys, in which I am particularly interested, we know that our duty is 12-5 per cent whereas the United States tariff is 12-5 per cent with a minimum of 5 cents per pound.
I think that in Canada we could very well have the tariff on the importation of turkeys the same as that of the United States, namely that we should have a minimum of
5	cents per pound. If production in turkeys is high in the United States and the price falls, then our protection may go down as low as 3 cents a pound. Of course the reverse is true; if prices go up in the United States, then our tariff will increase and may be as high as 6 cents per pound. However,
I think we could very well have a minimum of 5 cents a pound on these turkeys.
APRIL n. 1956
I should like also to state that in my opinion floor prices for agricultural products should be employed almost always on a national scale. I believe the government acted wisely in refusing the request of the Nova Scotia apple producer for assistance similar to what he enjoyed in past years, and offering instead assistance of 1 cent per pound available to all provinces in Canada. I do not believe it is equitable for the government to pay assistance to one province on a product which cannot be sold profitably in another part of Canada.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak quite briefly on marketing legislation for farmers. I believe that herein lies the solution to many of the problems which are facing agriculture today. We know that some of our provincial marketing schemes are to be considered by the courts to see if they have legal authority to continue. I believe that all governments should make sure these schemes have the required authority and if necessary legislation should be introduced to make the marketing schemes in Canada fully legal. I believe that to farmers marketing legislation is as important as the right to organize in unions is to labour, and all governments should take the necessary steps to see that this is properly handled.
I have had the pleasure of attending many meetings of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture in my riding. More recently farm union clubs are being organized, and I hope I shall have the pleasure of meeting with these farm representatives on an early occasion. I believe these organizations are vital to the welfare of the farmer, and that through them much can be done to solve the problems of agriculture. I ask for the continued interest of this government on all problems affecting the welfare of agriculture.


Mr. Charles E. Rea (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to some of your remarks regarding whether or not people were reading speeches. I know that as a new member speaking for the first time I am allowed certain privileges. As I was sitting here looking at what I have in front of me I thought if you asked me the direct question, "Are you reading your speech?", I just do not know how I could honestly answer you. I have not found out yet just where notes stop.
During the Easter recess I walked around the Spadina riding from one end to the other. I could not find any wheat being grown there. There was a lot being consumed, but none being grown; so I can assure you, I am not going to speak about wheat at this time. Spadina riding is in a unique situation. We have a federal riding and within that federal riding are two provincial ridings. As
The Budget-Mr. Rea
many of you know, Spadina is one of the most cosmopolitan ridings in Canada. Let me show you why I say that. The representative of one of our provincial ridings is a Canadian of Ukrainian origin. The other provincial member is a Canadian of the Jewish faith, and I happen to represent the area federally. In my opinion this seems to indicate a tremendous growth in the thinking of people in Canada. It indicates a tremendous growth in democratic thinking, and it is that kind of thinking that is going to make Canada a much bigger and better place in which all of us may live.
I have never used the expression "new Canadian", because although I happen to be a third generation Canadian the man who received his citizenship papers this morning is just as good a Canadian as I am and is entitled to everything I am, so why should he be classified any differently? I wonder whether we all realize just what an immigrant goes through when he first comes to this country. In the province of Ontario alone there are 12 communist ethnic papers which are trying to sell their propaganda to the new immigrant, in his own language. Here is something that is hard to believe. These newspapers stress the fact that a Canadian communist is different from a Russian communist. I cannot emphasize too strongly how powerful a suggestion that is. As I said, there are 12 communist newspapers published in Ontario, and there are about twice that number in the whole of Canada. They have an estimated circulation of over
100.000	copies. They are published in 10 different languages. These newspapers are financed and managed from a central office in Toronto and, according to very reliable sources, one-quarter of a million dollars annually is the sum necessary to support the 12 in Ontario.
To offset that the democratic foreign language press in Ontario publishes about 35 newspapers and magazines in over 15 languages. There are 51 of these published in the whole of Canada in 22 languages, with a readership of about one million per week.
I wonder whether hon. members realize the silent warfare that is going on between those two bitterly opposed groups just for the minds of our immigrants. We all know that since the end of world war II approximately 1\ million immigrants have come to Canada, and it is estimated that close to
900.000	of those have come from non-English speaking parts of Europe. These immigrants have brought to Canada millions and millions of dollars in actual money. An estimate would place this in excess of about $500 million, since the end of world war II. We also find that these immigrants help to create jobs, because they buy a lot of goods and in many
2840	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Rea instances actually start their own businesses. A great many people believe-you have heard the remark, too-that these immigrants crowd many families into one house. This is completely wrong. According to a survey made about two years ago, of 128,000 immigrant households, 50,000 of the post-war immigrants own their own homes. A majority were single detached dwellings with all facilities. Of these, over 14,000 were entirely clear of mortgages. The remainder of the 128,000 averaged more than four rooms per household.
Bear in mind that for every worker we get almost one additional independent person, which helps to create additional consumer markets. Also remember that the minute those people go to work they become taxpayers and share the costs of running the country on all levels, be they municipal, provincial or federal. With that thought in mind I feel that since Canada has spent millions of dollars to get these people here- and it is an expenditure with which I agree, and I only wish we were getting a great many more immigrants-we should start to do more to educate those immigrants while they are going through the process of getting ready to become citizens.
Our investment in these people has started on the federal level, and it should carry on from the federal level. One of the ways to do this would be to support those democratic foreign language newspapers and magazines by advertising from every department of government. These advertisements could be in the form of educational information, describing the particular department. For example, the Department of National Health and Welfare could explain what it does; the Department of Labour could explain legislation affecting the workers; the Department of National Defence could explain its recruiting messages to those people who have been in this country long enough to be eligible for the armed forces.
I know the government does not think too much of this particular idea, because it does not want the outside world to think that it is recruiting men for the armed forces. But if these people are to become Canadians they should be entitled to all this information. The Post Office Department could tell them about its services, its rates, and particularly its overseas regulations. This could also work with the various other departments of government.
Remember, as I mentioned before, the bitter struggle that is being waged between the communists who are trying to win these people over to their ways, and the democratic foreign language papers that are trying to keep them our way. We must remember that these hew people naturally write letters back


home, and if those letters are full of praise and understanding about the ways in Canada, do you not think that will help to get more immigrants of the right kind out here?
I realize, of course, that the Department of Citizenship and Immigration does place advertising in these papers, but outside of the odd spasmodic advertisements by that department, one from the post office, and one from the R.C.M.P. about once a year, that is all the help these papers get that are doing more than anything else to explain democracy to these new people of ours.
A recent survey shows that in answer to the question put to these new immigrants, "Do you prefer reading your own language publications?" 96 per cent replied "Yes". To another question, "Do you receive one or more English weekly, bi-weekly or monthly magazines?", 80 [DOT] 1 per cent said they did not receive any of those. Therefore it is fairly obvious that the way to offset communist propaganda and to educate and tell these immigrants the wonderful opportunities that are here for them would be to support these democratic foreign language papers in a practical way through advertising.
I realize, of course, that the Department of Citizenship and Immigration does have a liaison group that tries to offset any communist effects, but it reaches such a small portion of these people that I am sure my suggestion would have a much greater effect. When these immigrants eventually become citizens -and remember, they have had to go through a lot to get to this point-many of us are fortunate enough to be able to adopt children. We all know the time comes when they are going to be asked the question, what does adoption mean? Perhaps most of these parents will wait until the child is old enough to understand. They will then take the children on their knees and say, "We looked at all the children in the world and out of all those children we chose you".
That is why I say that the immigrant who receives his citizenship papers has a big advantage over those of us who were born here, because when he gets his papers he can step outside and say, "Out of all the countries in the world, Canada, I chose you". In Spadina riding there are a great many people who have said and are waiting to say, "Canada, I chose you".
Since this speech is on the budget I am going to say something about it. During the Easter recess, besides walking around my riding I wanted to check and get some comments about this budget. We have heard a lot about television programs. The one I am going to refer to is on the list of those imported from the United States. When the

people in this particular program want some information they send out something which they call an A.P.B. I did not send out an A.P.B. to get the information I wanted; I sent out a W.I.T.B., which means "What is in the budget?" I sat back and waited, and it was not long before the answers started to come in. I received a flood of them, but the funniest thing I found in analysing them was that they were all the same. They were composed of just one word; "nothing".
I would like to make a few suggestions on a serious note to the Minister of Finance for his consideration. It might help some of those of us who are working people. For example, there are many jobs in which the man or woman employed has to wear a uniform. They pay for it themselves, and they are allowed no deductions when making out their income tax returns. This uniform helps them to earn their income, and it can be worn only when they are working. I can see no reason why it could not be classed as a deduction.
Let me give another example. In metropolitan Toronto we have more than one zone for street car fares. With new homes being built on the outskirts of the city we have this problem. The man or woman who lives on the outskirts and works toward the centre of the city, or the man or woman who lives in the centre and works toward the outskirts of the city, has to pay more than one fare. I cannot see why the government would not allow a person to deduct the extra fares that are paid as a legitimate expense. This would not be too difficult to handle, because the firm could verify the individual's correct address and could also verify the number of days he worked in the current year. I do not know whether hon. members realize just how much these extra fares can amount to in a year; they can run from $10 to $12 a month, or close to $120 a year.
Everyone has been trying to encourage people to buy their own homes; yet the interest they pay on their mortgages is not deductible in relation to private homes, and the cost of improvements to their homes is not deductible. The home is the basic foundation of this country, and if the government is going to encourage people to buy their own homes it should allow these people to deduct the interest on mortgages when paying their income tax.
We have had many statements in the house recently pointing to the deplorable shortage of engineers, scientists and teachers. This government has gone so far as to allow a foreign country to choose a foreign contractor for the D.E.W. project for the next three years because we are not capable of handling
The Budget-Mr. Rea the work. Here is something that Dean Woodside of the University of Toronto said:
If present trends continue there will be a desperate shortage of science teachers. The quality of students entering science courses will inevitably decline and the ultimate result for the schools, for the universities, and for all the many areas of society in which science is important might be disastrous.
We have also had several hon. members talk about the fact that scholarships should be made available in various forms, yet this same government which admits to these shortages does not do enough to encourage parents to send their children to university. After a boy or girl reaches a certain age the parents are allowed more deductions, but let us realize it is when a boy or girl enters university that the cost of education begins to reach its peak. Those of us who have struggled and are now struggling to put our own children through university are well acquainted with the costliness of university education. Why cannot the government be a leader in trying to overcome this admitted shortage by giving more tax relief, at the very least, for the parents?
I should like to refer briefly to the 20 per cent tax on Canadian editions of United States magazines. This subject has been adequately covered by one of the hon. members on this side of the house. I agree that the only reason anyone buys a magazine is that he thinks it is going to interest him, regardless of whether it is printed in the United States or Canada. I was always of the opinion that the job of the Department of Finance is to raise revenue as required, instead of doing what perhaps should be done by the customs department.
I would like to say a few words about the P P-P.-the poorly paid postman. I understand, of course, that certain raises are going through as reported in the press, but even those are not sufficient. Postal employees are victims of the government, which stresses job security as a bait to attract them. The maximum salary paid to a letter carrier in Canada is slightly less than the minimum starting salary paid to a letter carrier in the United States.
How pitifully inadequate are the salaries paid to postal employees. This is apparent from the fact that numerous postal employees desirous of building their own homes under the N.H.A., which is sponsored by this government, are refused loans because then-annual income is below the minimum required to insure that the applicant is a worth-while risk. In other words our government, which inaugurated the N.H.A. plan to provide the average working man with the opportunity of building and owning his own home, refuses to pay its own employees a decent annual

The Budget-Mr. Rea salary in order that they may qualify for a house under the government's own scheme. Certainly this situation is fantastic.
As one postman who has been in the service for some considerable time remarked, "I am the father of two grown girls, and it is rather humiliating that both my youngsters were able to get jobs and earn more money that I am earning after 25 years of service". The time has come for a general salary increase.
I should like to refer to another matter which was mentioned previously by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Hamilton). I think we have all been very shocked at the number of lives lost in this area due to fires since the first of the year. There is one cause of many of these fires which the government appears to choose to ignore for various reasons; that is the continued importing of substandard portable lamps and residential lighting fixtures. This government knows all about this matter, yet what is it doing about it? Absolutely nothing. I have mentioned the tragic loss of lives in this particular area since the first of the year without having referred to the loss of life throughout Canada. Let me quote something which appeared in the Financial Post of October 1, 1955:
Electrical fires have cost Canada $55 million since 1950.
Is that not an appalling situation? The Canadian industry manufacturing these articles is not asking for higher tariffs but simply feels that foreign manufacturers should be required to make their products to the same rigid standards set up by the government which apply to Canadian products. The Canadian lamp and fixture manufacturers must have their products approved and must sign a contract for this approved service before offering them for sale. Why can foreign manufacturers bring in cheap, unsafe merchandise to compete with Canadian merchandise? We have the Food and Drugs Act and other acts to safeguard Canadians. What are we doing about this situation? Absolutely nothing.
The government has said that it wants to be sure it has the support of the provinces before it intervenes in this field, yet how is it going to find this out if it does not try? The government already has had very favourable indications and comments from the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario; the department of labour of the province of Manitoba, under whose jurisdiction this comes; the department of labour of the province of Saskatchewan; the electric light and power department of Edmonton; the department of industries and labour of Edmonton; the electric energy inspection


department of Vancouver; the city electrician's office in the city of Moncton and others.
Why cannot this government take the lead and call the provinces together to discuss this matter and find a solution? Someone has to start the ball rolling, and I feel it is the responsibility of the federal government. Are we going to have to wait until more Canadians perish in fires as a result of these poor and unsafe electrical items? Let us stop trying to pass the buck between the provincial and federal governments. Let the federal government take the lead and summon the provinces together before more lives are lost.
Although I have been in Ottawa for a short time only, I could never understand why members of parliament were not allowed passes on T.C.A. A short time ago I discovered that the claim adjusters of the Canadian National Railways all have passes on T.C.A. I wondered about this, and the only comment I have to make at this time is this. I suppose when a train accident occurs the government wants to get the claim adjusters to the scene of the accident as quickly as possible to take statements from the people before they have a chance to discuss their claims with their lawyers. Of course that is what all adjusters do. I say it is just as important that hon. members who live some distance from Ottawa should be placed in a position where they can go home from time to time in order to find out what is going on in their ridings and, as an hon. member says, settle their claims as well.
I should like to say one or two things about the shipment of arms to Israel. I am and always have been in favour of the shipment of arms to Israel, because this would put the Jews in a position to defend themselves if they were attacked. I think you will agree that Egypt's actions in recent days have shown this to be a fact. I cannot understand why more definite action was not taken sooner by the United Nations which created the state of Israel, because everyone realized that trouble was bound to occur; but nothing seemed to be done until the fighting started to look serious. Then everyone started flying all over the world for conferences and talks to stop it. Perhaps this is just another one of those cases which have shown up so often of being too late, too late. I certainly hope not.
When listening to someone speak the other day I gathered this one little thought which I should like to pass on to the government for what it is worth:
Men are not free to do what they will-that is anarchy.

Men are not free to do what they must-that is compulsion.
Men are free to do what they ought-that is democracy.
That is what I urge the government to be, a democracy.
(Translation) :


Mr. Gustave Roy (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech just delivered by the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer). It is unfortunate that the hon. member did not choose the right place to make it. In fact his speech would have been quite appropriate on the floor of the Quebec legislature where he would surely have convinced his provincial colleague of Three Rivers not to give away our natural resources to the Americans.
Moreover, if the hon. member will take a look at the Gazette of this morning, he will find the statements made last night by his friend, the premier of Quebec, on the opportunity of encouraging as much as possible the investment of American capital in Quebec. I quote:
Foreign capital is essential to our development.
That is what Messrs. Duplessis and Eaton stated.
Foreign capital-
Stated Mr. Duplessis.
-contrary to what some people seem to think-
And the hon. member for Three Rivers is among them, I suppose.
-is essential to the economic expansion of Quebec. Foreign capital, whether coming from France, from Great Britain or from the United States, is always welcome.
On the eve of an election in our province, I am grateful to the hon. member for Three Rivers who so generously endorses the demands of the provincial liberal leader as far as our natural resources are concerned although in doing so he is not very nice to his provincial friends to whom he owes so much.
As far as family allowances are concerned, I agree with the hon. member for Three Rivers when he says that a readjustment of the rates would be appropriate. However, the Canadian people are very happy to be able to take advantage of such a beneficial legislation enacted by a Liberal administration, and the hon. member for Three Rivers should be the last to criticize it knowing as he does that, with his leader, there would be no such thing.
Mr. Speaker, in the course of everyday life, -we often hear people talking of the variety of things from one day to the other and conclude most of the time by the old saying "Who knows what tomorrow may hold". The only 67509-180
The Budget-Mr. Roy ones who can flatter themselves for not being subjected to this rule are the members of this house. On the opposition side, from one session to the other, we always hear them repeating the same old thing. For some, the government has failed lamentably in its task; for others, the government is keeping the people of Canada in ignorance of the impending crash of the country's economy. Finally, for another section, the government has been living on hopes and Canadians find themselves in dire poverty and fear imminent disaster.
However, members on government benches are forced to repeat the same optimistic statements because of the fact that, every year, they find that we have made another step to a new high in all fields, political, commercial, economic and social. Therefore, everybody being free to analyse the economic data concerning this country, it is easy to ascertain the gradual changes that have come over our national economy. We will note, as a matter of fact, that from year to year and particularly since the last war, the revenue of the worker has improved, that profits are higher, the building trade more active and operations of all kinds more numerous than ever. But the statistical data on these subjects is more revealing still, on many scores.
In 1939 the gross national product was five billion 700 million dollars; in 1946 it had risen to 12 billion, and in 1953 to 23 billion. The expected figure for the current year is a record 28 billion.
This gradual improvement in the general economy has obvious repercussions in various areas of production and more particularly as regards wood products, mineral production, manufacturing, agriculture and labour, where the difference is even more marked.
Then there is a very special field where the contribution is even more tangible; it is that of the social reforms which have contributed to a large extent to maintain the Canadian way of life and the standard of living of the labouring class. In addition, these social measures have increased the economic security of most Canadians, and consequently that of trade and industry, through a more stable market. After 10 years, unemployment insurance benefits and social security contributions add up to several billion dollars and they are the factors which have contributed most to that stabilization and to economic prosperity in Canada.
For the last 10 years we have been confident, from year to year, in the future of

The Budget

Mr. Roy our country, and that confidence has been soundly justified because the Canadian people had put it in a Liberal government which did not fail in its duty. It is certainly not possible to obtain such vast transformation, such record expansion without a patch of shadow here and there. However, the expert handling of a sound and watchful administration has always been able to rectify the position without impeding the general progress towards a peak prosperity.
The prophets of doom, on the opposition side of the house, have had to revise their gloomy forecasts year after year.
Mr. Speaker, like every Canadian, I am pleased to note the improvement of the unemployment situation in this country, the willingness of the federal government to cooperate with the provinces in order to introduce some relief for the unemployed who are not insured. It seems there is a division of responsibilities and that this group of forgotten taxpayers will know a less anxious future.
We have been pleased to follow the discussions of the last federal-provincial meetings. They also seemed to warrant the hope of final achievement in various fields, like the tax agreements and the introduction of health insurance. I agree that, at first, the co-operation of my province in this respect has been cynical, but I am glad that some imminent atmospheric perturbations will soon permit a better understanding, which will lead to provincial co-operation, to a tax agreement and to the setting up of a national health insurance scheme to the best advantage of the people of my province.
Mr. Speaker, the farmers of my constituency asked me to congratuate the government on the way it has handled the problem of butter surplus and on its decision to maintain price support.
It is a pity however to see the different treatment inflicted on our Quebec farmers compared to those of the other provinces, just as a result of petty politics on the part of the government of my province. The farmers of my riding have just suffered two disastrous years, as a result of heavy rains two years ago, and of a drought last summer. Those two years have put the farmers into a very precarious situation. At the head of all those agricultural organizations, I pleaded with the federal Minister of Agriculture to help them in their plight, and he assured us of his willingness to help, provided naturally


that the province co-operates and recognizes its share of responsibility in that field. I will be greatly surprised if the generous contribution of the provincial administration consisted of anything but promises.
Mr. Speaker, I shall devote the greater part of the unexpired portion of my time to give my impressions of my trip to Mexico last May, when I was a member of the Canadian delegation to the eighth assembly of the world health organization.
WHO is an agency of the United Nations of which 57 countries are members. Its headquarters are located at Geneva, where the annual meetings of that organization are usually held.
This eighth assembly, held by exception away from the ordinary headquarters at Geneva, had for its main purpose to acquaint the delegates from oriental countries with the efforts made to solve the problems facing that part of the Americas lying within 25 degrees on either side of the equator. Mexico is one of the countries which are in great need of that help to solve their health problems.
General conferences of that organization, following the same pattern as a session of a democratic parliament, are held each year. The Canadian delegation to that eighth assembly was composed of four physicians: Dr. Moore, head of the Indian division in the Department of National Health and Welfare and president of the Canadian delegation; Dr. Curtis, head of the department of health of the province of Prince Edward Island; the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair), myself and a few technicians of the Department of National Health and Welfare.
I	am pleased to note at this point that I have the happiest recollections of the cordial relations which the members of the Canadian delegation enjoyed amongst themselves. I can assure the Minister of National Health and Welfare that this delegation did in no wise betray the trust which he had placed in it in choosing it to represent this country in a worthy fashion.
The Canadian delegation, along with those of the other member states, participated in the work of the committees set up by the plenary assembly of the world health organization. Members of the Canadian delegation sat on two of the main conference commissions: the agenda and budget commission and the administrative, financial and legal commission, presided over by Dr. Moore, of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, the part played by Canada at these meetings is second in importance only to that of the great powers. Our country enjoys great prestige on the international scene. None more than the Canadian members of delegations sent to other countries are in a position to appreciate this fact. They have the great advantage of seeing how much consideration, confidence and sincere esteem our country, our Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the leaders of our delegations to the United Nations, together with our democratic system and our sound administration, enjoy on the part of other countries of the world.
I wish at this point to thank the Minister of National Health and Welfare for the kind attention he had for me in giving me this opportunity to join all those who just returned from this mission abroad, feeling greater pride of being a Canadian and loving one's country all the more.
The work of the WHO throughout the world is essential and it is to the credit of Canada that her government recognizes its responsibility and duty towards this work of international civilization. Of course, Canada is interested in this ultimate humanitarian aim of improving world health and is helping other members to that end. Thus, after only 8 years, the world is already benefiting from this co-operation thanks to the devotion of officers of WHO and to their achievements in the improvement of social medicine and the conquests of science over sources of infection and contagion, in the study of social and economic problems on which rests the improvement of health as well as in the contribution and wise distribution of public moneys. The coalition of science and charity in generous and devoted people cannot but bring about gigantic achievements against microbiological scourges which spread disease and death in most of the countries of the world.
Thus a tremendous amount of work has been done, and it has produced magnificent results. But, after hearing the delegations of the various countries make known their complaints, their needs and their wishes, one realizes that WHO is still far from the ultimate aim of its efforts. The health situation throughout the world is still very shaky and efforts of WHO will surely have to be much more fruitful, as far as financial contributions and the scope of activities are concerned, to enable it to do its work with a more concrete hope of bringing about radical and permanent achievements. No one could make better use than WHO of any generous contributions 67509-180J
The Budget-Mr. Roy from Canada and other members of the United Nations to ensure a minimum standard of health in the world.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that every effort on the part of the governments to achieve international peace will be ineffective, or fictitious as long as they do not establish the essential basis for this peace, that is the strength and energy to enjoy freedom, quietude and justice that only health can give. And this peace which our governments try to find at the price of such effort, will not be attained on the day when the United Nations have the supremacy of armaments and diplomacy, but when, in a universal gesture of charity and justice, they will have used all their efforts and energy for the conquest of the supreme physical and social welfare of all their member states.
How can we hope to achieve a universal political balance when more than half of mankind is still a victim of various plagues which science has overcome, but which are still, in actual fact, overpowering the vast majority of the world's peoples. How can a civilized and Christian world remain unaffected and indifferent in the knowledge that in the underdeveloped countries almost a billion people are suffering each year from swamp-fever, malaria and yellow fever?
Our world will not be able to claim it is civilized until the power of science and modern technology is made to serve human health everywhere.
In this twentieth century, after two dreadful world wars, men are striving to create a peaceful world. Indeed, there is nothing more essential nor more urgent in our time than to maintain world peace. Now, we all know that peace is not a simple political matter to be settled through agreements between nations, but that it hinges on the general progress of all nations. Peace is different from armed truce. Peace means liberty and plenty, justice and respect for man, a decent standard of living and above all good health. It is not enough to say that all nations and all men are entitled to be free, to be treated with justice and to have enough to live. To enjoy all that and to live a full life one must be healthy.
Mr. Speaker, would you allow me a few more minutes? I am nearly through.
(Text):


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May the hon. member have a minute or so by unanimous consent?

The Budget-Mr. Roy


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Gillis:: Let him finish.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(Translation) ;


Gustave Roy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The end of 1955 marked the tenth anniversary of the United Nations Organization. This is the time to take our bearings or, if you wish, to sum up the ideas and the accomplishments of that organization.
It must certainly be recognized that in spite of what may have been said by some people, this institution has done a tremendous and beneficial job, and Canada won an honourable position through its generous contributions in many fields.
But, on the other hand, has Canada contributed its full share, and should it not do much more, especially as regards the financial part of the plan of assistance to the underdeveloped countries. I believe, along with Canadian newspapers, that the prestige and impact of our civilization urgently require that the western world brings a brilliant evidence of Christian charity and of solidarity to these underdeveloped people. Therefore, we can but support the recent decision of the government to increase substantially its contributions to the fund for assistance to these poor countries, although we consider that this increase is but a minimum.
Mr. Speaker, any right-minded citizen cannot refrain from admiring what countries are doing today, through United Nations agencies, to improve the sanitary and economic conditions of the underdeveloped countries. By giving food to hungry people, by improving their health, and by bringing technical assistance to the underdeveloped countries, we can do more to achieve peace than by spending billions of dollars on armaments. This is the genuine task pertaining to the nations such as ours which can produce what the world urgently needs.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that, in Canada, we have to face a problem of food surpluses. I humbly submit that the government might divert a few millions from war items to buy and send this food to the countries that are in need of it. This would be the best way to stop war, a vigorous stimulant in favour of peace and a powerful antidote against communistic ideology. We are a Christian country and our religious principles recommend that we extend our fraternity to all the world. If the Christian doctrine asks that we feed the hungry, clothe the naked and nurse the sick, if our Christian faith is real, we should encourage the government to pass the necessary legislation to prove that our creed is not restricted to principles but finds its expression in deeds.
(Text):
On motion of Mr. Simmons the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: We shall continue with this debate tomorrow.


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

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

Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace): What items, in what quantities, and for what values, were made available to the city of Montreal for civil defence purposes, either directly or indirectly by the federal government?
Answer by: Mr. Martin:
Items	Quantity
Anti-gas boots	 635
Anti-gas gloves	 230
Anti-gas suits	 225
Anti-dim	 1,300
Armbands	 1,223
Badges:
French	 660
English	 156
Lapel for male	 4,000
Lapel for female	 800
Beanies	 1,000
Blankets	 950
Charts	 90
Charts rescue training	 6
Coveralls	 380
Dressing: 1st field	 1,000
triangular bandages ....	10,000
Firemen's coats	 180
Firemen's boots	 180
Fire pumpers:
840 g.p.m	 21
Tarpaulins	 2
500 g.p.m	 32
Tarpaulins	 6
Discharge water hose	 4
Suction water hose	 2
100' cable assembly	 6
Fuses matches	 300
Grenades	 34
Incendiary bombs	 100
Kits:
First aid metal boxes	 90
Radiological reconnaissance	 5
Wardens first aid	 1,000
Map cases	 6
Pocket dosimeters	 6
Charging unit for dosimeter		1
Radiac sets	 2
Respirators	 14,450
Respirators for babies	 3
Rubber boots	 508
Shoulder flashes (French)	 100
(English)	 100
Signs:
Danger flags	 6
Direction discs "pegs"	 6
11. 1956	2847
Questions
Items	Quantity
Shelter area here	 100
Shelter arrow	 6
Warden post	 6
Sirens air raid	 48
Timers for sirens	 7
Steel helmets	 9,340
Stirrup pumps	 1,222
Stretchers	 528
Stretchers slings	 500
Tags emergency medical	 90
Tear gas	 320
Thunderflash.es:
Mark I	 100
2	explosive power	 100
Whistle type	 20
Transfers:
For helmets	(French)	
400For helmets	(English)	
400For vehicles large	
1,500For vehicles	small	
1,500For vehicles	bilingual	
700
Trucks:
3	tons	 2*
Rescue equipment	 2
Wireless:
No. 19	 35
Portable walkie-talkie	 4
First aid station training kits....	44
Stretchers wooden for first aid
station kits	 176
Blankets for first aid station kits ..	352
Home nursing training kitscomplete w/supplementary supplies	 6
Total value-$286,750.
1	Arrangements have been made for the reallocation of one of these pumpers, with accessories, to the city of Verdun, which has a civil defence organization.
2	Arrangements have been made for the reallocation of two of these pumpers, with accessories, to the cities of St. Lambert and Lachine, both of which have civil defence organizations.
3	Arrangements have been made for the reallocation of these two rescue trucks, fully equipped, to the cities of St. Lambert and Lachine.
Arrangements have been made for the reallocation of numerous items of civil defence training stores, including steel helmets, respirators, stirrup pumps, coveralls, etc., to Verdun, Lachine, and St. Lambert.
The provincial deputy civil defence co-ordinator for Quebec has advised that further requests from these same cities will be forthcoming shortly as well as from other cities in the area surrounding Montreal which have active civil defence organizations and are planning training programs.

Questions


RIVIERE DU LOUP ARSENAL
Mr. Dufresne: 1.	Has a decision been made to sell the Riviere du Loup arsenal?
2.	If so. on what date and what were the reasons which motivated this decision?
3.	Were public tenders called? If so, on what date?
4.	What is the deadline date for submission of public tenders?
Answer by: Mr. Howe (Pori Arthur):
1.	Yes.
2.	February 23, 1956. Completion of contracts and reduction in requirements for ammunition involving components produced at the Riviere du Loup arsenal.
3.	Yes. Offers to purchase were solicited by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation through public advertisements in newspapers on March 7, 8 and 9, 1956.
4.	Offers to purchase were to be forwarded to Crown Assets Disposal Corporation not later than March 29, 1956.

Thursday, April 12, 1956