CANADA HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES OFFICIAL REPORT SECOND SESSION-TWENTY-SECOND PARLIAMENT 3-4 ELIZABETH Il BEING THE 97TH SESSION FOR THE PERIOD 1867-1955 VOLUME II, 1955 COMPRISING THE PERIOD FROM THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1955, TO THE TWENTY-SECOND DAY OF MARCH, 1955, INCLUSIVE INDEX ISSUED IN A SEPARATE VOLUME EDMOND CLOUTIER, C.M.G., O.A., D.S.P. QUEEN'S PRINTER AND CONTROLLER OF STATIONERY OTTAWA, 1955 1109 HOUSE OF COMMONS Monday, February 14, 1955 The house met at 2.30 p.m. HOUSE OF COMMONS HON. MEMBER FOR FORT' WILLIAM-BIRTHDAY CONGRATULATIONS Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, may I have a special privilege, which I think would be very graciously granted to me by all hon. mem- bers, and that is to express in their name as well as my own our sincere congratula- tions and our best wishes to the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. McIvor). Mr. Daniel McIvor (Fort William): Mr. Speaker, coming from where it does, and with its feeling of sincerity, I feel somewhat flabbergasted in accepting the congratulations extended by the Prime Minister. I am happy to be living, and thankful that I have a real appetite for everything that is going to happen, even for big speeches from the opposition. COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES PERSONNEL OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE Mr. W. G. Weir (Portage-Neepawa) moved: That Messrs. Benidickson, Byrne, Cameron (Nanaimo), Cannon, Churchill, Decore, Des- chatelets, Dupuis, Fleming, Garland, Gauthier (Nickel Belt), Hellyer, Henry, Jutras, Lafontaine, Macdonnell, MacEachen, Macnaughton, McLeod, Michener, Monteith, Power (St. John's West), Stuart (Charlotte), Thatcher, Tucker and Yuill constitute the special committee appointed Tuesday, February 8th, to consider such of the estimates as may be referred to it and that the provisions of standing order 65 be suspended in relation thereto. Motion agreed to. BRITISH COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE OF PRIME MINISTERS-STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER On the orders of the day: Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I undertook on Thurs- day to make a brief statement to the house about the meeting of the prime ministers of the Commonwealth countries, from which the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) and I have just returned. 50433-71 Perhaps I should begin by reminding hon. members of the statement made by Sir Wins- ton Churchill on November 4 last when he announced that it was proposed to hold this meeting. He said: Many events of great importance in the inter- national field have taken place since our last meeting at the time of the coronation. These will be among the principal subjects for our considera- tion when, as we have now agreed, a meeting of commonwealth prime ministers is held in London, opening January 31. These words, I think, indicate quite accur- ately both the scope and the limitations of such a meeting. The meeting was not called because there was some particular problem of concern to all the member countries of the commonwealth which we were attempting to settle. The meeting was not called to make decisions on any question. It was intended to be, and I suggest that that is all such a meeting could be, an opportunity for a full and frank exchange of views about the many events of great importance in the international field to which the Prime Minis- ter of the United Kingdom referred, and of course any other matter of common concern which might be raised. I am sure all hon. members will now have read the two communiques which were printed as an appendix to last Thursday's Hansard. They will have found in these communiques a summary indication of all the matters which were considered by both the plenary meetings and the additional meetings arranged to discuss regional defence problems. They will agree that all these matters were important and worthy of the careful consideration they received. There is in reality very little to be said that is not already set out in the commu- niques. I notice that disappointment has been expressed in certain quarters at the lack of more positive results from the meet- ing of prime ministers. Such disappoint- ment is obviously because of the mistaken conception of what the meetings were in- tended to accomplish and of how they do produce their beneficial results. The commonwealth is not a political organ- ization under centralized direction or control, and I believe we are all agreed that any attempt now to transform the commonwealth into that kind of union would be unsuccess- ful and might destroy the free association which has been maintained successfully, HOUSE OF COMMONS Commonwealth Conference despite the many changes in the status of member nations which have taken place in recent years, of which the proposed change in the status of Pakistan, which was freely accepted by all the other commonwealth nations, is only the most recent example. But the nations of the commonwealth are closely and confidently associated in the pursuit of common objectives which are good objectives for them and good objectives for a wider community than the peoples within their own borders, and they are representative of all parts of the world. Each prime min- ister naturally looks at the world situation from the point of view of his own country and his responsibilities to the people whose government he heads. Frequently, however, it can be helpful, and it has been helpful, to see how the world situation looks from an entirely different part of the world. For me that was the most rewarding part of the tour around the world which I made a year ago. For me and I believe for all other prime ministers, that is one of the most valuable aspects of these meetings. It is not merely that we gain new and useful information, though we do that, but it is that we have an opportunity of seeing through the eyes of trusted and like-minded associates how the world situa- tion looks from other parts of the world. It was of immense value to the representatives of western governments to get the point of view of the Asian prime ministers on the questions before us-all the questions before us. Though this was not an economic confer- ence, we did have a useful and encouraging exchange of information and views about the development of commonwealth trade and of world trade. This is summed up in a paragraph of the communique: We all reaf- firmed our adherence to a principle-which is the very foundation of Canadian economic policy-that is to say: The progressive approach to the widest practie- able system of trade and payments. -as the best way of serving our individual and the general interest. We also had very serious discussions of the problems of nuclear energy, and listened to a most impressive, indeed an unforgettable, statement of Sir Winston Churchill as he painted for us, in majestic and memorable words, the signifi- cance of man's discoveries in this field which could mean his total destruction or the un- folding of a future for him beyond our pres- ent dreams. While the superiority of the western world in nuclear weapons is now probably our most important single deterrent against war, nev- ertheless, we recognize that this is a wasting [Mr. St. Laurent.] asset and that peace must ultimately rest on a better and more lasting foundation. But one thing is sure and we had impressive evidence before us to prove it: a nuclear war would mean global ruin. Against this grim conclusion, we contemplated the happier possibility of hope for peace arising out of the very destructive power of the weapons now available. This may, as Sir Winston put it, result in the destruction of war, rather than the destruction of humanity. It is then for us all, as the communique puts it, "a choice and a challenge". Defence questions generally were discussed in plenary sessions, during which the various prime ministers spoke of their own countries' problems in this field and how they were being met. There were also limited meetings on area defence problems, attended by those members of the conference which had ac- cepted special peacetime commitments in those areas. International tensions, however, and the search for peace and security, dom- inated our discussions. It was accidental, but I think useful, that we met while de- velopments were taking place in the Far East, which caused general anxiety. As these developments occurred, we exchanged views about them in a way which I am sure was very helpful in relation to our individual policies. We did not try to draw up a blueprint for collective action which would be made public, but we all have our individual obligations in these matters, and we all have a common concern to avoid conflict; and also, may I add, to avoid disunity and division among the nations that are earnestly seeking peace; and I am convinced we are all doing our utmost toward those ends. At the close of our meetings, it was my privilege to express the thanks of all the prime ministers to our host, Sir Winston Churchill. He replied with a few moving words about what he called our "fraternal association", in which he pointed out that this association meant to him, among other things, that each of our governments should always think of the others every time we had to say or do anything which would affect the others. I do not propose to disregard that wise advice, but as the principal com- munique indicates that the developments in the area of Formosa were necessarily of special concern to all the prime ministers present, I want to say a special word about our own position on this Formosan question. This position cannot, of course, be either final or inflexible, because the situation itself is changing and the changes that take place are bound to affect our judgment of how our policy should develop. FEBRUARY 14, 1955 But the principles upon which our policy is based and our approach to this problem have already been made known to the house by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) and I want to emphasize that again, in spite of some reports to the contrary, those were not altered during the meeting in London. The first objective, on which we are all agreed, is that everything possible should be done to prevent fighting and stop it if it occurs, and then to seek a political settle- ment by negotiation. But no one thinks this is going to be easy. It will require time and patience and the chances for success are not likely to be improved by hasty or ill- considered declarations, or by conferences for which there has been no proper di'plomatic preparation. No one in the free world wants war, with all its unimaginable horrors, to develop over this Formosan situation. I am confident that those who are directing policy in Wash- ington and London and other commonwealth capitals are just as anxious that such a war should be avoided as we are. I think we can all take encouragement from the fact that the President of the United States has recognized that the situation is one which requires great care, great patience, and under- standing, and that these are the qualities which are governing his policy in this matter. I should also like once more to emphasize this: Canada has no commitments regarding collective security in the Far East, and indeed no commitments of any kind in respect of the Formosa area except those which arise out of our membership in the United Nations. I do not think that there is anything else I could properly say about our discussions at the prime ministers' meeting beyond what is set out in the communique. These com- muniques do represent in substance what all the prime ministers were agreed it was desirable to publish about these meetings. We expect to move at an early date to refer the estimates of the Department of External Affairs to the committee on external affairs and there will then be an opportunity to discuss any matters arising out of reports on this recent conference as well as any other aspect of our international relations. Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Acting Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, while it has been agreed that any debate on the statement given by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) to the house take place at a later date, I do wish just to comment that we did expect a much fuller statement on the con- ference than we have received today. It is rather a surprise to me that the Prime Mini- 50433-71û Commonwealth Conference ster has made his report on such an import- ant .conference so brief. It is very difficult for us in the opposition to realize just why so many of the things that we thought might have been brought out in the open were not mentioned in the statement. The tragie possibilities that are implied in hydrogen development make us all more or less stand aghast as to how far mankind has gone in planning its own destruction. As the right hon. Prime Minister has well said in the words of the Right Hon. Sir Winston Churchill, it may be-we all pray that it will be so-that the powerful destructive forces may destroy war rather than mankind it- self. As the Prime Minister stated, the Formosa situation developed at the same time as the conference and it is difficult to see how any such conference could deal very effectively with a situation like that with the seventh fleet of the United States moving alone to stand between Formosa and the mainland of China. I rather regret that something more was not said and more details given as to how far the conference got on economic problems. I lo feel that despite these international ten- sions we should not be overlooking entirely the problems of our own people in our own daily lives. These rather terrifying tensions are likely to be with us for some time but I do think that our common economic pro- gress is vital to the strength and livelihood of our whole scheme of defence and influence in the world. I am not going to enlarge on this but I just want to say that speaking for myself, and I think for the party which I lead tempora- rily, I am disappointed that the Prime Min- ister's statement was so very brief. Mr. Coldwell: When does the Prime Min- ister expect that we shall be able to discuss international matters? When is it the inten- tion to refer the estimates of the Department of External Affairs to the committee? Mr. St. Laurent: I have been discussing this with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) and I understand that he has important engagements that will take him out of town for Wednesday and Thurs- day. Mr. Coldwell: Early next week. Mr. Si. Laurent: I would hope that if it cannot be on Friday it would be early next week. [Later:] Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Alberi): Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement which the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has made, HOUSE OF COMMONS Commonwealth Conference and which in many details does not go even as far as the press went, I should like to ask a question. Among the questions referred to by the press was that there was to be a discussion as to a more equitable distribution in defence efforts. The Prime Minister stated that Canada's emphasis was going to be on continental defence. Would the Prime Minister say something with regard to that?- because there would appear to be a complete change of attitude from that indicated in the House of Commons. Mr. St. Laurent: I expressed no change of attitude. This conference was held in camera and there was a lot of speculation by newspapermen about what went on. I was rather surprised to read some of the reports. The only statement I made was that Canada was taking a substantial part under the North Atlantic treaty in building up the land and air defence forces in Europe and that developments in thermonuclear weapons and in the method of delivery had brought home to us the need of providing a warning system on the American continent which for geo- graphical reasons would have to be largely on Canadian territory. We felt that it was necessary to have that early warning system as one of the components of the deterrent effect of these weapons so that any potential enemy would realize that even a surprise attack would not make retaliation impossible. I added that our part in the establishment of such a system would place a heavy load on the Canadian people; that a large part of the financial burden would be borne by the United States but that Canada must play her part. It was most important that these things done on Canadian soil be a joint operation and be dealt with as such; and that there be nothing that would indicate that it was not something of interest to Canada as well as to the rest of the continent. I did say that I felt that both the Canadian and the American people would wish to feel, regarding this essential part of the shield and deterrent against war, that a proper balance was being maintained between what we were doing in Europe and what was being done on our own continent. As the industrial and productive potential of North America was of such importance in the build-up of the forces of the free world, it was felt that proper attention should be given to everything that was necessary to keep the whole defence set-up in its de- terrent effect in proper balance. I saw some report about my having made a comparison between Canada's defence ex- penditure and that of New Zealand. But [Mr. Diefenbaker.] nothing I said anywhere could be a founda- tion for that kind of report. That was not the atmosphere in which these matters were discussed. No invidious comparisons were made in any quarter. With reference to the assertion made that Canada was a wealthy country, I pointed out there were limits beyond which we could not go, and I felt our people would support any government in carrying what was considered its proper share in building up these joint defences. But I also pointed out that care had to be taken to maintain a proper balance in the manner in which expenditure was made, and that I did not think we were in a position where we could take on additional commitments in regard to these defences. Mr. Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask one other question. To what degree is Canada making a contribution to the build- ing of the northern screen to which the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) made ref- erence? I ask that because of the fact that the suggestion has been made that Canada should contribute to a strategic reserve of airborne troops, and that Australia and New Zealand agreed to give one division to that end for services outside their respective coun- tries. Did the Prime Minister take a stand against that on behalf of Canada? Mr. St. Laurent: I would prefer to read the exact words used by my hon. friend because I do not remember anything that would justify the statement that we took a stand against what was being done by others. I believe we have wider commitments out- side our own country, and more air and land forces stationed outside this country, in proportion to population, than any other of the commonwealth countries except perhaps the United Kingdom itself. HOUSING AvAILABILITY OF LOANS FOR HOME IMPROVEMENTS On the orders of the day: Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris): I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works what is causing the delay in bringing into operation the provisions of the National Housing Act making loans available for home improvements. Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works): To the best of my knowledge there is no delay. I see that at least one of the banks has advertised the availability of mortgage money for that purpose. FEBRUARY 14, 1955 Mr. Dinsdale: I believe there bas been some difficulty in obtaining schedule D, the appli- cation form which is necessary to make this particular section operative. Mr. Winters: I will look into that. I am not aware of any difficulty. NATIONAL DEFENCE RADAR DEFENCE LINES-AVAILABILITY OF CANADIAN FREIGHT AIRCRAFT On the orders of the day: Mr. John B. Hamilton (York West): Can the Minister of National Defence inform the house whether Canadian air carriers have sufficient freight aircraft of Canadian regis- try available to handle the airlift required in the construction of the D.E.W. line and the McGill fence? Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence): I cannot answer that question off- hand. I shall take it as notice. PRIVATE BILLS PROCEDURE WITH RESPECT TO DIVORCE BILLS Mr. Speaker: There are several divorce bills on the order paper. Shall they all be taken in one motion? Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): Mr. Speaker, before you put the question on this motion for these 26 divorce bills I would like to say a brief word with respect to them. Mr. Speaker: At the moment I am merely asking if it is the wish of bon. members to have all these bills moved in one motion for second reading. If there is not consent to do so I shall have to take them one by one. But if it is agreeable that they all be taken in one motion then I would like to know. Is it agreed? Some hon. Members: Agreed. SECOND READINGS-SENATE BILLS Mr. W. G. Weir (for Mr. Hunter) moved that the following bills be read the second time: Bill No. 67, for the relief of Vera Grace Westley Stewart.-Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 68, for the relief of Freda Margery Turton Pellerin.-Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 69, for the relief of Sieglinde Rosa Wolf Coss.-Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 70, for the relief of Marie Vina Lebel Duhamel.-Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 71, for the relief of Florence Pearl Loader Varden.-Mr. Hunter. Private Bills-Divorce Bill No. 72, for the relief of Ethel Elizabeth Smith Tero.-Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 73, for the relief of Elizabeth, Annabel Clouston Grandjean.-Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 74, for the relief of Miriam Rabi- novitch Yampolsky, otherwise known as Miriam Rabinovitch Pollack.-Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 75, for the relief of George Angus Robinson.-Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 76, for the relief of Gerald Willy Moore.-Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 77, for the relief of Desneiges Pri- meau Gagnon.-Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 78, for the relief of Gladys Krass- ner Garoff.-Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 79, for the relief of Margaret Aitken Robertson Comis.-Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 80, for the relief of Marie Rose Barsey De Board.-Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 81, for the relief of Maureen Theresa May Baker Reed.-Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 82, for the relief of Henry Schoen. -Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 83, for the relief of Harold Archie Donaghy.-Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 84, for the relief of Beatrice Ellis Oakes.-Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 85, for the relief of Rose Blum Brenner.-Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 86, for the relief of Georges Ovide Normand.-Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 87, for the relief of Marjory Grace Darling Downey Pickte11.-Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 88, for the relief of Francis Joseph Ellis.-Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 89, for the relief of John Mc- Kinnell.-Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 90, for the relief of Ada Garland Skakle Campbell.-Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 91, for the relief of Shirley Eliza- beth Saul Hutchison.-Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 92, for the relief of Rotha Dodgson Webb.-Mr. Hunter. Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the bouse to adopt the motion? Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): Mr. Speaker, there can be no ques- tion but that the procedure you asked me to follow was perfectly correct, but I did not want to run any risk of not being heard before this motion is put and carried. This is private members' day, and when we get to private members' resolutions I believe that one in my name may be called. Obviously, therefore, I am not going to spend very much time on this motion for the ap- proval of the 26 divorces which are on today's order paper. HOUSE OF COMMONS Private Bills-Divorce I wish to say though, Mr. Speaker, that I have taken the trouble to look through the evidence of these 26 divorce cases. In some instances I have read the evidence in full; in other cases my reading was more cursory, but I have gone through all of them. Reading these cases one is aware of the fact that we have before us at the present moment 26 tragic stories. Despite the tragedy of these cases, despite the evidence presented with respect to each of them, and despite the fact that I have read that evidence, I must say I do not yet feel in a position to pass judgment as to whether these 26 divorces should be granted. I suggest that if I feel that way, after having gone through the evidence in these 26 cases, there must be many other hon. members who, if they cared to say so, would indicate that they feel exactly the same. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe we should be dealing with this busi- ness at all. However, Your Honour has ruled -and the smile on your face would indicate that you are now ruling similarly once again -that one must not talk about the procedure by which we handle divorces, but should rather talk about the cases that are now before us. In that connection I wish to make refer- ence to something that came out in the com- mittee in the other place which deals with these divorces with respect to one of the cases. I do not intend to pinpoint any of the details given in this case, but I think it is only fair to indicate that the book of evi- dence I have in my hand relates to Bill No. 70, which is one of the divorces now before us. I can assure hon. members that what I refer to as having been brought out in this case is not on the seamy side, but rather indicates an awareness on the part of Their Honours in the other place that certain tricks are sometimes being pulled on Their Honours. I wish to congratulate Senator Roebuck and Senator Kinley on making it clear that there is one trick they want discontinued. In connection with this particular case they pointed out that the lawyer for the petitioner, even though he knew the name of the co-respondent, refrained frorn giving that name, and even went so far as to say that the adultery had been committed with a person unknown. I congratulate the chairman of that com- mittee, Senator Roebuck, on picking up that point. This is what he had to say: You see the problem is this, Mr. Masse,- [Mr. Knowles.] Mr. Masse is the lawyer in the case. -that woman should have been notified of these proceedings so that she could have a chance to come here and tell her story too. Mr. Masse: We have never done it so far. The Chairman: Well the sooner you get to it the better. Hon. Mr. Kinley: As a matter of fact you not only have not done it but you went out of your way to keep it in the dark, not you, but most who come here, they try to evade telling the name. The Chairman: You know that in the Ontario courts you have to get permission to plead "with persons unknown." You have to give the name of the respondent as well as that of the co- respondent unless the court orders otherwise. Mr. Masse: I have been before this committee a great number of times for the past 20 years and it has been a standing practice-I have never notified the co-respondent as a matter of fact, I have never mentioned it although on many occasions we knew the co-respondent, and I have never been told anything about it otherwise. The Chairman: Yes. We will pass if on this occasion but in future please observe the rules of the court in Ontario, and for all the provinces for that matter, with regard to co-respondents. They should be named and they should be notified. Then after another exchange there comes this further paragraph which I would like to quote: The Chairman: I agree that the practice here has been very confused in the past but the sooner we get to a better arrangement the better. Hon. Mr. Kinley: I am very happy to hear you say that. So, as I say, I congratulate Their Honours on picking up this particular trick that has been played by some of those who have appeared before them and on taking the stand that Senator Roebuck has taken in connection with this practice. I might say that, in connection with another of the bills that is before us-it happens to be Bill No. 67-Their Honours also discussed with a detective who was before them the question as to how they get into rooms where they have no right to barge in. They obtained from the detective the admission-and we all know it to be true-that they use ruses of various kinds; in other words, they just tell lies in order to get into rooms to collect their evidence. Mr. Diefenbaker: There is not much collu- sion there. Mr. Knowles: I think the whole matter is well put in the words of Senator Roebuck when he said, "I agree that the practice here has been very confused". It is confused, Mr. Speaker. We are all confused by the whole business and I think the best way to end the confusion would be for us to go out of this divorce business completely so far as parlia- ment is concerned. 1114 Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the bouse to adopt this motion for the second reading of these bills? Some hon. Members: Agreed. Mr. Knowles: On division. Mr. Speaker: On division. Motion agreed to on division and bils read the second time. QUESTIONS GUARANTEED ANNITAL WAGE Mr. Knowles: 1. How many collective agreements between em- ployers and employees in Canada include provision for a guaranteed annual wage? 2. How many employees are covered by such contracts? 3. Is the Department of Labour making any studies as to the possibility of encouraging more emnployers and employees to include provision for a guaranteed annual wage in their collective agreements? If so, are such studies available? Mr. Gregg: 1 and 2. A study of guaranteed wage and ernployment plans in collective agreements in a selected sample of 937 agreements cover- ing 610,000 workers or about 40 per cent of Questions the total number of workers under collec- tive agreements was publlshed in the Labour Gazette of September, 1953. In this sample two guaranteed annual wage plans were found in the manufacturing industries and three in non-manufacturing industries. The total number of workers covered by these five agreements was 1,900. One of the five plans has since been discontinued. In a survey of working conditions in April, 1954, which was answered by 6,684 manufac- turing establishments with 802,500 plant employees, eight establishments with total employment of 1,050 replied that they had an annual wage guarantee. 0f these eîght establishments, five reported having no col- lective agreement and in the remaining three plants a guaranteed annual wage provision was flot included in the agreements. 3. No; but studies of a general nature are made as indicated in answers 1 and 2. The usual practice followed is ta report on studies of this nature in the Labour Gazette. INcOME TAXES BY PROVINCES Mr. Hahn: What was the total stan received by the federal government in personal income taxes, corporation income taxes, and in any other levies on Dersons or bodies, by provinces, in each of the years 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953 and 1954? Mr. McCann: DEPARTMENT 0F NATIONAL REVENUE TAXATION DrvsioN Tax collections by provinces Fiscal years 1950 to 1954 inclusive Province Newfoundland ......................... Prince Edward Island .................. Nova Scotia ........................... New Brunswick........................ Quebec................................ Ontario................................ Manitoba.............................. Saskatche'wan ................ Alberta................................ British Columbia...................... Yukon........................ ........ Head Office ........................... 1949-1950 1950-1951 1951-1952 1952-1953 1953-1954 4,163,949 2,776,793 24,338,200 19,054,472 353,903,217 600,544,274 62,328,349 36, 258,273 65,037,219 131,588,237 762,434 26,167 il, 088,279 2,982,452 29,486,593 20,305,258 429,894,266 740,106,446 70,338,444 31, 139,066 71, 411, 626 149,064,858 1,058,101 120 19,267,532 2,812,260 35,558,408 31,116,418 611,157,042 1,046,968,377 90,710,410 34,397,747 91,030,280 239,463,705 1,564,123 s 25,976,056 3,305,279 46,593,471 34,425,033 698,658,372 1,242,324,676 111,255,398 48,0l15,412 121,442,870 259,708,170 2,255,881 23,667,694 3,028,174 41,164,738 34,334,163 674,801,460 1,297,787,761 111,993,299 58,1~47,234 134,548,814 236,283,544 2,284,218 Totals ................................. 1,300,781,584 1,556,875,509 2,204,046,302 2,593,960,618 2,618,041,099 PUGWASH, N.S.-WHARF Mr. Brooks: What was the total cost for (a) the construction cf the Pugwash wharf, Pugwash, Nova Scotia; (b) the necessary dredging around it for each year for the past seven years? Mr. Bourget: (a) The wharf was rebult in 1950-51 at a cost of $407,371.23. (b) 1947-48, nil; 1948-49, $108,262.63; 1949- 50, to 1952-53, nil; 1953-54, $83,060.41; 1954-55, (to date); $220.31. DOMINION~-PROVINCIAL AGREEMENTS-PROVINCIAL SUBISSIONS Mr. Argue: 1. Did any provincial government make any submission to the federal governent concerning ilisFEBRUARY 14, 1955 HOUSE OF COMMONS Questions the subject of dominion-provincial taxation agree- ments between September 20, 1954 and January 14, 1955? 2. If so, what was the nature of each submission, and what was the reply in each case? Mr. St. Laurent: 1. The only letter on this subject received by the federal government during this period was that of November 1, 1954, from Premier Duplessis of Quebec, and this letter was among those tabled in the House of Com- mons on January 17, 1955. 2. Answered by No. 1. HIGHWAY ACCIDENTS Mr. Fulton: 1. Are there available to the dominion govern- ment statistical records from which can be gathered particulars of (a) the numbers killed or fatally injured on the highways of Canada; (b) the num- bers of those injured but not fatally: (c) the total of property damage resulting from accidents on the highways of Canada. in each of the years 1930 to 1954 inclusive? 2. If so, what are the respective figures? 3. If not, (a) what information is available and can be given in partial answer to these questions; (b) what suggestions can be offered as to sources from which such information, or the balance thereof, can be obtained or on the basis of which a fair estimate can be made? Mr. Dickey: 1, 2 and 3. The number of persons killed, the number of persons injured, and the prop- erty damage resulting from motor vehicle traffic accidents as reported to the dominion bureau of statistics by the provincial auth- orities concerned are shown in the attached statement. A dominion-provincial conference on motor vehicle accident statistics was held Decern- ber 1-3, 1954 to provide for the expansion and standardization of statistics on motor vehicle traffic accidents. Persons killed, persons injured and property damage resulting from motor vehicle traffic accidents Number of Number of persons killed persons non- or fatally injured fatally injured 1930... ......................... . .................. 1931 ................................................ 1932 ....................................... .............. 19 3 3 . . . . . . . ...................... ...... ................ ... 19 34 ......... .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .. ... ... .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .. .. 19 3 5 . . . . . .. . . . . .................. ............ ........ 1936 ..................................................... 1937 ........................... ............ .............. 1938... ........................................... 1939................... ............................... 19 4 0 . . . . . .. ...................... ......................... 19 4 1 . .. . . . . . ..................... .................. .... ... 19 4 2 .. ..... . . . . . . . ............... ...................... ... 1943 ........................... .......................... 19 4 4 . . . . . . . . ............. ........ ......................... 1945 ................................................ 19 4 6 .. . . . . . . ..................... ......................... 1947 ........................... .... ...... ................ 19 4 8 . . . .. . . . ..................... ......................... 19 4 9 .. . . . . ...................... .... ..................... 1950 (Includes Newfoundland)............................. 195 1 ........................... 1952 ...... ... ... ... . .. .. ... . .... . 1953 1954 (Nine months ended Sept. 30)..................... 1,290 1,316 1,120 955 1,115 1,224 1,316 1,633 1,545 1,584 1,723 1,852 1,409 1,437 1,372 1,556 1,781 1,869 2,086 2,265 2,270 2,686 2,957 3,204 (10) not available 14,947(1) 17,998(2) 20,989 23,207(3) 25,703(3) 24,445(3) 25,104 29,504 30,984 22,809 20,390 20,228 24,422 30,679 32,682 38,098 43,883 37,031(6) 54,575(9) 57,738(9) 56,734 32,585(6) (11) Amount of property damage not available $ 4,888,306(4) $ 3,296,454(5) $ 2,911,735(5) $ 3,378,557(4) S 4,841,468(6) $ 7,034,498(6) $10,468,939(6) $14,757,646(6) $19,156,369(7) $24,288,504(8) $35, 366,171(6) (9) $38,078,139(8) (9) $46,616,853(8) $32,318,605(8) *Taken from vital statistics records. Included are persons killed and persons dying as the result of motor vehicle traffic accidents. **As reported by the provincial officials in charge of the administration of the motor vehicle and traffic acts and regulations. The estimates of property damage are for only those accidents which are reportable under the provincial motor vehicle acts which stipulate a minimum (which varies from province to province) below which it is not necessary to report the accident. (1) Excluding Prince Edward Island, Manitoba and Alberta. (2) Excluding Alberta. (3) Excluding Prince Edward Island. (4) Excluding New Brunswick and Quebec. (5) Excluding Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Quebec. (6) Excluding Quebec. (7) Excluding Nova Seotia and Quebec. (8) Excluding Quebec and Manitoba. (9) Excluding Newfoundland (outside St. John's). (10) The number of deaths from motor vehicle traffic accidents, Jan. 1-Sept. 30, 1954, reported by provincial authorities, was 1,288. This figure does not include Quebec.I (11) For the six months ended June 30, 1954, Quebec reported 7,073 persons injured. [Mr. Argue.] FEBRUARY 14, 1955 INFANT DEATHS Mr. Enfield: Is any federal assistance being given for re- search into the causes of infant deaths in Canada? Mr. Robertson: Yes, under the national health grants program payments have been made on projects approved amounting to over $52,600. These research. projects include one in Toronto and one in Winnipeg to study the causes of stillbirths and the deaths of newborn infants. The departments of obstetrics and pathology of the University of Toronto, and the research institute of the Hospital for Sick Children are collaborating in the study in Toronto. In Winnipeg the research is under the supervision of the department of pediatrics of the University of Manitoba. FLUORIDE Mr. Proudfoo: Has it been definitely proved that one part per million of fluoride in a water supply will help to prevent tooth decay? Mr. Robertson: Yes, to the extent of about 65 per cent. This has been proved by re- search studies carried out in Canada and in the United States, including one conducted by the Department of National Health and Wel- fare over the past eight years working in co-operation with the departments of health of the province of Ontario, Brant county, Lambton county, and the city of Stratford. INCOME TAX APPEAL BOARD Mr. Diefenbaker: 1. How many cases, by provinces, have been heard and decided by the income tax appeal board since its inception? 2. In how many of such cases, by provinces, has the decision been in favour of (a) the Department of National Revenue; (b) the taxpayer? 3. How many of the decisions, by provinces, rendered by the said board in favour of the tax- payer have been appealed to the exchequer court by the Department of National Revenue? Mr. McCann: 1. Number of appeals heard and decided by the income tax appeal board since its incep- tion-by provinces- Newfoundland ................... O Alberta .......................... 126 British Columbia ................. 173 M anitoba ........................ 88 New Brunswick .................. 15 Nova Scotia ..................... 17 Ontario ......................... 410 Prince Edward Island ............ 5 Quebec .......................... 293 Saskatchewan .................... 72 Total ........................... 1,199 50433-72 Questions (a) In favour of Department of National Revenue: Alberta 92 British Columbia 99 Manitoba 60 New Brunswick il Nova Scotia 12 Ontario 236 Prince Edw. Island 3 Quebec 166 Saskatchewan 43 (b) In favour of the taxpayer in whole or in part: 34 74 28 4 5 174 2 127 29 Total: 722 477 Note: In addition to the above, the income tax appeal board has dealt with 633 appeals which have either been withdrawn or in which judgments have been given following consent. These are as follows: Appeals allowed on consent Alberta 26 British Columbia 44 Manitoba 9 New Brunswick 8 Nova Scotia 6 Ontario 93 Prince Edw. Island 4 Quebec 72 Saskatchewan 15 Total: 277 Appeals dis- missed on withdrawal 30 47 27 10 15 125 5 73 24 356 3. Number of appeals, by provinces, in which the decision was in favour of the tax- payer and have been appealed to the ex- chequer court by the Department of National Revenue: A lberta .......................... 5 British Columbia ................. 11 Manitoba .......... 4 New Brunswick ................... 1 O ntario .......................... 44 Quebec .......................... 21 Saskatchewan .................... 3 Total: .......................... 89 Of these 89 decisions appealed, 24 were later withdrawn by the department. WESTMINSTER HOSPITAL, LONDON, ONT.- LANDsCAPING Mr. White (Middlesex East): 1. What was the total cost of landscaping the area surrounding the psychiatric wing of West- minster hospital, London, Ontario? 2. Was the contract let by tender, and if so, at what price? 1117 HOUSE OF COMMONS Questions 3. What was the name of the company involved? 4. What were the names of the subcontractors, If any? Mr. Bourget: 1. $10,485. 2. (a) Yes. (b) $10,485. 3. Sunnybrook nurseries, Toronto, Ontario. 4. Nil. Yukon Territory, the qualifications of such ap- plicant under the said section 10(1) should be determined by any person or officer other than the judge of such court or, in the province of Quebec, a district magistrate? 2. If so, (a) in what places and on what authority; (b) is any payment authorized to be made to such other person or officer? Mr. Pickersgill: 1. No. 2. See answer to No. 1. APPLICATIONS FOR CITIZENSHIP-QUALIFICATIONS POST OFFICE REVENUES, NICOLET-YAMASKA, QUE. Mr. Fulton: 1. Is it allowed or accepted that, where an applicant for Canadian citizenship appears under section 10(1) of the Canadian Citizenship Act, before a court as defined in the said act, in any place other than the Northwest Territories or the Mr. Kirk (Shelburne-Yarrnouth-Clare): 1948-49 1949-50 Nicolet ............ $20,279.94 21,883.34 St. Gregoire ....... .2,707.59 2,665.44 La Baie ........... .3,313.55 2,918.20 (Baie-du-Febvre) Pierreville ......... .5,996.14 5,393.24 Mr. Boisvert: What was the revenue for the fiscal years 1948-49, 1949-50, 1950-51, 1951-52, 1952-53 and 1953-54 of the following post offices in Nicolet-Yamaska: (a) Nicolet; (b) St. Gregoire (Nicolet); (c) Baie-du- Febvre (Yamaska); (d) Pierreville (Yamaska)? 1950 -51 21,799.23 2,869.01 3,419.75 1951 -52 29,273.92 3,273.34 4,624.38 1952 -53 42,437.85 3,268.85 5,196.05 1953 -54 56,354.15 2,861.62 5,520.86 5,605.75 6,057.42 6,955.91 6,858.69 FAMILY ALLOWANCES Mr. Cameron (High Park): 1. As of December 31, 1954, (a) h families were in receipt of family allow for how many children were the allowa 2. What was the total amount of fam ances paid in each province for Decem Mr. Robertson: 1. (a) 2,176,130; (b) 5,104,662. 2. Province Am Newfoundland ............. $ 1, Prince Edward Island ...... Nova Scotia ................ 1, New Brunswick ............ 1, Quebec .................... 9, Ontario .................... 9, M anitoba .................. 1, Saskatchewan .............. 1, Alberta .................... 2, British Columbia .......... 2, Yukon and Northwest Territories ............... Total ..................... 30, INDIANS-HEARINGS BY COMMISSIO Mr. Diefenbaker: 1. How many commissioners held heari the year 1954 on Indian reserves pu provisions of the Indian Act? 2. Who were the commissioners, and Indian reserves did each of them hold h 3. Which of the commissioners have ports to the minister or department? [Mr. White (Middlesex East).] ow many ances; (b) nces paid? 4. How many persons, if any, on each of the reserves were found not to be members of their respective bands by each of the said commis- sioners? Mr. Pickersgill: ily allow- ber, 1954. 2 and 3. Robert Harvey, Jr., BeeCher Bay, B.C., received; Alex S. Duncan, Hope, B.C., received; Alex S. Duncan, Langley, B.C., ount received; Alex S. Duncan, Ohamil, B.C., 006,112 received; Alex S. Duncan, Coquitlam, B.C., 216,310 received; Alex S. Duncan, Seabird Island, 436,921 B.C., reCeived; C. W. Morrow, Q.C., Upper 264,840 Nicola, B.C., received; C. W. Morrow, Q.C., 750,617 Lower Nicola, B.C., received; C. W. Morrow, 332,516 Q.C., Cook's Ferry, B.C., received; C. W. 569,047 Morrow, Q.C., Coldwater, B.C., received; 750,369 C. W. Morrow, Q.C., Okanagan, B.C., received; 140,142 C. W. Morrow, Q.C., Penticton, B.C., received; 313,645 Chas. H. Grant, Q.C., Blackfoot, Alta., not received; Chas. H. Grant, Q.C., Samson, Alta., 61,939 not received; E. H. Logan, Driftpile, Alta., not received; E. H. Logan, Beaver, Horse 842,458 Lake, Alta., not received; L. Trelenberg, Peepeekeesis, Sask., received; L. Trelenberg, Okanese, Sask., received; J. Glass, Carry the NERS Kettie, Sask., received; J. Glass, Muscow- petung, Sask., receiveci; J. Glass, Pasqua, Sask., received; H. J. Fraser, Mistawasis, ngs during Sask., received; H. J. Fraser, Beardy's and rsuant to Okemasis, Sask., received; Alex. W. Prociuk, in which Muskeg Lake, Sask., not received; Alex. W. earings? Prociuk, One Arrow's, Sask., not received; made re- rce, Alex. W. Prociuk, James Smith, Sask., not Motions for Papers 4. The commissioners were appointed under part Il of the Inquiries Act. The duties of the commissioners were to investigate and report to the registrar. Decisions on protests must be made by the registrar pursuant to subsection 2 of section 9 of the Indian Act. CUSTOMS REVENUES, ETC., NICOLET, QUE. Mr. Eoisver±: What was the revenue of the Nicolet office, for the fiscal years 1948-49, 1949-50, 1950-51, 1951-52, 1952-53 and 1953-54 with respect to: (a) the customs duties; (b) the excise duties and sales tax? received; Harvey J. Bell, Red Pheasant, Sask., received; Harvey J. Bell, Saulteaux, Sask., received; Harvey J. Bell, Poundmaker, Sask., received; C. D. C. Blackburn, Q.C., Thunder- child, Sask., flot received; A. M. Kindred, Kinistino, Sask., flot received; A. M. Kindred, Poorman, Sask., flot received; A. M. Kindred, Gordon, Sask., flot received; C. B. McGregor, Key, Sask., received; E. G. Porter, Q.C., Lonlg Plain, Man., received; James F. Aniderson, Fairford, Manl., received; W. P. Telford, Jr., Chippewas of Nawash, Ont., received; A.* S. Pettapiece, Nipissing, Ont., received. Mr. McCann: 1948-49 1949-50 1950-51 1951-52 1952-53 1953-54 NOTE' (a) Import Duties $ 50,216.71 38,653.95 56,739.03 59,241.82 63,721.04 192,298.12 (a) Customs duties taken from annual reports of Department of National Revenue. (b) Excise taxes taken from annual reports of Department of National Revenue. This includes both sales and excise taxes. No excise duties were collected at this port for the years referred to. QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN (b) Excise Taxes $174,957.37 129,515.86 140,403.28 170,93 1.21 180,038.83 334,815.80 Sundry Collections .80 .50 17.70 31.25 94.50 Total Revenue $225,174.88 168,169.81 197,142.81 230,190.73 247,791.12 527,208.42 MOTIONS FOR PAPERS TRAIN WRECI<, AVOLA, B.C. Mr. Hahn: For a copy of ail correspondence, letters, tele- grams, and other documents exchanged between the Department of Transport. the board of railway commissioners and/or others, pertainlng to Mr. A. G. Webster, conductor. relative to a train wreck on Canadian National Railways track at Avola, British Columnbia, on May 28, 1942. He said: Mr. Speaker, I have received the information through other channels. With the permission of the house I should like to withdraw the motion. NATIONAL REVENUE BUILDINGS, NEW BRUNSWICK Mr. Speaker: Has the hon. gentleman leave to withdraw this motion? Mr. Montgomery: 1. How many buildings have been constructed since January 1, 1950 for the Department of Na- tional Revenue and/or its employees at the follow- ing places of entry into New Brunswick from the state of Maine: (a) Union corner; (b) Woodstock Road; (c) Belleville; (d) Bloomfield; (e) River de Chute; (f) Mare Hill road; (g) Beaconsfield; (h) Andover; (il Four Fanls; (j) Grand Falls, (k) Hamlin; (1) Fosterville? 2. 0f the above buildings, how many (a) houses, showing number of rooms; (b) garages, single or double; (c) offices; (d) terminais? 3. What is the type of construction of each? 4. What is the total cost of each, includlng furnishings, heating systems, grading, and lawns and defences? 5. Are any vacant at the present? If so. how many? 6. Are any buildings under construction at any of these places? 7. If so. of what nature and what has been the expenditure on each to date? Some hon. Members: Agreed. PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE ACT, MANITOBA Mr. Dinsdale: For a copy of all correspondence, letters. tele- grams and other documents exchanged from Janu- ary 1, 1950 to date. between the federal Department of Agriculture and the provincial governiment of Manitoba snd other groups and Individuals in that province, relative to the administration of the Prairie Fsrrn Assistance Act in Manitoba. Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion? Mr. Gardiner: Subject to the usual privi- leges. Mr. Speaker: This motion is carried sub- ject to the reservations made by the Minister of Agriculture. 50433-721 1119FEBRUARY 14, 1955 HOUSE OF COMMONS Motions for Papers QUEEN ELIZABETH HOTEL, MONTREAL Mr. Diefenbaker: For a copy of all letters and communications since the lst day of August, 1954, written by the minister, deputy minister or any officiais in the Department of Transport to the Canadian Na- tional Railways, or any officer or official thereof, concerning the leasing of or intended leasing or management agreement of the Queen Elizabeth hotel in the city of Montreal to the Hilton Hotels Corporation. Mr. Marler: Mr. Speaker, on Monday, February 7, the house considered a motion by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) asking for the production of correspondence between the Department of Transport and the Canadian National Rail- ways respecting the so-called lease of the Queen Elizabeth hotel. I took the position that this concerned a matter of internal oper- ation of the railway and that it should not be accepted by the house. That motion was dropped from the order paper. The hon. member's motion which is now before us, while differently worded to some extent, is in effect the same as the motion which was dropped in that it requests, just as the other motion did, correspondence between the department and the Canadian National Railways in regard to the operation of the Queen Elizabeth hotel. My position on this motion must be as it was on the previous motion. It seeks cor- respondence written by the minister, deputy minister or any officials in the Department of Transport to the Canadian National Rail- ways or any officer or official thereof concerning the subject of the motion. Corres- pondence between departments of govern- ment and the Canadian National Railways has always been considered privileged, just as correspondence within departments is considered privileged. With respect, I would ask, therefore, that the motion be withdrawn. Mr. Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, do you allow any argument at the moment on that question? The question was raised the other day and at that time Your Honour said that you were making no ruling. In view of that fact and so that there would be no appeal from a decision as yet unmade and also out of respect to Your Honour, no appeal was made at that time. Is your Honour going to allow any argument at this time respecting this matter which has the effect of muzzling parliament in the search for truth? It is not the same motion as was made the other day; far from it. Mr. Speaker: Would the hon. member allow me to say this? The other day I made an appeal. As the hon. member says, I did [Mr. Speaker.] not make a ruling. I just made an appeal that when these motions are refused for, if I may use the term, standard reason-and by that I mean for reasons which have al- ways been invoked in similar circumstances by those who have occupied the treasury benches so far as I am able to ascertain, looking into the records-members should not provoke a recorded division on every occasion. That was the sort of appeal I was making, having in mind that we might ex- pedite the business of the house if, whenever a motion of that type is refused, we were not to have a recorded division. That was the purpose of my appeal the other day. I did not intend to say anything today because I have had private conversations with some of my colleagues and it appeared that the re- marks I had made the other day had worried some of them. If I had said anything today it would merely have been to put them at their ease. I recognize that in all cases when a motion is before the bouse the house, if it so wishes, must make a decision by what- ever machinery is at its disposal. What the bon. member is asking me today has nothing to do with the remarks I made the other day. If lie is influenced by what I said the other day, I repeat that lie should be quite at ease because it was merely an appeal and it had to do ýwith the situation whereby a recorded division is asked for on every occasion. As hon. members know, the opinion of the house is not necessarily made known by a recorded division. That was the only point I was trying to make the other day. But what the hon. member has asked me today is if I will allow a debate. I am re- stricted by standing order 51. In moving his motion the hon. member indicated by placing an asterisk beside it that lie did not wish to have a debate. Standing order 51 says: Notices of motion for the production of papers which the member asking for the same intends to move without discussion, shall be marked by him with an asterisk and shall be placed by the Clerk on the order paper above "notices of motions", under the heading "notices of motions for the production of papers". All such notices when called shall be forthwith disposed of; The last part of the standing order reads as follows: but if on any such motion a debate be desired, it will be transferred by the Clerk to the order of "notices of motions". It is the privilege, indeed, it is the right of any member of the house to ask that a notice of motion for the production of papers be transferred to notices of motions if a debate is desired. I know the hon. member will tell me, and not without justification, that when a minister stands up and says that lie refuses the motion for such and such a reason he is debating the motion. Perhaps before giving FEBRUARY 14, 1955 his reasons for refusing, the minister him- self might ask to have the motion transferred to notices of motions in order to be able to say those words. However, that has not been the practice. On these non-debatable motions ministers have been allowed to explain why they were refusing the production of papers and, as I say, I am restricted by the require- ments of standing order 51. Mr. Diefenbaker: Could I rise on a point of order? Mr. Speaker: Yes. Mr. Diefenbaker: My hon. friend says that the document is a privileged one. Mr. Marier: I did not say the document was. I said that such correspondence has always been looked upon as privileged. Mr. Diefenbaker: I rise on a point of order on the basis of authorities which indicate that these letters are not privileged. I have not asked for documents in the possession of the Canadian National Railways. I have asked for the production of the documents in the hands of the government. I am not going into the rule and the different citations on the subject, but they are to the effect that the rule of non-production of railway docu- ments and the like applies only because of the fact that the documents are not in the possession of any department of govern- ment. Therefore when my hon. friend says that it is not in the public interest my sub- mission is that such a doctrine cannot apply except when the security of the state is chal- lenged or where a matter arises which, in the interests of security, should be denied to the house. Therefore I wish to press the motion. Mr. Marier: Speaking on the point of order, I did not say at any time during my remarks this afternoon that this was a matter of public interest. All I said was that corres- pondence between the minister, officers and officials of the department and Canadian National Railways had always been looked upon as privileged correspondence. Mr. Fulton: Speaking on the point of order, my understanding is that when that ruling was first laid down it was at a time when the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen was prime minis- ter, and he took the position as the responsible prime minister of the day that these docu- ments were not producible because they were not in the possession of the government. I submit to Your Honour that it is through a misapprehension of the position taken by the prime minister of that day that the practice now followed by the minister has grown up Motions for Papers of stating baldly and sweepingly that cor- respondence with Canadian National Rail- ways is in the class of privileged documents. That was not the point made by the prime minister in 1921, and his position will be found at page 1004 of Hansard of that year. He went into the matter at some length. He took the position then that documents or correspondence in the possession of the railways obviously would not be producible by the government and that therefore no motion for their production could be brought in the house. As the hon. member for Prince Albert has pointed out, his motion calls for copies of the letters from the government to the railways, which obviously must be in the possession of the government, and what we are asking now is that the government produce those documents. Since the minister himself has said just now that he does not suggest that they be refused on the ground that they are privileged documents- Mr. Martin: He never said that. Mr. Fulton:-then I suggest that he comply with the order. I would also refer Your Honour and the house to a citation in the fourth edition of Bourinot which is not exactly in point but is very close to the point under discussion. It is found at page 253 and is cited with approval by Bourinot at the bot- tom of that page. He is discussing the ques- tion of producing documents and the grounds upon which they may from time to time be refused. He says: And on a later occasion it was declared by Sir Robert Peel that "where parliament bas given peculiar privileges to any body of men, as, for example, banks or railway companies, it has a right to ask that body for information upon points which it deems necessary for the publie advantage to have generally understood." It goes on, and I want to place the whole thing on record so that I will not be under the suspicion of having quoted only a part of it. It continues: The point to be aimed at in such inquiries, he considered to be "that while you extract ail the information the public require to have. you should, at the sane time, avoid ail vexatious interference in the details of the business of the respective undertakings." I suggest to you, sir, that it is not open to the minister to suggest that the request for the production of copies of these letters, seeking information with regard to the mana- gerial agreement between Canadian National Railways and the Hilton Hotels Corporation, which information is in the possession of the government, can be regarded as vexatious interference but rather that it is merely par- liament asking the government, with respect to this correspondence with the railway, for HOUSE OF COMMONS Motions for Papers information upon points which it deems nec- essary for the public advantage to have gen- erally understood. In that regard I submit to Your Honour that this is a point about which the public are greatly concerned, in which public welfare is most certainly involved, to which public moneys are to be devoted, and that therefore it is for the public advantage to have the correspondence pro- duced. Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to hon. members who have taken part in the discussion. I must say, however, that some of the points that have been made pertain rather to the debatable side of the matter between mem- bers of the house themselves in which it is difficult for me to intervene because I can- not take part in debates. It is a borderline case. If I were to refute or comment in any way upon some of the points advanced it might lead some hon. members to say that I was debating a matter which is not within my province to debate. On the other hand, if I make a slip perhaps I can be forgiven because I will try to be very careful and will do some fancy skating in order to put my own views before the house strictly from the point of view of order. I have here before me the reference made by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) with respect to the statement made by Mr. Meighen in 1921. As a matter of fact, the day after I made some remarks as to the question of the pro- duction of papers, I did refer hon. members to that very question which appears in the debates of 1921. To justify my appeal, I did refer bon. members on February 7 to Bourinot, fourth edition, pages 249 to 254; Todd's Parlia- mentary Government in England, revised by Spencer Walpole, volume Il, pages 157 to 160; and also to the Debates of March 17, 1921, at pages 1003 and 1004, volume IL. See also Debates, page 694, volume 1, 1932-33. Inasmuch as bon. members of the govern- ment consider that the production of papers relating to affairs of the Canadian National Railways is, by practice, to fall in the same classification as those which are refused because they are privileged, and of a per- sonal or confidential character, we must look at the refusal given by the ministers to these motions for the production of papers in the light of the general theory which I find very clearly expressed in Todd's Par- liamentary Government, volume II, as revised by Spencer Walpole. I would refer hon. members to page 157, where they will find this: The rule which forbids any encroachment by parliament upon the executive authority of the crown has a further application, to which our attention must now be directed. [Mr. Fulton.] It is imperative that parliament shall be duly informed of everything that may be necessary to explain the policy and proceedings of government in any part of the empire; and the fullest informa- tion is communicated by government to both houses, from time to time, upon all matters of public concern. For it is in parliament that authoritative statements are made, or information given, by ministers upon public questions; and no action in, parliament should be based upon declarations of policy made elsewhere. Considerations of public policy, and a due regard to the interests of the state, occasionally demand, however, that information sought for by members of the legislature should be withheld, at the discretion and upon the general responsibility of ministers. This principle is systematically recognized in all parliamentary transactions: were it other wise, it would be impossible to carry on the government with safety and honour. Whenever it is declared, by the responsible servants of the crown, that any information sought for in parlia- ment could not be supplied without inconvenience to the public service, or for other sufficient reasons, the house refrains from insisting upon its production. And if the government object to produce any documents, on the ground that they are of a private and confidential description, it is not usual to insist upon their being furnished, except under peculiar and imperative circumstances. It was based upon that general theory, which bas been followed in practice by all governments I have known in this country since confederation, that I made an appeal that whenever a motion is refused for what I might be permitted to call standard reasons, a recorded division perhaps should not be asked on every occasion. That was the sense of my appeal the other day. I am not in a position, because I have not the authority, to decide upon the point brought out by the bon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), as to the inter- pretation given by Mr. Meighen in 1921 with respect to certain documents pertaining to the affairs to the C.N.R. management, which he said should not be produced. That is a debatable point which I should net be called upon to decide. And if I were to decide that the minister's interpretation of practice with respect to these things is not the proper one, and were to condemn Mr. Meighen's opinion as expressed in 1921, how do I have authority to force a minister to produce documents? The hon. member will recall that there was a case of that kind two years ago when he, himself, protested against a refusal to pro- duce documents by the treasury benches, and he asked Mr. Speaker Macdonald to order that certain documents be produced. The hon. member will recall what Mr. Speaker Macdonald said at that time, as I must say today, "I have no authority to order a minister to produce documents he feels should not be produced." See Debates, April 28, 1952, pages 1648-1651, volume II. FEBRUARY 14, 1955 That is my Position. As I understand it, the hon. member wishes to collect the voices and to divide the house. The house divided on the motion whicb was negatived on the following division: YEAS Argue Bennett, Miss (Halton) Blackmore Blair Bryce Cameron (Nanaimo) Campbell Cardiff Castleden Charlton Churchill Coldwell Diefenbaker Dinsdale Ellis Fairclough, Mrs. Fulton Gagnon Gillis Girard Green Hahn Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace) Hamilton (York West) Hansell Harkness Hodgson Holowach Johnson (Kindersley) essrs: Johnston (Bow River) Tones Knight Knowles Leboe Low Macdonnell Maclnnis McBain McGregor McLeod Mitchell (London) Montgomery Nesbitt Noseworthy Pearkes Quelch Rowe Shaw Small Stanton Stewart (Winnipeg North) Thatcher Thomas Trainor Tustin Winch Wylie Yuill Zaplitny-59. 1AYS Messrs: Anderson Applewhaite Arsenault Ashbourne Benidickson Bertrand Blanchette Boisvert Boucher (Restigouche- Madawaska) Bourget Brown (Brantford) Brown (Essex West) Bruneau Buchanan Byrne Campney Cardin Carrick Carter Cavers Dechene Deschatelets Dickey Dumas Dupuis Enfield Fairey Follwell Forgie Fraser (St. John's East) Gardiner Garson Gauthier (Lake St. John) Gauthier (Nickel Belt) Gauthier (Portneuf) Gingras Goode Gour (Russell) Gregg Habel Hardie Harrison Henry Herridge Hosking Houck Howe (Port Arthur) Huffman James Jutras Kickham Kirk (Antigonish- Guysborough) Kirk (Shelburne- Yarmouth-Clare) LaCroix Lafontaine Langlois (Gaspe) Lapointe Lavigne Legare Lusby MacDougall MacEachen MacNaught McCann McCubbin Motions for Papers Mclvor Robichaud McMillan Robinson (Simcoe East) Marler Rouleau Martin St. Laurent Matheson Shipley, Mrs. Michaud Simmons Murphy (Westmorland) Sinclair Nicholson Stick Pearson Stuart (Charlotte) Philpott Studer Pickersgill Tucker Pinard Valois Pommer Villeneuve Pouliot Weaver Power (St. John's West) Weir Prudham Weselak Purdy White (Waterloo South) Richard (Ottawa East) Winters-102. Robertson Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) would like to have a further reference with regard to this matter. He will find this at page 1178 of Hansard of 1921 where an amendment to the motion that Mr. Speaker do leave the chair for the house to go into committee of supply had been moved by Mr. King. He will see that Mr. Meighen restates the posi- tion which he had taken earlier as reported on pages 1003 and 1004 of Hansard. This particular reference will be found at page 1180. It might help the member to clarify his own stand with respect to this type of motion in the future. G. M. FERRIE Mr. Nicholson: For a copy of the expense accounts submitted by G. M. Ferrie of the Department of Agriculture for the year 1954. CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ADVISABILITY OF BALLOT WITH RESPECT TO PAYMENT OF MEMBERSHIP DUES On the order: Mr. Decore-The following proposed resolution: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of empowering the Canadian wheat board to conduct a ballot, by mail, of the grain producers holding permit books to ascertain the wishes of such producers as to the wheat board complying with orders signed by such producers directing the wheat board to pay mem- bership dues to farm organizations from money due such producers from the sale of their grain by the wheat board. Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Vegre- ville (Mr. Decore) has had to absent himself until February 21 because of a death in his family. He bas asked me to ask the house for unanimous consent to have his motion remain on the order paper. Sorne hon. Members: Agreed. HOUSE OF COMMONS Income Tax Act INCOME TAX ACT PROPOSED AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO MEDICAL EXPENSES Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) moved: That, in the opinion of this house, the govern- ment should give consideration to the advisability af introducing legisiation amending the Incarne Tax Act so as to remove therefrom the 3 per cent floor in relation to the deductibility of medical expensesfor incarne tax purpases. He said: Mr. Speaker, I have read with considerable interest what I regard as a very fine speech which was made on Saturday, just two days ago, by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), who was officiating at a very important event, namely the opening of the Carleton Place and district memorial hospital situated at Carleton Place in this province. I am told by my hon. friend who sits not far from me, the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair), that it was very coldup there on Saturday and the minister wasnot able to give the whole of the speech thathe had prepared because it had to be deliv- ered outside. I can quite realize that but I regret that the minister's address had tobe curtailed, for I have a copy of it in myhand, and it was a fine speech. I find that the Minister of National Healthand Welfare quoted with approval the wordsof President Eisenhower of the United Statesin his message to congress which was giventwo weeks ago. He quoted in particular thesewords: Because the strength of sur nation is in itspeople, their good health 13 a praper nationalconcern. The Minister of National Health and Wel- fare also quoted with similar approval the con- cluding words of the late Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King when he informed palia- ment in May 1948 of the governmend', inten- tion to inaugurate a national health grants program. Those concluding words which were repeated on Saturday by the Minister of National Health and Welfare were: Our greatest national asset is the health andwell-being ai aur people. I could not agree more than I do with President Eisenhower the late W. L. Mac- kenzie King and with the Minister of National Health and Welfare. However, I have in my hand another document, an income tax form. Not many people get hold of the speeches of the Minister of National Health and Wel-fare, but that is not his fault. Mr. Martin: May I ask my hon. friend howhe got hold off a copy off the speech to which he has paid such high tribute? An hon. Member: It is a privileged docu- ment. [Mr. Speaker.] Mr. Knowles: May I ask the minister if it is a privileged document? Mr. Martin: My question was how the hon. member got hold of a speech to which he has paid such high tribute. Mr. Knowles: Either the minister or his department made a considerable supply avail- able to the press gallery. Mr. Martin: The hon. member bas not answered my question. Mr. Knowles: Most hon. members of this house visit the press gallery from time to time. I was up there this morning and found still posted there for all to read, and I am sure that that is what the minister wanted- I am sure if he does not get sufficient publicity he will be grateful to me for calling attention to it-a number of copies of this speech. As I have already indicated, not everyone gets the speeches of the Minister of National Health and Welfare but almost everyone does get in one form or another a copy of the income tax return. Mr. McCann: Hear, hear. Mr. Knowles: I hear the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) saying "hear, hear". He is not asking me how I got hold of this. This is not a privileged document for he makes them available high, wide and handsorne. Mr. Diefenbaker: You would not get that by means of a motion on the order paper. Mr. Knowles: The hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) suggests that I should not try to get anything like this bymeans of a motion for I would not be verysuccessful. On page 4 of the T1 general form for 1954, the income tax return, I find that among the expenses which you can deduct for income tax purposes if you are an income tax payer using this form is an item cover- ing repairs. I hasten to add that the repairs referred to are repairs to buildings, machinery and fishing equipment. I have looked over this return very care- fully and I have looked over the act on which it is based and I find that there is no limita- tion with regard to that right. You can deduct the cost of repairs to buildings,machinery or fishing equipment-in other words, repairs to property-right from the first dollar. Despite the excellent words used on Satur- day by the Minister of National Health and Welfare about health being a proper national concern, despite the way in which he joined with President Eisenhower, the late Mackenzie King and others of us who have taken that view, I find that when it comes to the cost of FEBRUARY 14. 1955 repairs to the human body it is a different story. You can deduct expenses for repairs of that kind only after they exceed 3 per cent of your personal income. In my view that is a discrepancy and an unfairness that should be corrected. If it is proper in the view of the government that the cost of repairs to property should be considered a deductible expenditure for income tax purposes starting with the first dollar, the same should apply to expenses for repairs to the human body, or medical expenses, right from the first dollar. I must say that I am indebted to a friend of mine in the press gallery for drawing to my attention just after a debate similar to this one finished a year ago a letter which appeared in the New York Times in February, 1954. I do not know the Leslie Handler who wrote the letter, but he certainly knew what he was talking about. He dis- cussed the effect of the federal administra- tion's taxation program in the United States. He discusses the very point I have tried to make this afternoon, namely that in that country-and the same thing is true here- better consideration is given by the income tax authorities to repairs to property than is given to necessary repairs to the human body. I would like to quote from this letter which appeared in the New York Times: Take the matter of repairs. All reasonable costs of necessary repairs to business property are good tax deductions. But if an Individual suffers illness he may not deduct medical expenses unless they exceed 5 per cent of his gross income. That of course refers to the United States. The writer goes on to point out that there are maximum limits as well. Later on in this same letter the writer puts it this way: My suggestion is to treat the taxpayer as a person no worse than we treat his property. At least let him deduct the cost of the "repairs" to his person without limitations. As I said, I hope the Minister of National Health and Welfare still has additional copies of the excellent speech he made on Saturday and that he will send a marked copy of it to his colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) and remind him that it is the view of the government that good health is a proper national concern, and that it is also the view of the government that our greatest national asset is the health and well-being of our people. If it is the view of the government that the health of the people is our greatest national asset, surely that asset should be given at least as favourable consideration by the Minister of Finance when he comes to income tax matters as that given to other assets such as property. That, Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, is the purpose of the motion now before the Income Tax Act house. This motion asks that the government give consideration to the advisability of introducing legislation amending the Income Tax Act so as to remove therefrom the 3 per cent floor in relation to the deductibility of medical expenses for income tax purposes. The aspect of the legislation which requires to be amended is well known, but- Mr. Dickey: Would the hon. member per- mit a question? I am just wondering if the hon. member would be good enough to tell us if, following out the logic of his argument up to now, he would also suggest that a formula be worked out so that taxpayers could charge some rate of depreciation each year in accordance with advancing years? Mr. Knowles: As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Dickey) must have seen the letter in the New York Times to which I refer. He shakes his head. Well, this writer in the New York Times suggests exactly that, in addition to the proposal he made. Perhaps I could bet- ter put it this way. He believes that some allowance should be made for the deprecia- tion of the human body, but because of the difficulties involved in such a course-and this is the whole point of the letter-the government should at least allow the de- ductibility of medical expenses right from the first dollar rather than after a certain percentage of income. Now, Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that this matter is pretty well known I was about to say that perhaps one or two facts about the legislation and what we are trying to do might once again be put on the record. As hon. members know, the provision for the deductibility of medical expenses for income tax purposes was first brought in by Mr. Ilsley when he was minister of finance. It was brought in so as to apply for the year 1943. In that year deductibility was allowed for expenses in excess of 5 per cent of one's total income. In 1944 we had a debate in this house during which it was urged that the floor be removed or the percentage reduced. Despite the fact that Mr. Ilsley made no reference to this in his budget speech he did respond to appeals made from the floor of the bouse and during the 1944 session the 5 per cent floor was reduced to 4 per cent. It stayed there until 1953. As hon. members know, a good many speeches were made in the interval and a good many appeals were made to the government in this regard. We had motions, procedural difficulties, and many debates on the issue. Finally, and I think it is fair to say as a result Income Tax Act of the attention drawn to this question in the house, the floor was reduced to 3 per cent in 1953. I do not think one should fail to note the coincidence that there was also an election that year. However, there it stands now. The taxpayer can now deduet his medical expenses from his income before he computes his taxes, but he can deduct only that portion of his expenses which is in excess of 3 per cent of his total income. Even there perhaps I have to make one slight qualification. Total income in this connection refers to income left after you deduct one or two items such as trade union dues and pension fund con- tributions, but before you deduct the $1,000 or $2,000 statutory exemption plus whatever exemption you may have for children. Thus for all practical purposes the 3 per cent floor relates to your total income. If you have an income of $2,500 a year, you can deduct only that portion of your medical expenses which is in excess of $75. If you have an income of $5,000 a year, you can deduct only that portion of medical expenses which is above $150. I have pointed out on previous occasions that there are at least two other limiting factors in connection with this right of deduct- ibility for medical expenses. One of these limiting factors is the absolute ceiling in terms of how much you can deduct no matter how high your expenses might be. I know there are some hon. members who do not agree with that ceiling and believe there should be no ceiling at all. For my part I wish to make it perfectly clear that I have no quarrel with the ceiling. My quarrel is with the floor. I think we should be concerned about this in regard to those in the lower brackets rather than those in the upper income brackets who can afford out- landish medical expenses. The purpose of my motion is to help those who need help the most. It is true that those with larger incomes would also get help, but there is a limit on the help they would get. That ceiling in terms of absolute dollars is in the legislation and it is spelled out in the income tax forms, and I am not asking for any change in the ceiling in regard to the amount that can be deducted. There is another limiting factor and that is that you can deduct only those kinds of expenses which are spelled out in the act, and of course you must have receipts for them. For the most part the kind of expenses you can deduct is limited to the bills you pay to doctors, dentists, nurses and hospitals, and for a few selected drugs. There are one or [Mr. Knowles.] two other types of things but they are rather limited. I believe, as I have said on previous occasions, that the limitation on the kind of things you can deduct detracts to a con- siderable extent from the right of this deductibility. Everyone knows that when illness strikes there are expenses other than those spelled out in the act. If the breadwinner is away from work there is a loss of income. If an illness is suffered by the mother there can be extra expenses because of the help that has to be engaged while she is in hospital. Mr. Benidickson: That is deductible under certain circumstances. Mr. Knowles: Yes, under certain circum- stances, but in the main I believe the par- liamentary assistant will agree that there are many expenses associated with illness which are not deductible at all. I recognize the administrative problem of allowing all the expenses that a person suf- fering illness might claim to be expenses relat- ing to an illness. But it is because of that difficulty that I believe the 3 per cent floor should be removed and the government should at least allow what one pays to hospitals, doc- tors, nurses, dentists and so on to be deduc- tible from the very first dollar. As to these three limitations, namely the ceiling, the definition and the floor, I think I have made it perfectly clear that I have no quarrel with the ceiling; that I think the defi- nition is too narrow, though I am not in this motion asking for any change; but that I feel strongly that the floor is wrong. I think it is wrong in principle, unfair to the taxpayer and inconsistent with the statements of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) about the health and well-being of our people being our greatest national asset. My request to this bouse once again is that we pass this motion asking the government to consider removing this 3 per cent floor. Mr. Speaker, I made a comparison today between medical expenses and the treatment accorded to repairs to property. As I say, I think that the same amount of fairness should be accorded to one expense as to the other. I also remind the house, as I have done on previous occasions, of something else, namely that the government accords better treatment to donations to approved charitable organizations than it does to medi- cal expenses. I approve of the position taken by the government with respect to charitable donations and I agree with the principle and the formula that it applies to those donations. But I want to say again that it seems to be unfair-and the more I think over this matter, the more I come back to it year after HOUSE OF COMMONS1126 FEBRUARY 14, 1955 ,year, the more it seems to me to be unfair -that the governrnent should not accord to medical expenses that people pay of neces- sity at least the samne treatment as is accorded to donations to charity which are made volun- tarily. Perhaps the best way in which to spel this point out is to do what the parliamentary assistant will tell me I have done a good many times, and that is to put a few exarn- pies on the record. He knows the cases that I have taken in previous years, and probably he expects me to take the sarne cases today with up-to-date figures. I amrn ot going to disappoint him. I arn going to do precisely that; and if he has done his arithrnetic by way of homework, hie will be able to check on them. Let me take two or three cases. First, there is the case of the married couple with no children and having an incorne of $2,400 a year. If there are no other factors entering into the picture, the total income tax they would pay, according ta the rules now in effect, would be $68. If that couple has rnedi- cal bis of $200, the operation of the 3 per cent floor is such that they would save only $21.76. The amount of tax they would pay would be $46.24 which is a saving of $21.76 as compared with the normal tax of $68. But if, instead of being faced with $200 medical bills which they are obliged ta pay, that same couple were to give away $200 ta an approved charity, they would save $34 against their income tax. That is a typical case. The gov- ernment grants income tax rebate with respect ta $200 given to charity ta tI3e arnount of $34 but only $21.76 if the same amount is paid out on medical bis. Let us take the case of a married couple with two children where the incarne is $3,600 a year. Let us assume medical bis of $300 during the course of the year. That couple's tax, before any deductions, wouid be $227. The allowable deduction above the 3 per cent floor would resuit in their paylng $190.52 or a saving of $36.48. I repeat that would be a saving of $36.48 in respect of $300 medical expenses. But if that same farnlly gave away $300 to an approved charity, the saving which wouid accrue to thern from the income tax departrnent would be $57. It is that in- equality which I think is unfair: to give ta that farnily $57 of incorne tax saving if they give away $300 but only $36.48 if they have ta spend $300 on medical bills. I agree with the provision that the $57 in that case should be allowed for charitable donations but I contend that at ieast the same aliowance should be made in respect of medical expenses. Let me move on ta the case of a couple with two children, with total incarne of $5,000 Incarne Tax Act a year. Their tax before any deductions would be $507. If they have $500 medical expenses they would pay only $433.50, or a tax saving of $73.50. But if instead of paying $500 in medical expenses, they gave away $500 to an approved charity, their tax would be only $402 or a saving of $105. There again you have the same type of discrepancy. The income tax department says to that farnily, "If you give away $500 we wiil give you back $105; but if you are stuck with $500 medical expenses we wiil give you back only $73.50.'l Let me go back into the lower brackets again and take the case of a couple with two children trying to keep alive on $2,400 a year. How that is done, no one understands. Their tax, before any deductions, would be $17 a year. If that couple has medical bills of $100, the rebate is only $4.76. If they gave away $100, they would pay no tax at ail. They would save the whole $17. Mr. Trainor: Are you suggesting they might do that? Mr. Knowles: My medical friend the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Trainor) is asking a very good question. He is asking me if I can imagine a man and wife with two chfldren and with $2,400 a year income giving away $100. No, I do flot see how they could do so. They would flot have it to give away. But he knows that they might well have to pay medical expenses of $100 a year or more. Mr. Trainor: That is quite doubtful. Mr. ICnowles: I arn sure he will agree with me that if they do, they should get better treatment than $4.76 tax rebate. I corne to just one more of these examples. This time it is that of a married man with two children and with an income of $3,000 a year. Let us again assume $100 of medical expenses or $100 given to charity. Before any de- ductions, the tax would be $119 a year. If $100 is given to charity that couple would save $17 frorn their taxes but if they have $100 medical bis their saving is only $1.70. There is a diff erence of ten to one: $17 if the $100 is given away and only $1.70 if it is spent on medical bills. To my friend the hon. member for Winni- peg South, whose interest in Blue Cross is weil known-in fact, hie is anxious to push Blue Cross in the hope that that will prevent us frorn getting something a great deal better, good as Blue Cross is-I may say this. He knows that if a member of a f amily is hos- pitalized during the course of the year and is a member of Blue Cross, the amount paid for him to the hospital out of Blue Cross is allowed as deductible under this arrange- ment; and it is quite possible for people in HOUSE OF COMMONS Income Tax Act those brj .kets to have medical bills of that size when it comes to making up their income tax returns, even if they do not have the cash to pay heavy doctor's bills. The point that I have been making here, Mr. Speaker, is of course one that I have made every time this issue has been up for discussion. To me there seems to be a gross unfairness and a gross discrepancy between the treatment accorded to medical expenses and that accorded to charitable donations, just as I pointed out earlier there is a gross unfairness between the treatment accorded to repairs to property and that accorded to repairs to the human body. Mr. Martin: Does my hon. friend wish to leave the impression that people with incomes of say $2,400 are not to be found in the voluntary insurance groups such as Blue Cross? Mr. Knowles: No. I thought I was leaving the very opposite implication, namely, that there are such people in Blue Cross and other plans and that when they have to go to hospital what is paid for them out of the fund which is there because they have paid their premiums is deductible for income tax purposes. Mr. Martin: But there are people with incomes of $2,400 or less who are subscribers to Blue Cross or other such schemes. Mr. Knowles: There are. There is no ques- tion about that. Mr. Martin: I thought my hon. friend had given the opposite impression. Mr. Knowles: No. But the minister knows that does not begin to meet the situation so far as providing payment for medical costs is concerned. In fact I can send him his own speech- Mr. Martin: I quite agree. Mr. Knowles: -the one he made on Satur- day, in which he points out that this is a pretty serious problem to which a great deal of attention is being given, and I hope that attention will soon result in the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), who is complimenting me with his attention, bringing in a proposal for national health insurance. Mr. Benidickson: May I ask the hon. mem- ber a question too? Does he realize that the deduction of expenses on property refers to business property? I recall that the writer of the letter was fair enough to use the words "business property", but the hon. member has not done so yet. [Mr. Knowles.] Mr. Knowles: Oh yes, that is quite true. You get deductibility for repairs only if you are the kind of taxpayer who uses the TI general form which means that you have to be in business or on some sort of gross income rather than on net wages or salary. Mr. Benidickson: No, only if the property is producing income that is taxable. Mr. Knowles: Well, most human beings come into the clutches of the income tax department only if they are producing income that is taxable. Mr. Trainor: They have to be in good health to produce that income too. Mr. Knowles: I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Trainor) for that inter- jection. If I can get back to the train of thought I was developing, I want to say that it does seem to me that elementary fairness and the concern which has been expressed by persons such as the Minister of National Health and Welfare for the health of our people call for the kind of treatment of medical expenses envisaged in the resolution now before the house. I have already pointed out, in addition to the basic argument I make on the question of fairness, that the definition of medical expenses as we now have it is not all-inclu- sive. I admit the administrative difficulties of including everything, but since you can- not include all kinds of expenses I think that those that you can handle administra- tively, such as bills from doctors, hospitals and so on, should be allowed right from the first dollar. I point out, as I have on previous occasions, that there are people who have to use some of these expensive drugs and people who have to use others that are not too expensive, such as insulin and so on, and that they find that what they thought was a provision that was helpful to them does not really help them at all. It is only two or three years ago that some of these drugs were included in the list of deductible expenses. Many people who have to use these expensive drugs find that they make quite a hole in their incomes and yet at the end of the year they have not enough to get over the 3 per cent floor. If they do get over, they are only a little way over and there is no real help provided. I think it is socially desirable to move in this direction. This is not at all a substitute for the advance the minister and I were talk- ing about a moment ago which, I was glad to see, he mentioned in his speech at Carleton Place on Saturday, a program of national health insurance, but the very fact that the FEBRUARY 14, 1955 government is taking so long to bring in such a program makes it all the more imperative, it seems to me, that the government should take at least this step at the present time and should take it without further delay. I will be the first to admit, Mr. Speaker, that I have made this appeal so often that most of what I have said can be found in one form or another in speeches that I have made on the same subject on former occasions. As a corollary to that, I think the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benidickson) will not feel offended if I say he is not likely to produce very much that is new when he speaks in this debate today. In other words, I know what his arguments are going to be. They are in the book. They have been put there in former sessions. One of these arguments is that in the view of the government such a move is wrong in principle. I like the way that somebody can say something and then later on you can pick it up and quote it and it becomes a principle almost as if it were one of the ten command- ments. The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance quotes Mr. Abbott in that spirit. When this matter was up last year he felt that it was a satisfactory answer to my appeal simply to quote from what Mr. Abbott had said as found at page 901 of Hansard for January 12, 1953. This was the quotation: I think it is unsound, in principle, that normal living expenses of the individual should be paid out of income before tax. You know, it sounds good, you can drive things home when you say, "in principle", but, Mr. Speaker, if that principle stands why does the government allow a statutory exemp- tion of $1,000 to a single taxpayer and $2,000 to a married taxpayer, plus an addition for children? Surely these exemptions are on the basis that certain normal living expenses should be recognized first before a tax is im- posed on one's income. I think that medical expenses should be in the same category, that on top of the statutory $1,000 or $2,000, as the case may be, there should be this al- lowance for medical expenses. I cannot ima- gine the government proposing a fiat sum. They propose a bit more through the medium of this formula with this 3 per cent figure in it. I suggest that the statement quoted last year by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance, which he picked up from the former minister of finance, is unsound and basically wrong, and that just as we allow normal living expenses to be deducted up to the figures set by the government, $1,000 for a single taxpayer and $2,000 for a married taxpayer, we should accord the same treat- ment to medical expenses. Income Tax Act A second argument which bas been used on former occasions and will no doubt be used again today is that this would cost a lot of money. The figures vary-$30 million, $35 million, or if the parliamentary assistant is in an expansive mood he may run the figure up higher. I recognize that to make a change of this kind in the income tax legislation affects the balance of ways and means and would cost the government something which would have to be made up in some other way. Any change in the income tax regulations either brings in money or cuts down the amount of money that will be received. Surely it is not an answer just to say that this move will cost money and therefore we cannot do it. If what is being practised is unfair, surely the thing to do is to put a stop to that practice, and if you have to raise money to make up for it then raise it in some way that is more fair to all concerned. Another argument that sometimes is used, though not a great deal, involves what I think is a rather specious suggestion that such a proposal will be of more help to the rich than to the poor. That of course is supposed to be the final answer to any proposal made by anybody in this corner of the house. The only time that argument was ever advanced very extensively was when the present Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) was par- liamentary assistant to the then minister of finance on an occasion when I think it is fair to say he misunderstood what I was asking for in my resolution. On that occasion he thought I was asking not only for the removal of the floor but for the removal of the ceilings. Mr. Benidickson: You have changed your resolution since. Mr. Knowles: I am glad the parliamentary assistant called my attention to that point. I changed the resolution to make it crystal clear that I was not seeking removal of the ceiling. When he thought-which I contend was a misinterpretation of my viewpoint- I was asking for the removal of the ceiling, the present Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) was justified in saying that that would be a tremendous boon to the very wealthy, that it would be more of a boon to them than to those in the middle and lower income brackets. But I have made it clear that I am not asking for the removal of those ceilings. Having done so, I wish to make it clear that any advantage the proposal I make would give to wealthier people is cut off by that ceiling. There is only a certain amount one can claim, no matter how much he spends on medical expenses. Once he reaches that point, be cannot claim more. To the extent HOUSE OF COMMONS Income Tax Act that from this proposal a wealthy person does get some increase in the amount of deduc- tibility, and to the extent that the increase he gets is up in the higher percentage bracket, it is already money that is being taken away from him in that higher percentage bracket. In other words you give back to the lower income person a certain rebate directly related to the highest rate of income tax he has to pay, and you do the same thing for the wealthy person. As one whose primary concern is for those in the middle and lower income brackets I do not think there is anything unfair about that, particularly when you have an over-all ceiling, such as $2,000 for a married taxpayer. So there is no chance, as the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) tried to suggest in the debate some years ago, of a wealthy person getting doctors' orders to go off to Florida for the winter and being able to include it in his medical expenses, as well as making money out of the trip. On several occasions recently I have not bothered to deal with this argument; but just in case this argument might be built up a bit today I thought I should point out that, as I see it, there is nothing in it. I think the real point of this appeal was caught very well in one of the debates a few years ago when the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) said that this is a measure to help those fellows who just do not quite get over the line, who just do not get over the 3 per cent floor-or the 4 per cent floor, as it was at that time. I strongly urge the house to support this resolution. I am pleased with the support it has received-various kinds of support-in years gone by. I shall not go into a proce- dural argument today unless it becomes nec- essary. I am glad to recall that there were certain Liberal members, notably the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Henry), the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier), the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Maltais), the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) and the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Apple- whaite), who a few years ago spoke in sup- port of a similar resolution. I recall, too, the support of the general direction in which this resolution goes that was voiced back in 1944 by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. McIlraith) and the hon. member who is now Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann). Any time the matter has come to a head, all hon. members on the opposition side have supported it. This is an issue about which there is a great deal of information throughout the country as a whole. There is a feeling that [Mr. Knowles.] the government's continued refusal to remove this floor is most unfair, and that when the government went as far as it did in 1953 by reducing the floor from 4 per cent to 3 per cent it took a step in the right direction, and only indicated that it should go the whole way. I strongly urge the house to give considera- tion to the thinking of the Canadian people generally on this issue, and that hon. members approve the resolution which I now commend to this House of Commons. Mr. H. J. Murphy (Wes±morland): As the hon. member who has just spoken pointed out, the subject matter of this resolution has been debated before in the House of Com- mons, and the arguments are on record. I have not been in the house long, and I had not intended to take part in the debate today. Indeed I would not have done so had I not received a letter from a constituent of mine in New Brunswick in which he deals with this subject. I realize there are many features of the discussion with which I am not too familiar. Sometimes it is said that the younger mem- bers do not know shucks about most things. However, I take exception to that in this instance, because I have something to say. The removal of the floor of 3 per cent would be of assistance to a certain number of people, but it would not help others who do not come within the medical expense pro- visions set out in the act. The letter I have refers to epileptics and others suffering from brain damage, who require sedatives to pre- vent seizures. I am informed that if they do not have these sedatives the brain damage becomes greater. The drugs required are prescribed by physicians. I am told in the letter that these drugs are costly and that they must be taken over a period of three or four years, sometimes for the lifetime of the patient. Those of us from the maritimes, when confronted with serious sickness of this kind, must travel to Montreal or some other large centre to receive expert attention. In our case that is another item allied with serious illness. I do not believe the motion should be sup- ported in its present form, when it seeks the removal of the 3 per cent floor. I do believe, however, that the other part of the motion, about which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has spoken, should be given consideration. Perhaps if it could be reworded so it would appear in slightly different form, it would be more effective for a greater number of people. In other words the medical expenses to be allowed as a deduction should be widened to include anti-convulsive drugs. FEBRUARY 14, 1955 I am told that the cost of certain drugs can be deducted from income tax. Each of us expects to spend a certain amount of money each year on sickness, or in payment of medi- cal bills. We do not expect our health to be so perfect that we will have no further need of doctors. We know, too, that we cannot deduct all our expenses in a lifetime. That is we cannot say that because we have to have food for the body, such expenses must be deducted from income tax. In other words we do not expect to deduct all kinds of expenses for our income tax purposes, so that we would have left only a tax on a small amount set aside for entertainment. We know we have to spend a certain amount on medical expenses, and most people are pre- pared to do this. It seems to me, however, that one who suffers from a serious ailment of the kind I have mentioned should not be penalized by not being permitted to deduct his expenses. A person requiring anti-convulsive drugs should not be placed in that position, when at the same time someone who is receiving liver injections or injections of some drugs is allowed to deduct the cost of those drugs. I know there is a floor on medical expenses because the government must raise money to pay the bills of the country. We cannot operate without money; we cannot operate without taxes. Therefore I suggest that con- sideration might be given to the broadening of the term "deductible expenses" rather than removal of the floor. That is all I have to say. I do not want to take up too much time in this debate. I wish only to draw the attention of the house to this matter that was brought to my atten- tion yesterday by my constituents. Mr. Knowles: Will the hon. member per- mit a question before he sits down? I would agree with what he suggests should be added to the definition, but has he considered how those people would get deductibility for these other drugs to which he refers if the 3 per cent floor is still there? People using insulin do not get a deduction because of the 3 per cent floor. It would just disappoint more people, unless you removed the floor. Mr. Murphy (Westmorland): My view is that if you remove the floor altogether you would leave these people of whom I am speaking high and dry. It would be fairer to all concerned to- Mr. Knowles: To add them. Mr. Murphy (Westmorland): To add thern rather than to change the existing floor. Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, I am going to say only a word. I support the resolution offered by the hon. member Income Tax Act for Winnipeg North Centre. I am not going into a technical argument; I am not going to quote a lot of facts and figures. I support the resolution because it is the humanitarian thing to do. We have to look at a thing of this kind in that light. Sickness is a thing nobody wants; sickness is a thing nobody invites; sickness is a thing people fight against. They do not want the thing to happen in their homes and they will do all that is possible to prevent it. Therefore it means that people become the victims of circum- stances that impose upon them ill health with the consequent expenses. It is also true that the majority of our people are in the low income brackets. In these days of high living costs, they find considerable difficulty in getting by, and when sickness comes of course it means an added burden. A good many people in the small income brackets are family people, people with children. Sickness is a thing that comes to children quite often and puts an added burden on the incomes of the parents. We can say that the homes of our nation are the mainstay of the nation. Without our homes we would not have a nation. Yet the people in the medium and small income brackets who are rearing families and en- countering sickness have that additional ex- pense, an expense which they have not purposely incurred. For that reason alone medical expenses should be deductible for income tax purposes. All groups in this house have advocated a national health insurance scheme. The party in power recognizes that it would cost a tremendous amount of money to put a health insurance scheme into operation. We recog- nize that it would cost a lot; nevertheless all are agreed that some sort of national health insurance plan should be put into operation. Why do we offer that? We offer it for the same basic reason that we suggest with re- spect to this resolution. People in the medium and small income brackets cannot afford to pay medical expenses. Therefore the whole nation should share in that cost. That is the general and basic idea of the national health scheme. By the same token, and because of the same principle, why should people not be permitted to deduct the total of their medical expenses before paying their income taxes? It seems to me that with all the facts and figures in our possession, we do not really have to argue it from that point of view. It may be all right to do so, but the more humanitarian fact appeals to me, namely that since we do not incur the expense purposely it is not in the same category as buying radios and cars, even though they may be necessary. HOUSE OF COMMONS Income Tax Act They are things that we might be able to do without, so we are taxed with them. Sick- ness is an expense which nobody invites and is to some a tragic expenditure, yet it is not deductible for income tax purposes, or very little of it. Theref ore we in this group support the resolution and urge the minister to do something about it. Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West): Ever since I have been in the house I have supported motions of this kind which have been placed on the order paper, because I have felt very strongly that the taxpayer is losing out on exemptions to which he is properly entitled. It is true, as has been said in the past few years, that some concessions have been made. The floor has been lowered, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said a little while ago, from 5 per cent to 4 per cent and then to 3 per cent a couple of years ago. But if it is proper to lower the floor, then why is it not proper to wipe it out entirely? There can really be no proper basis for estimating what is the fair amount, if that amount can be varied in this way. It has been said that the taxpayers should be prepared to undertake what would be normal medical expense. That has been said on more than one occasion by the minister or by the parliamentary assistant, who has taken part in these debates in the past. Even if that were true, how does the government arrive at what is a normal medical expense? Why does it change the rate first from 5 per cent to 4 per cent and then to 3 per cent? Other changes were made in the last few years. I mention specifically the matter of allowances for expenses met in a given year. At first this item read "incurred and paid in a given year". Many offices across the country overlooked the word "incurred" and permitted the taxpayer to deduct on the basis of receipts supplied whether or not the expenses were incurred in the taxation year. Eventually the Minister of Finance saw that this phrase should be changed, and he altered the wording of the act to permit the expenses to be deducted in the year in which they were paid without regard for the year in which they were incurred. All these things have helped a little, as has also permission to deduct as medical expenses the cost of certain specified drugs. It has been on this basis that the department has contended that all expenses over and above this floor should be treated as extraordinary expenses and permitted as deductions. I should like to point out, or perhaps I should say reiterate because I have said this on former occasions, that there are many [Mr. Hansell.] expenses in the home beset by illness which are non-deductible. If the person who is ill is in a hospital, the members of the family will be visiting that hospital. It is an easy matter to run up a considerable transporta- tion expense just going back and forth be- tween the home and the hospital. Anyone living in a city knows that it will cost at least 20 cents a return trip. That is about the lowest charge for transportation by bus or trolley in any municipality, and in some it is considerably more. If one person goes once a day that means a transportation bill of $6 a month, which is quite a sizeable item to people who are living on modest incomes. If more than one person goes it will be seen how rapidly the cost will multiply. But this is not a deductible expense, although it is incurred by reason of the illness of a mem- ber of the family. Then there are such things as special foods. These probably are not necessary, but quite often they are purchased for the purpose of exciting the appetite of the patient who does not feel like eating during the convalescent stage. Most of these special foods are much more expensive than the type of food one normally has in his home. In addition there are the medicines which must be purchased, over and above those for which a deduction is now permitted. These medicines in turn are not all treated alike. If the medicine is purchased in the hospital it goes on the hospital bill and is a deductible item. If it is supplied by the doctor it goes on the doctor's bill and is a deductible item. But if it is supplied by a druggist it is not deductible. By and large this puts people who live in urban centres in a different class from those who live in rural centres. I am sure my hon. friends of the medical profession will bear me out when I say that in most rural centres the doctors carry at least staple drugs for administration to their patients. The cost of such drugs goes on the doctor's bill. But in urban centres where drugstores are located at fairly frequent intervals it is the practice of the doctor to write out a prescription which the patient has filled at the drugstore. He thus gets no benefit of a deduction, no matter what the cost may be, and some of these medicines are quite high in price. There are other extraordinary expenses. For instance, nurses may be required. If the patient is in a hospital he must pay the hos- pital for the meals consumed by the nurses. That item is put on the hospital bill and the taxpayer is permitted to deduct it for income tax purposes. With the present crowded con- dition of our hospitals a patient quite frequently is sent home while still requiring 1132 FEBRUARY 14, 1955 special nursing care. The patient may still have to pay the cost of three nurses, and the food bill in that home goes up greatly; but that extra cost cannot be claimed as a deduction. When a patient is in a home extra help is often required apart from the nursing help. This is particularly true if it is the homemaker who is ill. It is certainly true whether the mother is in the home or in a hospital. I feel as I have always felt, that the tax- payer should be permitted to deduct the full amount of medical expenses which can be substantiated by receipts, regardless of what they may be. There is so much expense attendant on illness which you cannot sub- stantiate under any circumstances and accord- ingly deduct as a medical expense. There is another aspect' of this about which I have spoken before and which I should like to mention again. When there are heavy medical expenses attendant on a major ill- ness the taxpayer very often does not claim everything in one year; he may spread it over two, three or four years, depending upon his income and the size of the bill with which he has been presented. But each year when he claims an exemption he loses the first 3 per cent. It is not a case of losing 3 per cent of the total amount of the bill in one year, it is a case of losing 3 per cent of his income each year in the process of making a de- duction of medical expenses. In the case of a taxpayer with an income of $3,000 he would lose $90 of his deduction each year in which he was paying his medical expenses, regardless of the fact that those expenses might be due to one major illness with large attendant bills. Then further I submit that a taxpayer who is big-hearted enough to assist the more unfortunate members of his family when they are ill should be permitted to deduct fron his taxable income such payments as he may make on their behalf, even though they are not entirely dependent upon him. I know people who have been in the habit of paying hospital and medical expenses for relatives who are not dependent upon them, and who if they did not so contribute would certainly not have the care that should be given. If a person is sufficiently big-hearted to under- take some portion of the medical expenses of a relative I do not think he should be penal- ized when he comes to pay his taxes. As has been stated before, if he paid a similar amount to a charitable institution he would be permitted to deduct it from his taxable income, but if he pays a hospital bill for a relative he cannot deduct it. Mr. Benidickson: If that relative is not a dependent. Income Tax Act Mrs. Fairclough: Surely charity begins at home. Many of us have been brought up on certain old sayings. We were taught in our youth that charity begins at home, that blood is thicker than water; but when it comes to taxes apparently that is not true in the tax department. Mr. McCann: That is not charity, that is benevolence. Mrs. Fairclough: I am sure it would be interesting if the Minister of National Revenue would enlighten this house at some time as to the fine distinction between charity and benevolence. Mr. Rowe: Would you call it benevolent charity? Mrs. Fairclough: Whatever it is, the relative might very well be exempted. If he thought of it he might gain some advantage by mak- ing a sizeable donation to a hospital and forget about the relative who was dependent upon him. Mr. Rowe: He might be benevolent to a municipality. Mrs. Fairclough: I would like to give one or two instances to illustrate the manner in which some of our taxpayers are deprived of the deductions which are rightfully theirs. I should state at the outset that in giving these illustrations I am not making a plea for the abolition of the ceiling. That, in my estimation, is another matter. But it just so happens that these illustrations have to deal with the ceiling as well as with the floor. I am acquainted with a young couple who have a child who has required special treat- ment for a good many years. This treatment is obtainable only in an institution, and that kind of institution happens to be rather high priced. They have two children, and he is permitted an exemption of $2,000 because of his marital status and $500 for each child, which gives him a ceiling of $3,000. During the past eight or nine years, to my certain knowledge, he has expended anywhere from $3,300 to $3,800 per year for the care of this child. He has also had normal medical expenses with the other child and his wife. His medical expenses therefore have run to very close to $4,000 a year. It is only in the last couple of years that he has had the $3,000 maximum. Before that period the deduction permitted was lower. That young man has lost the deduc- tion in excess of $3,000 each year, as he lost in excess of the former amount, the exact figure for which I have forgotten, though I believe it was $1,500 and $300 for each child. He also loses the exemption on the floor. Hon. members will probably suspect that HOUSE OF COMMONS Income Tax Act this young man is not in the $2,400 a year category, but I might point out that he does not make over $10,000. By the time he pays these medical expenses and his income tax he goes down a long way in the income scale. He loses on the floor and also loses on the ceiling. A short time ago I had a communication from a retired gentleman with a modest income. He has been ill now for some time and it is necessary for him to have a full- time attendant in his home to look after him. He was unable to afford a registered nurse, but he was successful in obtaining the services of a practical nurse. However, even that is quite costly, and when added to that we take the cost of drugs and doctors' bills it will be seen that he has run up quite a considerable amount in medical expenses. He is a single man and the maximum allowance he can claim is $1,000. He is not making very much money. Mr. Knowles: $1,500. Mrs. Fairclough: Even so, the amount he bas expended over the last couple of years is much in excess of that. He loses the ex- penditures over $1,500, and he also loses the floor of 3 per cent of his income. He likewise loses both on the floor and on the ceiling. It will be surprising to me if in speaking to this resolution, the minister or someone speaking on his behalf, does not refer to what this will cost. We have had various figures given to us before in this regard. I have taken the budget papers for 1954-55 and from them obtained the amount of personal income for 1953. I presume it is higher now. However, if everyone who pays taxes and everyone earning the income reported in the budget papers were to claim medical ex- penses, and if they all claimed the full amount of the floor, the total amount it would cost the government if my calculations are correct would be three-quarters of 1 per cent of the total government revenue. An hon. Member: How many million? Mrs. Fairclough: I have taken 3 per cent of the $1,287 million shown on the table and that amounts to $38,610,000. However, in my estimation it is not a matter of how much it costs. It is a question of whether it is right or wrong. In my view it is right that these deductions should be permitted for the reasons I have stated, for reasons I have given in this house on former occasions, and more particularly because in my opinion in the event of illness the amount of extra expense the taxpayer must meet over and [Mrs. Fairclough.] above his ordinary living expenses is suffi- ciently high that he should be given the benefit of the full amount of money he bas spent in medical expenses. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite): Is the house ready for the question? Mr. Angus MacInnis (Vancouver-Kingsway): Mr. Speaker, before the question is put I would like to say a few words in support of the motion submitted by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). As far as expenses associated with sickness are concerned I can, unfortunately, speak with firsthand knowledge, because I have had to meet such expenses during the last few years. Despite the fact that every family must consider a certain amount of illness as normal and meet the resulting medical expenses, it should be remembered that the cost of medical treatment in the past few years has risen so much that even a minor illness, if it means a person is taken to hospi- tal for a few months and must have special- ized treatment, can run up to a very large amount in a short period of time. I am talking as one who does not complain in this house about taxation. I doubt if I have ever spoken against the incidence of taxation in general, though I might have advocated higher exemptions for those in the lower income brackets. Though taxes have been heavy since the beginning of world war II I have not complained, and in truth I do not believe we have been overtaxed. I shall give my reasons for saying that in a moment. I have said it outside of this house and I might as well repeat it on the floor of the house. I believe this country has been fortunate during the past few years in hav- ing a government that was not afraid to tax. If we want to see what happens when a government has not the courage to tax or where the people do not want to be taxed, we can see it quite clearly today in France. The situation that exists there is largely one growing out of the fear of taxes and the lack of courage to tax. The result is going to be that the country will be brought down in ruin; either that, or there will be brought into power some government that will have far less regard for constitutional procedure than the government that is now in office. Some time the government will fall, and it will have fallen for the last time unless they are prepared to do something about it. When I say that taxes are not too high, I mean as they apply to those in the higher income bracket. By no consent of mine I have been put in that higher income bracket. Consequently I am quite willing ta bear my share of the expenses af other people's ill- ness. That is really what happens in the world in which we are living today. The great mass of our people do not pay income taxes because they have not sufficient income ta bring them under the income tax laws. Not only do they not pay any taxes, but they have ta be helped in various ways out of the taxes paid by others. I agree with the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) when she says that hospital and doctors' expenses and the things you can charge up ta your income at the present time ta the extent of over 3 per cent of it are only a small part of the cost of ill- ness when it strikes a family. There are ever so many other things on which money has ta be spent when there is illness in the family. I do not want ta reflect on anybody when I say this, but I think there is this possibility. If the whole of the expense for illness were ta be allowed as a deduction for income tax purposes it would mean that receipts would be required from dentists, doctors and every other persan who does a service on behalf of a sick persan. I am quite sure that such a deduction would bring greater revenue ta the government, and that the deduction of the whole sickness expense would not be altogether loss. I think that when, as has already been said, we allow the whole amount of charitable donations as a deduction from taxable income, there is no good reason why medical expenses should not be deductible in the same way. As the hon. member for Hamilton West again points out, if you pay somebody else's expenses or give the money ta an institution that will accept it and give the service, you can charge that amount against your taxable income; but if you your- self incur the expenses or if your family incurs them, only a certain amount is allowed. I think the system is contradictory and that it is about time it was changed. Mr. F. S. Zaplitny (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, I have only a few words ta say, because this is not a new question in the house. It has been discussed on previous, occasions. I wish ta support the resolution. In doing so I wish ta bring ta the attention of the house and the government the fact that one of the resolutions adopted at a recent convention of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture-and the delegates ta that con- vention represent almost half a million farmers in Canada-was exactly in the terms called for by this resolution. Unless the government and the members of this house are willing ta disregard completely the wishes of this organization which represents the Income Tax Act Canadian farmers, I think they would be well advised to give sympathetic consideration ta this resolution. I want ta add that I am not making this appeal ta the government itself because this is not a motion which calls for a vote of confidence in the government. It is a private member's resolution. I think the appeal should be directed ta the private members of this house, regardless of where they sit, and particularly ta those members who normally support the government. This is one issue on which they may express their own wishes without endangering the position of the gov- ernment in any way. I believe they would be well advised ta carry out the wishes of the great majority of the Canadian people on this occasion. When the parliamentary assistant ta the Minister of Finance rises ta speak, I imag- ine he will have some excuses or reasons why this resolution should not be adopted. I would appeal ta the private members who sit behind the government ta vote as they see fit, according ta their own views rather than those expressed by the parliamentary assistant. I should like ta mention one feature that should not be overlooked, namely that the adoption of this resolution permitting the full deductibility of medical expenses would be an incentive-though this is perhaps not the main reason we support this resolution- to all people ta pay their medical bills. At the present time the part that is permitted as a deduction is only allowed if it is paid. It does not apply ta unpaid bills. I think the medical profession and the hospitals would be quite interested in this matter from that point of view. It would be an incentive ta people ta pay their medical bills and in that way earn the deduction which would be coming to them. As I say, that is not the chief objective. The main reason we support this resolution is that we believe it is just, fair and right that expenses which are unavoidable-and medi- cal expenses are of that nature-should be the first ta receive consideration. Not long ago the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris), in one of his first public addresses after he took over that portfolio, shed same bitter tears for the corporations that were being taxed sa heavily; in fact he is pur- ported ta have said that he could not under- stand how they had stood it for sa long. The balance sheets of most of the corporations will show that they are a long way from starvation. They have done fairly well. For the persan who is struggling ta just make ends meet and then is confronted with these 1135FEBRUARY 14, 1955 HOUSE OF COMMONS Income Tax Act unexpected medical expenses, I think a little bit of sympathy would be more in order at this time. I therefore appeal to the private members on the government side of the house not to regard this as an obligation to support the government but rather as an obligation to carry out the wishes of the Canadian people. Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, as the mover of this motion has stated, this is not a new resolution that is now before this house. I think, with some alteration in its terms to which reference has already been made, this is the fourth time at least the house has had an opportunity to discuss its merits. In addition, as hon. mem- bers know, it is also a subject that usually receives the attention of the house annually when the budget resolutions are being de- bated and later when the Income Tax Act is up for revision. My hon. friend the mover pointed out that in consequence the argu- ments for and against the proposition do appear in Hansard. However, he did review certain points connected with the proposition and, although Hansard of past years does con- tain all the arguments, it is necessary for me to review some of those points. It was fairly obvious that opposition speakers would outline particularly some of the advantages of the proposition and some of the disadvantages of the existing legisla- tion. It is my duty to point out for the government some of the reasons why the proposition should be looked at with the utmost care. I do congratulate the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) on introducing one or two new features in his speech this afternoon. He took his cue from the cold scene that he described at Carleton Place and did not just use the old speech he mentioned as having had on ice, and I congratulate him for so doing. He quoted with approval what the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) said the other day when he in turn quoted President Eisenhower as saying that the good health of our people is a proper matter of public concern. I do not think that anyone in the house would have any quarrel with that assertion, but before I sit down I hope to establish, at least to the satisfaction of most hon. members, that giving this type of financial aid does not guarantee the provision of adequate health services. The bon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. MacInnis) was fair enough to say that taxes do have to be raised. I should like to point out to the house that one of the important considerations in the usage of [Mr. Zaplitny.] tax moneys, particularly in recent years, is the devotion of those moneys to the national health plan, and it does so happen that the amount of money involved in this suggestion of tax forsaking is very close to the annual expenditures by the government on the national health plan. I interjected when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre introduced another new feature in his annual speech, namely, repairs to property. I pointed out that while the writer of the letter to the editor, which the hon. member subsequently quoted, did specifically define "property" as "business property", the hon. member had not done so. However striking the illustration, I think the hon. member will realize that it must be fully qualified by the knowledge that repairs to all property are by no means the subject of certain deductions on one's income tax form. There is only income tax recognition of re- pairs to property of the type from which revenues are derived. I would not want people throughout the country who are not so familiar with our tax laws to think by any means that property in a general way, such as our own homes, is the subject of such consideration with respect to tax deduction. The senior member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey) introduced the question of deprecia- tion. I think the point was fairly well taken so far as the individual is concerned, be- cause from the point of view of our tax laws and our fiscal policy there is certainly very definite recognition that frorn age 65 upwards people do frequently become impaired in health and the physical machine runs down. We recognize that in consequence earning power usually goes down about that time and because of retirements and so on. Therefore there have recently been considerable im- provements in government-supported pension plans for those 65 and up. In addition, I think it was in 1949 that another new feature to the advantage of that age group was introduced into our income tax structure. In recognition of some ex- traordinary expenses of our senior citizens, largely due to declining health, and having regard to their declining earning power, we provided for that group an additional per- sonal income tax deduction of $500 per person per year over and above what is allowed younger citizens. Mr. Knowles: At a time when their income is lower anyway. Mr. Benidickson: Yes. I have pointed that out already. I am also going to point out to my hon. friend in a few minutes that by reason of the increase in the personal exemp- tion and by reason of the fact that the earning FEBRUARY 14, 1955 power of that group of our citizens generally has declined quite noticeably, his proposition is not going to be of very much value to that class of people. While the hon. member did refer to some of the history of this particular feature of our income tax law, certain features were not put on the record that I think deserve to be. I would remind bon. members that this provision was introduced in 1942, when taxation was extremely high compared with taxation at the present time. I only need to remind bon. members that in 1942 the per- sonal exemption of a single person was $660 while today it is $1,000 and the exemption of a married man was $1,200 while today it is $2,000. As the bon. member says, other conditions are not the same as they were then. The floor that we have under discussion at the moment was reduced in 1944 from 5 per cent as it originally stood to 4 per cent, and in 1953 to 3 per cent. I might say that in par- ticular the reduction made in 1944 from 5 per cent to 4 per cent was made in the knowledge that many people felt the original plan was inadequate, particularly in so far as the allowance for drugs was concerned. It was realized how difficult it would be administratively to examine all the vouchers that might be presented with respect to the purchase of drugs if drugs in a very broad way were subject to an allowance under this provision. The minister of finance of that day made it quite clear that the reduc- tion from 5 per cent to 4 per cent was in a very substantial measure motivated by an attempt to take this point into consideration. We had some evidence last year in the United States that there is difficulty in deal- ing with all types of medical expenses, if small claims that can be advanced for drugs are eligible. It is my understanding that prior to last year the United States definition of medical expenses was sufficiently broad that great number of claims were possible for drug items, and that this involved a heavy administrative load. Consequently, while last year they made their floor pro- vision similar to ours at 3 per cent rather than 5 per cent and in some respects more generous, in so far as drugs were concerned they imposed last year a new condition stipulating that drug claims would not be considered unless they exceeded 1 per cent of the income of the taxpayer. Then the ceilings on total allowable medical expenses have also been very sub- stantially increased with respect to income tax deductions. When introduced the ceiling for a single man was $400 and for a married man $600. With several increases that have Income Tax Act been made since 1942 the present ceiling is not $2,000 for a married man, as bas been stated this afternoon, but $2,000 plus $500 for each child or dependent up to a maxi- mum of four dependents, which means a maximum for a married man with four dependents of $4,000. Mrs. Fairclough: Let me point out that is what I said. Mr. Benidickson: It was perhaps quoted elsewhere as $2,000. Then there is not a complete understanding of the provision in- troduced since 1942 which placed in the law an allowance of $500 where there is chronic illness or blindness and an attendant is required. That is now one of the important items of medical expenses allowable. Hon. members know that, basically, under our Income Tax Act there is a general per- sonal exemption which, in the case of a single man, is $1,000 and in the case of a married man is $2,000 with additional exemptions for children and other dependents. It is con- sidered that this general personal exemption which applies to all taxpayers has included in it various items of usual expense that taxpayers are bound to meet. If they are not met in one year, they will be met eventually. It is considered that in addition to at least something for shelter and food, there is rep- resented in this personal exemption some consideration for other ordinary, usual ex- penses such as fairly normal medical expenses. We all know that practically every taxpayer and his wife have to go to the dentist once or twice each year, and their children have to do likewise. Most taxpayers are not so fortunate that they do not have to call a doctor once or twice a year. Let us consider the average income earner of $3,000 a year. It is true that under the present income tax stipulation that taxpayer would not be permitted to claim deduction on income tax with respect to medical ex- penses unless they amounted to 3 per cent of his income, or $90. It may be that many people pay $90 as a sort of normal or usual or unavoidable medical expense or overhead. I am not for one moment, any more than I did last year, suggesting that that expense is insignificant for anyone, or that it is incon- sequential. But there may be a difference between that and saying that it speils tragedy. On the other hand if the expense of that taxpayer was $125, or $150 or perhaps $500- and, as someone has said, sickness is some- thing that is not invited-such expenditures may very well spell extraordinary hardship and tragedy. In those circumstances this provision of the law comes into force and is extremely helpful. HOUSE OF COMMONS Income Tax Act Speaking in the debate last year I quoted the former minister of finance, and reference has been made to that quotation. I should like again to quote what was said by the minister of finance who held office in 1953 and who, in his last speech on this subject, said: I have in each year paid out money in varying amounts. Perhaps sometimes it would be a few hundred dollars, and sometimes somewhat less than that-for these periodical medical check-ups, general child care and the like. Then he said: I see no reason in the world why I, or anybody else, should be in a position to deduct those normal expenses-and I prefer to use the word "normal" rather than "average"-I see no reason why I should be permitted to deduct those normal expenses from my income before calculating my income tax, any more than I should be entitled to deduct expenditures for clothing necessary to keep the children warm, or food necessary to keep them alive. That is the principle behind the floor. Reference has been made to the probable loss of revenue. I do not think, any more than last year, that I need go into detail to estab- lish this loss. Several speakers last year and some this year have indicated they do not quarrel with the suggestion that it would cost something in the nature of $35 million. I do say, however, that such a loss, if not made up somewhere, in all probability would have the effect of denying an equivalent tax cut somewhere else. If one had $35 million of tax relief to offer, I certainly would not say that this was the best method of provid- ing $35 million of tax relief. In addition, it is true that administrative difficulties would be greatly increased if there was no floor and claims from the first dollar of expenditure on doctor bills and drug costs were permitted; because if doctor bills were allowed from the first dollar inevitably claims for drugs would be made. In addition to that I can only refer to such obvious difficulties as would be encountered due to the fact that a great number of our employees pay their income tax through deductions at the source. It is fairly easy now for them and fairly easy for their employers by reason of the fact that there is a general personal exemption that on the whole is applicable to everybody. It is easy for them to have their income tax deducted at the source. But if at the end of the year there is introduced a new reason for claiming re- assessment and re-examination of files, that in itself would indicate an increased burden placed upon the administrative staff. I have mentioned that in my view there are better methods of offering tax relief, if one were contemplating such relief and had it to dispose of to the extent of $35 million, or [Mr. Benidickson.] $50 million, which we think at the moment is somewhat nearer the cost of this proposal. There are better methods without the same burden of administrative costs for the same amount of money involved. I need only men- tion that in Canada we have a working force in the neighbourhood of 5-4 million people and that now we have only 3-8 million who are paying income tax, to show that relief of this kind would not be for the benefit of those who are less well off, those who have not earnings sufficient to pay income tax. I have already mentioned that I questioned whether those citizens in our community over 65 years who under normal circumstances require in- creasing medical care, at a time when their income is going down, would derive much benefit from this proposal. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, as be has done in the past, gave a number of illustrations to show the actual savings that would come to taxpayers in cer- tain income tax groups if the floor was re- moved. I have no quarrel with his figures. I think in the case of a married taxpayer earn- ing $2,100 he referred to a tax of $17, and said that if that taxpayer had given away $100 be would have saved $17, but that if he had $100 in medical expenses he would save only $4.76. But, as I say, the allowance of $4.76 is probably not the best method of providing such a tax saving. In addition I should like to place some other illustrations on record. Let us consider the man with two dependent children under 16 years of age, who is entitled to family allowance and has an income of $3,000. If he is claiming exemption at the present time for expenses over 3 per cent, of course he would get a saving of $15.30 a year, or -51 per cent of his income. But a great number of those are not entitled to claim; therefore they would not be getting the maximum saving, in fact the saving would just be a matter of something between zero and $15.30. A man with an income of $10,000, if he is now claiming medical exemption, would be better off by $78 or -78 per cent of his income. If he has not had medical expenses, or his medical expenses have not come up to 3 per cent of his income, then of course one cannot say just what his saving would be, but it would be something between zero and $78. But the big point I want to raise in connection with these amounts is not that they are small or insignificant in the eyes of the taxpayer, as I have said. I do say from personal experience that I find a great number of our taxpayers who seem to think, as they read about this proposition in the newspapers, that if the proposition were accepted the deduction 1138 FEBRUARY 14, 1955 would apply to their tax and not to their taxable income. I was talking to somebody the other day and this person said, "Why do you not include spectacles in this regula- tion? I bought some spectacles the other day and paid $15 for them, and I would get that $15 back". Of course I pointed out to that person-whose income was rather small, and if he was paying taxes I knew the rate was not more than 17 per cent-that the tax sav- ing by the acceptance of this proposition would not be $15 but 17 per cent of $15. I have had many personal experiences of a similar kind. My hon. friend says he does not feel there is any advantage in counteracting advantage to the poor as against advantage to the rich. The difference in advantage with this 3 per cent floor, in so far as the poorer people of the country are concerned, is better than the proposition he makes. I would put it this way. Take someone with an income of $13,000. I am assuming that $2,000 of that at least is subject to personal exemption. We say now we will not consider for tax credits any of his medical expenses until they exceed $390 a year. If they exceed $390 a year, then we start to what could be called subsidize his medical expenses, and as his income tax rate is then 35 per cent, the effect is that we assist him or give him tax credit or subsidy, what- ever you want to call it, to the extent of 35 per cent of his medical expenses after that point. Take the case of someone earning $3,000 a year. Again I assume that he has a personal exemption of $2,000. We say now that we do not come into the picture to assist him with respect to his medical expenses until they have reached $90. We assume that he is paying at the rate of 17 per cent. After that we will assist with a tax subsidy of 17 per cent on his medical expenses, but there is a great difference between taking on the subsidy from the first dollar and making it subject to a floor of 3 per cent of income. The hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny) raised an interesting proposition. I rather expected to hear it, although it was not referred to today by the mover of the motion, which surprised me. He made an appeal to bon. members who normally sup- port the government by advancing something we have heard about before, particularly in 1952. He said that a proposition of this kind advanced by a private member by resolution does not embarrass the government. I think his words were "does not endanger the posi- tion of the government; it is only a private member's resolution". I would like to remind hon. members who were not here in 1952 that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre Income Tax Act advanced this same proposition or its equiva- lent in 1952, and he emphasized the words in the resolution to this effect: "we urge the government to consider doing this". The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) who was then parliamentary assistant to the minister of finance, with the instructions of the minister of finance said: "We are receiv- ing propositions in connection with our budget two weeks hence from many sources, by letter, by resolution and suggestions of mem- bers of parliament, and with that thought in mind we think perhaps we should not decline to consider this proposition at this time." It was made very clear in the debate at that time that it was in that spirit the parliamen- tary assistant indicated he would accept the proposition and vote for it himself. Two weeks later the budget came down and we had a debate on the Income Tax Act and the budget resolutions. It was made quite clear by the parliamentary assistant and the minister that in their opinion they had carried out their undertaking to the house and had given consideration to this but could not recommend it; but despite that, the leader of the C.C.F. party moved a vote of want of confidence against this government on the ground that it had ignored the proposition, even though it was one of those abstract propositions that used the words "give consideration to". Therefore in subsequent years the minister of finance felt he~ could not recommend that such tactics be followed another time. I regret that the Minister of Finance was not able to be present today. He has an engagement to give an address outside this city. But he is quite familiar with this issue. He has assured me that since we are starting this week to look at all budget propositions that are advanced at this time and come in many forms, some by letter, some in budget debates last year and other debates this year, some by personal approaches by members of parliament and so forth, of course this proposition will receive with those others-and as it bas in other years- further study. It is inevitable that during the course of the year recommendations come to us not only with respect to removing the floor but also that the ceiling should be adjusted or removed. It is inevitable that propositions should come to us such as the one so capably advanced by the bon. member for Westmor- land (Mr. Murphy) that we should change our definition of entitlement, and al these things will certainly be considered. Probably the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) raised more new points than anybody else this afternoon. HOUSE OF COMMONS Income Tax Act Certainly some of them have not been ad- vanced by any others to date. I assure all hon. members who have made comments that they will surely be considered by the minister in the ensuing weeks as he gives consideration to the next budget. Mr. Knowles: Mr. Speaker- The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite): If the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre speaks now he will close the debate. Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): Mr. Speaker, I have a few words to say, but even a few words would run it awfully close to six o'clock, and I would not want it on my conscience that I kept hon. members for a vote during the supper hour. Perhaps, therefore, hon. members might agree to my asking Your Honour to call it six o'clock. At six o'clock the house took recess. AFTER RECESS The house resumed at eight o'clock. Mr. Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to speak at any length in closing this debate, because I do not think it is neces- sary to do so. In the very nature of things I was able to predict the arguments which the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benidickson) would put forward in opposition to my proposal. In all modesty or with respect, whichever it is, I must say that I think those arguments against my pro- posal were answered in the speech I made when introducing the resolution this after- noon. I might say that as I see it the parliamen- tary assistant tried to say two things. He said he agreed with the hon. member for Van- couver-Kingsway that this measure of itself would not guarantee that health bills would be paid. I agree too. In other words the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance thinks, and in this I thoroughly agree with him, that there are better ways to deal with medical costs. My answer to that is, well and good; bring them forward. He knows as well as I do that the best answer to the problem of medical costs is a nation-wide program of health insurance, but that is not before us in this resolution. The govern- ment does not seem to be prepared to take that step just yet, but if it is now going to use the argument that this is not the best way to deal with medical costs, then it rests upon the government to come forward with that better way without delay. [Mr. Benidickson.] The other thing which it seemed to me the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance said was that in his view there are better ways than this to afford tax relief. If that is the case then I say to the government once again, all right; come forward with them. I do not know what the parliamentary assistant had in mind, but if he has in mind such proposals as raising the present exemp- tion levels from $1,000 single and $2,000 mar- ried to higher figures, well and good; bring them on. If he has in mind reducing or cut- ting out the sales tax, well and good; let us do it. But if the government is not prepared to come forward with better ways than this to provide tax relief, then I suggest that it should not throw cold water on this sug- gestion. May I say just a word to the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Murphy) who spoke in the debate this afternoon. I want him to know that I agree with the positive aspect of the suggestion he made, namely that the definition of medical expenses should be en- larged to include the kind of drugs to which he referred. I think you will recall, sir, that in the earlier part of my remarks I suggested that the definition is not satisfactory. As medi- cal science is finding more drugs which are beneficial to people suffering from one illness or another, and particularly in view of the high cost of some of these modern drugs, the need to enlarge the definition becomes even greater. But I would remind the hon. member, as I tried to do by a question at the end of his speech this afternoon, that if you do not re- move the 3 per cent floor it then becomes a cruel hoax on people just to add another drug to the definition. This happened some years ago when the minister of finance added insulin, cortisone and ACTH to the list of drugs. The users of insulin in particular thought that that meant that they would get an income tax benefit from that drug being added to the list. But when it came time to pay their income tax many of them found that although insulin was on the list the amount they had spent on insulin in the course of the year did not add up to 4 per cent of their total income, as it was then, so they got no advantage. So I say to the hon. mem- ber for Westmorland that while I support what he is asking for, namely, the addition of these drugs to the list, unless you take away the 3 per cent floor merely to add them to the list is a cruel hoax on those who have to use these drugs, because they will not get any income tax advantage. I said that I did not feel it was necessary to take all the arguments put forward this FEBRUARY 14, 1955 afternoon and answer them in detail, because I submit that they have been answered already. In closing I would just take note of the fact that the parliamentary assistant sug- gested that the Minister of Finance is going to give consideration in preparing for his forthcoming budget to all suggestions that are brought to his attention. The parliamen- tary assistant did not say it, but I could read between the lines the suggestion that in view of that fact perhaps as the member who had moved this resolution I might see fit not to press it to a vote. . I am not brand new around here. I have been here long enough to know that you do not get things in that way. I know that the :best way to ensure that the minister's con- sideration of this matter will be active and perhaps favourable is by a large vote for it by the private members of this house. I hope that when the vote is called-and I shall ask 'that a vote be taken on the matter; I do not think there was ever any doubt of that in anyone's mind-it will carry. If it does not carry I hope that at least there will be half a dozen or more brave Liberals who will stand up and vote for it. An hon. Member: Al Liberals are brave. Mr. Knowles: Even though they may be a minority I suggest that a few Liberals stand- ing up and voting for this motion would speak volumes to the Minister of Finance and tell him to make that consideration very serious. This way we might get results. I am very pleased to recall the vocal sup- port we have had for this proposal on the floor of the bouse in days gone by from such friends of mine as the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite), the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier), the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Maltais), the hon. mem- ber for Rosedale (Mr. Henry) and the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll). I hope these hon. members and others will join with us who intend to vote for this resolution which I now commend to the bouse. The house divided on the motion (Mr. Knowles) which was negatived on the fol- lowing division: YEAS Argue Barnett Bennett, Miss (Halton Blackmnore Blair Bryce Cameron (Nanaimo) Campbell Cardiff Castleden 50433-73 Messrs: Churchill Coldwell Diefenbaker Dinsdale Ellis Fairclough, Mrs. Gagnon Gillis Girard Green Income Tax Act Hahn Montgomery Hamilton (Notre Dame Nesbitt de Grace) Nicholson Hamilton (York West) Pearkes Hanseil Quelch Harknes Robinson (Bruce) Herridge Rowe Hodgson Shaw Holowach Small Johnson (Kindersley) Stanton Johnston (Bow River) Stewart (Winnipeg North) Jones Thatcher Knight Thomas Knowles Trainor Leboe Tustin Low White (Hastings- MacInnis Frontenac) MacLean White (Middlesex East) McBain Winch McGregor Yull Mitchell (London) Zaplitny- . NAYS Anderson Applewhaite Ashbourne Batten Benidickson Bonnier Bourget Brown (Brantford) Bruneau Buchanan Byrne Campney Cardin Carrick Cavers Denis Deschatelets Dickey Dumas Dupuis Enfield Fairey Fraser (St. John's East) Gardiner Garson Gauthier (Portneuf) Gingras Goode Gour (Russell) Gregg Habel Hardie Hosking Houck Huffman James Kickham Kirk -(Antigonish- Guysborough) Kirk (Shelburne-Yar- mouth-Clare) LaCroix Lafontaine Langlois (Gaspe) Leduc (Jacques Cartier- Lasalle) ssrs: Legare Lesage Lusby MacDougall MacEachen MacNaught McCann McCubbin McIlraith McIvor McMillan Marier Martin Matheson Michaud Murphy (Westmorland) Pickersgill Pommer Pouliot Power (Quebec South) Power (St. John's West) Proudfoot Purdy Richard (Ottawa East) Richardson Robertson Robichaud Robinson (Simcoe East) Rouleau St. Laurent Shipley, Mrs. Simmons Sinclair Stick Stuart (Charlotte) Tucker Valois Villeneuve Weaver Weir Weselak White (Waterloo South) Winters-86. And the Clerk proceeding to announce the result of the vote: - Mr. Speaker: May I perhaps ascertain on what side the hon. member for Chicoutimi 1142 HOUSE OF COMMONS Vancouver International Airport (Mr. Gagnon) wished to have his vote aver 91,000 in 1953. Added ta that number registered, because no mention of it is made were 11,000 visiting airpianes in 1954 and here. almost 9,000 in 1953. Mr. Gagnon: Yea. This summer some of us bad the oppor- tunity of visiting the airpart in a more or And the result of the vote having been less offciai capacity and a! standing in the announced: Yeas, 60; nays, 86. control tower o! that aîrport for a period o! Mr. Speaker: I declare the motion lost. about one bour. We saw tbe diffculty ex- perienced by those men in the contrai tower VANCOUVER INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT at that time, which was an extremely busy day in the life a! the busiest airport in Can- ELIMINATION OF CONGESTION-SEGREGATION OF ada. We saw tbe work tbey were doing. I TRAFFIC would tbink tbat young men warking in that Mr. T. H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond) contrai tower would have grey haîrs in five moved: years. The wark is just impossible under the That, in the opinion of this house, the govern- circumstances. That contrai tower not anly ment should consider the advisability of taking handies ail the private planes in the vîcinity steps to institute action which will relieve the con- o! Vancouver airport; it bas ta bandle al gested and dangerous conditions existing at the air-une traffi. It bandies seaplane traffic that Vancouver international airport, in the constituency of Burnaby-Richmond, with a view to: 15 aimost out o! its orbit. Haif o! the sea- 1. Eliminating congestion. planes landing on the narth arm of tbe 2. Segregating the various types of traffic. Fraser cannot be seen fram the contrai tower 3. Establishing areas for a major portion of the aviation training program, both military and civil. and are not under the contrai of the tower. at points removed from the Vancouver international Added ta that is the fact tbat most o! the airport. private planes in Britîsh Columbia are not He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have equipped witb radio but are controlled bath the opportunity of presenting this resolution for take-off and ianding by an Aldis iamp to the house. It could have been presented from the contrai tower itself, with ail that by any lower mainland member from British means in lack of contrai. From these facts Columbia, regardless of the side of the bouse you get a rougb idea of wbat the young men on which he sits, because each one of us i the tower are trying ta accamplisb. knows the serious conditions that prevail at I said that in 1954 there were almost that airport. 169,000 landings and departures from the Because the resolution obviously indicates airport, and of those over 50 per cent o! that private planes should be taken from the course were by private planes. My idea in Vancouver international airport, it might be presenting tbis resolution ta the bouse N ta said that it is the intention of this bouse, try ta canvince tbe government and the should bon. members approve the resolution, Minister of Transport (Mr. Marier), who I to say that private flying at that airport and know is sympatbetic ta the idea, that a other airports in Canada is not important to secondary aîrport sbouid be establisbed some- the nation. It is not my intention for a where on tbe iower mainland o! British moment to say that men flying private air- Columbia that can accammodate not oniy the craft, whether owned by them or chartered private planes owned in that region but by them for a week end, are not important visiting prîvate planes fron outside the to the training facilities of the R.C.A.F. Each province. one of us in British Columbia knows that Tbe Vancouver board o! trade, in a very practically all the manpower that will come comprebensive preliminary brief bas suppiied to the R.C.A.F. in the way of pilots in the me with statistics and certain comments next few years will come from those men witb respect ta the situation. For some years who today, at their own expense, fiy private that very important body lu the internai planes from our airports throughout Canada. 11fe of the province bas considered witb But more important than the sympathy we much concern the situation that prevails on have for the private air pilot is the fact that Sea island. The board bas toid me tbrough Vancouver international airport, which is in its experts that unless sometbing is done my riding, is the busiest airport in Canada, very quickiy one o! these days a very seriaus and has more air traffic than any other city major accident wiii take place wîthin the airport in Canada. In 1954 the total number confines o! the airport. In tbe last two of aircraft moving through that airport was years we bave beard many questions asked 168,954; and in 1953, during the same period, in the bouse, particuiariy by the ban. mem- it was a fraction over 160,000. Of that total, ber for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. private aircraft numbered 86,510 in 1954 and Thatcher), regarding fiying conditions [Mr. Speaker.] tbroughout Canada. I had the misfortume to be in Moose Jaw a few days after a certain very serlous air trafflc accident, and I saw what could happen in a region where there are no mountains to be contended with and visibility is unimpeded for many miles, On the other hand, we in British Columbia must consider the terrain wherever we put airports. I saw in Moose Jaw the terrible resuits brought about by certain circumstances, and it is flot only beyond my comprehension how the same thing has not happened over Vancouver airport in the last two or three years but beyond the comprehen- sion of the experts, having regard to the traffic conditions existing there. Control of private aircraft is carried out almost entirely by means of the Aldis iamp. Most of us who were in the army are famillar with that lamp, having used it at one time or another, and we know how restricted its beam. is. With 169,000 take-off s and arrivais a year at the airport, how the landing and take-off of private planes can be carried out by means of a beam. lamp without accident is almost beyond anyone's comprehension. The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), the hon. member for Vancouver- Kingsway (Mr. Maclnnis) and some others had the privilege some months ago of visiting Vancouver airport and watching these young: chaps trying to bring in private planes on the grass crossways to the direction of the airstrips. At any moment of the day that could mean a collision between a great T.C.A. plane and one of these smali aircraft. Conditions are so serious that in the last few months four private planes have been literally blown off the airport by the blast of wind from the North Star engines. Four private planes had their propeflers seriousiy damaged just by the force of the blast from the large North Star engines. It is easy to imagine that one of these days a private plane is going to come in crossways to the present airstrip, the pilot is not going to see a T.C.A. plane landing, and the resuiting crash wiil kili many people. It is because of these conditions, and that situation in particular, that I have brought; this resolution before the bouse. Perhaps I might say something about seaplane traffic at the airport. As I said earlier, ahl sea- planes land on the north arm. of the Fraser, which is also in my riding. From. the time these planes get within about haif a mile of the contrai tower until the time they land they are not; within the visual control of the operators in the tower. Actually they are practicaily fiying free of control. With 15, 20 or 25 private planes in the air on a Sunday over the airport, with a seaplane 50433-73J Vancouver International Afrport beyond the control of the airport tower, perhaps a T.C.A. two-engine plane arriving from Victoria, a big T.C.A. plane arriving from Calgary, and another one or two planes taking off, you can imagine the immediate problem the control tower has with no radio control over the private planes that are crossing the airport runways and landing on the grass, because they are flot allowed to use the runways. As I have said, one of these days we are going to have an accident of major propor- tions. 1 hope the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marier) wiil take steps to avoid such a catastrophe by estabiishing a secondary air- port in the lower mainland area that will take away from the very busy Sea Island air- port private and visiting planes that couid easily be handled at a smailer airport flot; too far from the present one. Most of these private pilots are paying their own tuition, and they are young chaps who have no more than ordinary jobs. If a secondary airport were estabiished too f ar away from Van- couver it might mean that some of them wouid not fiy any more. As I have said, these piiots are important in the over-ail scheme of things as far as the R.C.A.F. is concerned. There is a very fine airport at Abbotsford that Trans-Canada Air Lines use sometimes when weather conditions are not good on Sea isiand. It might be possible to put the private planes there. However, as I have said, most of these young fellows do not have too much money. It costs a lot of money to get to Abbotsford, and with Sunday traffic as heavy as it is on the lower mainland at ail times of the year I doubt whether too many of them would be interested in continuing their training. Therefore I believe the Minister of Transport will have to look for a location much dloser to Vancouver. When one brings a resolution of this kind before the house one should have a sug- gestion to offer as a solution. In its brief -I am sure the minister has seen it-the Vancouver board of trade suggested two or three locations. I can off er one more. They suggest that there is a place at Como lake near Maillardville where, in the opinion of their experts, there is plenty of good land available and the price is not too high. It is also suggested ini their brief that the Kit- silano Indian reserve could be used. I am not too sure of the feasibility of that suggestion, but perhaps the Minister of Transport would take it under consideration. Boundary Bay airport was used during the war by the Royal Canadian Air Force. I have seen the taxi-ways and the airstrips there in the last f ew months, and much FEBRUARY 14, 1955 1143 HOUSE OF COMMONS Vancouver International Airport money would have to be spent on that location before it could be used even by private planes. And if it could be used I doubt if we would create a satisfactory solution. The board of trade had suggested that Boundary Bay airport could be used, but I am of the opinion that it could not. I have one suggestion to make jointly to the Minister of Transport and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney), who I am pleased to see in his seat this evening. There bas been some criticism of the govern- ment in connection with some land at Port Coquitlam. When that land was purchased that part of the country was in my riding. I know of the necessity for buying the land and the reason for the purchase, and I believe the reason was good. I am not too sure of the quality of the land for airport purposes, but I would not think it would have to be of high quality to handle lighter aircraft. We own the land; it is in a good location. It is not in as heavy a fog area as the Van- couver international airport. Now that the government owns the property I hope the Minister of Transport will have his officials look it over, in co-operation with the officials of the Department of National Defence, with a view to finding a solution there. I wish to bring to the attention of the bouse once more the seriousness of the over- all situation at the airport. As I have said, at one time or another hon. members have visited there. We have seen conditions under which operations cannot be carried out efficiently. At that point there is a control tower not much larger than an ordinary chicken house. The three or four young men in the tower, efficient though they may be, cannot carry out their job as it should be carried out in the interests of efficiency and safety. I believe if the Minister of Transport looks into the situation carefully there will be no difficulty, so far as those of us from British Columbia are concerned, in obtaining a secondary airport in very short order. Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra): Mr. Speaker, the bon. member for Burnaby- Richmond (Mr. Goode) has dealt with this situation thoroughly, and there is very little one could add to the submissions he has made. I have before me a press report indicating the number of passengers who landed at Vancouver airport in 1954, and it discloses that there were about 600,000 persons. It has been estimated that each day of the year about 1,700 passengers go through the airport. The airmail amounted to 4 million pounds and the air cargo about 6 million pounds. [Mr. Goode.] Those figures will give hon. members some idea of the business being done at that airport. For some time there has been growing concern over the number of planes, and there has been a keen desire to remove the smaller planes from that airport. The hon. member's resolution is in terms almost identical with those of a resolution passed by the council of the Vancouver board of trade on June 17, 1954. I believe the Vancouver airport board has been making recommendations to the Department of Transport since November, 1952, urging the establishment of a secondary airport to take care of the minor traffic con- sisting of light planes and private flying. In addition there has been the suggestion that sooner or later the Royal Canadian Air Force training should be taken away from that airport. We have been led to believe that the Department of Transport was about to prohibit any further civilian flying training at that field. Members from the greater Vancouver area were told that by the airport board when we were guests of the board at the airport in December. I do not know whether that is the intention of the Depart- ment of Transport but, if so, it does show vividly the need for the establishment of a second airport. We were also told that the department had a survey under way, but since that time nothing more has been heard about it. I noticed about a month ago that the airport board recommended consideration of the use of Boundary Bay airport for minor flying. As yet, however, there has been no definite announcement from the government that any action is to be taken; and if action is to be taken, there bas been no indication what form it will take. In supporting the resolution tonight I urge that the minister tell the house what the government has in mind. I hope he will give us some assurance that there is to be a secondary airport in that area. Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I am certain all hon. members from the lower mainland of British Columbia will support the motion moved this evening by the bon. member for Burnaby-Richmond. As has been pointed out by the two hon. members who have preceded me in the debate, the international airport at Sea island is one of the largest and busiest in the whole of Canada, and is rapidly reaching the point where, without question, serious considera- tion must be given to the policies governing the use of the airport. Although I am certain this resolution will have the support of all members from the lower mainland of British Columbia, a number of whom sit in the opposition, I am glad the motion is made by a Liberal member, because for that reason I doubt if it will be called a want of confi- dence motion. We may expect to have it discussed on the basis of the issue involved, and to reach a decision, something which I know members of all parties from British Columbia most earnestly desire. As was pointed out, just prior to coming to this session of parliament the lower main- land members of all parties, on a semi- official occasion, had the opportunity of meeting with the airport board at Sea Island, and I am sure we were all amazed by the information we were given. The growing importance of this airport can be demon- strated by the fact that we were told that, in the light of its present business and the growth of Vancouver as a calling point on the international air routes, inside of the next ten years the airport will require the expend- iture of not less than $35 million. This will give some indication as to what is taking place. Yet, sir, we have this, the only major international airport in British Columbia, most certainly on the coast, at which we have not only all the commercial fiying but also a great deal of private flying and the R.C.A.F. stationed there. I do not know whether the gentleman to whom I am going to refer is now or was a high-ranking officer in the R.C.A.F., but I do know that one of the members of the airport board met with us. He very definitely said that in the view of the R.C.A.F., as a matter of policy, they had to be stationed at the air- port on Sea island. Personally, I cannot see why, with the high speed of R.C.A.F. planes at the present time, their training could not be done at some other location either on Vancouver island or nearby on the lower mainland. I want to point out, sir, that there obviously has not been the necessary co- operation and co-ordination between those who are responsible for the various types of flying on that field. As I said, the R.C.A.F. are stationed at this major airport. I am not going to repeat the figures given by the hon. member who moved this motion. Not only do we have the R.C.A.F. stationed at the air- port in Vancouver, but they do their training in the city of Vancouver area from that airport. You know, some of the things they do are positively stupid. It can only come about under a government that has not realized the situation and recognized what is going on. On the very day that a number of members of parliament from Vancouver and the lower mainland were out at the airport at the request of the airport board, the R.C.A.F. put their paratroopers through a training period. Vancouver International Airport Where did they drop the paratroopers? They dropped them right on the Vancouver airport at about two o'clock or two-thirty o'clock in the afternoon. At this busv airport they not only have their planes stationed but they put their paratroopers through their spot landings right on this airport. Surely, sir, that partie- ular type of training could be done some- where other than at one of the major inter- national airports in the Dominion of Canada. Considerable reference has been made to the private planes. We were told at that meet- ing to which I have referred that, in the opinion of the R.C.A.F., the maintenance of those private flying clubs and the fact that young men and young women can learn how to fly at these clubs is a most important part of the defence training of Canada. I most certainly believe that it is. But, as has already been pointed out by the previous speaker, there can be no question but that with the heavy commercial business and the R.C.A.F. the time is very close at hand when that airport can no longer be used by private planes. I have a great many friends who are mem- bers of these private flying clubs. I know a great many who are learning to fly through the medium of these clubs and their flying schools. Almost without exception they say they will have to give it up if they have to go too far away from the centre of the city. Surely in the lower mainland around the Vancouver area there are a number of loca- tions that could be taken over by the federal government to establish fields suitable for their accommodation. As bas been said by the previous speaker, I am not an expert either, but I have heard the officials of those clubs say they think there is a location at Jericho Beach, which is in Vancouver itself. I know there is a loca- tion about six miles out of Vancouver on Burnaby lake. The hon. member for Burna- by-Richmond (Mr. Goode) bas already men- tioned a location in the neighbourhood of Coquitlam or Maillardville. All these places or locations are within six to twelve miles of the centre of Vancouver, and that would be no obstacle whatever to the maintenance and encouragement of the private flying clubs, and would give the necessary airstrips for the planes of any of our visiting private flying clubs. After talking to these potential defenders of Canada, I do feel that to go too far out to places such as Abbotsford, or even to an excellent location at White Rock, about 34 miles from the heart of Vancouver, would be throwing a very great obstacle in the way of the maintenance of these clubs and the train- ing of new fliers. Therefore, sir, I want to FEBRUARY 14, 1955 1145 1146 HOUSE OF COMMONS Vancouver International Airport add my word to those already spoken, and satisfy nat only the companies which may I am certain to those which will follow after have to move but also thase wbich stay. I sit down. Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster): Mr. The situation at the Vancouver airport Speaker, in rising ta speak ta tbis mation I cannot be allowed to continue as it is at want ta say that I respect aid age, and present. It is only by a miracle that there particularly when an Irishman bas a birth- has not been a major accident there already, day. I was pleased when I noted that the or even a series of major accidents. It is hon. member for Burnaby-Richmand was absolutely wrong to have paratroopers drop- going ta move this motion. It 'as been mdi- ping down on the main airfield of western cated that every party in the bouse supports Canada. It is wrong to have all those who it, ta a certain degree at least. It is not my operate their own private planes, or who are desire ta talk out tbe motion, but I do bave learning to fly or who rent private planes, a few observations ta make wbich I tbink are not know where they stand and always be quite important and should be borne in mmd faced with the possibility that on a minute's before a vote is taken. notice from Ottawa, they will have to stop Several different sites bave been mentioned the use of the Vancouver international air- such as Coma lake, Port Coquitlam, Burnaby port by private planes and those private fly- bog and Jericho Beach. I bave one or two ing clubs. others that I wauld like ta add ta that lîst. The responsibility rests directly on this First I sbould like ta say that I was partic- federal government exactly in the terms of ularly interested in wbat the bon. member the motion now before us. Surely, from for Vancouver East bad ta say about the the point of view of commercial traffic, pas- members of ail political parties from the senger and tourist traffic and from the point lower mainland being invited ta attend a of view of stationing the R.C.A.F. where they meeting called by the airport board in respect will be of the utmost use with respect to ta this particular matter, and ta look over training young and new fliers, the federal the Vancouver international airport. I bappen government has a major interest. Since they ta be the Social Credit member nearest ta have a major interest, they should accept the the airport, and I am stili waiting for my major responsibility. If the federal govern- invitation. I am quite sure no other Social ment does not awaken to the situation and Credit member of the federal bouse received do something about it I am sure they will an invitation. I would suggest that if anyone live to regret it, whether Canada be at peace bad an invitation it should have been the or at war. persan wbo bas spoken of and taken an Therefore, sir, I want most emphatically active part in suggesting alternative sites in to support this motion. I hope when it this house. I bave suggested other sites that comes to a vote, although the majority of the might be available if and wben the Minister members of this house are not from British of Transport decides ta extend the field. Columbia, they will recognize that it is an I am beartily in agreement with the resolu- important and integral part of Canada and tion moved by the bon. member for Burnaby- will support the motion. Richmond. He is suggesting that steps be Mr. Daniel McIvor (Fort William): Mr. taken ta eliminate congestion, ta segregate Speaker, I am interested in this Sea Island the variaus types o! trafic and ta establish airport for personal reasons. I visit it as areas for a major portion o! the aviation often as I can during the summer, and I training program, bath military and civil, at should like some information. I have never points removed from the Vancouver inter- seen a busier place, and I have wondered national airport. why, with so many planes coming in and Last year wben I spake an this question I going out, there have been no accidents. As suggested that the government should let the far as I understand, the two large companies municipal district of Surrey know it was that use the airport facilities are Canadian essential that tbey should reserve the last Pacific Air Lines and Pacific Western. There remaining airpart site. I mentioned the White are also six other companies that operate Rock site, as did the ban. member for Van- on the island. couver East, wha suggested that that was too I was wondering if all those companies far distant from the heart of Vancouver. He would be moved off the island. Is that the said 34 miles. The bon. member knows quite idea? They use the airport facilities and the weîî that when the proposed super higbway hon. member who has proposed the resolution knows perfectly well that something must be is built from the international boundary ta done in the near future. Judging by the the heart of Vancouver it will not be 34 efficiency and wisdom of the Minister of miles. It may be 34 minutes, but certainly Transport we think he will find a way to nat that distance. Mrr. Winch.F The council of Surrey realized that there would be need for such an airport site, and they went out of their way to set aside a particular piece of property to be held as a future site for the Department of Trans- port. Apparently being on the scene and close to the problem they have a better concept of what is needed on the lower mainland than the transport board here in Ottawa, but I would not expect them to overlook this particular site. The need is apparent. Some time ago when speaking in the throne speech debate the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Thatcher) referred to a near crash at Moose Jaw. This emphasizes the point, to me at least, that if these crashes can occur on the prairies there is a much greater pos- sibility of crashes in an area which is prac- tically surrounded by mountains except for the sea on one side, and which is as subject to fog as is the lower mainland of British Columbia. I shall not review the trafflc hazards, as we are all familiar with them. We all know the importance of the international airport to the lower mainland. That cannot be over- emphasized. However, there is one truth which I think must be recognized. I have here a clipping from the Vancouver Province of December 22, 1954. It refers to the crash at Brampton, but that is not what I am interested in at the moment. The latter part of the article contains these words: Public safety, not the protection of a govern- ment department, or the government itself, should be the first consideration of inquiries into air crashes. I would go so far as to say that it is not just the inquiries which are important. To begin with we should have knowledge of the problem which faces us on the lower main- land. This is vitally important. The de- partment have recognized this problem, and during the past few years they have con- tributed to a minor degree to the airport at Langley. The minister knows something of this problem. I have made it a point to acquaint him with it, but I do want to empha- size that Langley airport is not too far distant from the heart of Vancouver. As I understand it, the question is the development of airport facilities in connection with the development of the lower mainland. The point here is that the lower mainland is not just the city of Vancouver and Burnaby. The hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) I know is very familiar with the region, and he seems to be quite amused. He may be interested in hearing some of the facts and figures about the population of the Vancouver International Airport whole area, and more particularly in con- nection with sites that are available for air- port purposes. This is no laughing matter. This problem must be met head on. As has been suggested before in this house, we are going to have a major catastrophe in the city of Vancouver because we have foolishly followed the practice of continually setting up airports right next door to the large centres of population. I need only emphasize what happened in Elizabeth, New Jersey, a year or so ago when they had a terrible air crash over the city. Flying bedsteads are only in the experimental stages at the present time, and it will be some time before they will be used by individuals for transport purposes within cities or from city to city. With respect to this factor, I was not fortu- nate enough to be in attendance at the meet- ing at the Vancouver airport, and I had to depend on newspaper clippings outlining the facts. But I understand that something is to be done about this airport soon. I know the Minister of Transport is new at his job, but I am wondering whether he can indicate to the people on the lower mainland how soon is "soon", because we are quite concerned. If this Department of Transport has any desire to utilize some of the fields available I might suggest to the minister that he should inform the municipal districts which are foolish enough to set aside property for air- port facilities that they are wasting their time, and would be much better employed in developing those areas for school or bous- ing purposes. I would urge the government to make an early and complete survey of the entire area. That would be an important step forward. The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond mentioned an area the government owned in Burnaby. Apparently it is a bog and quite useless for any other purpose. The hon. member believes it might be utilized by the Department of Transport. I do not know the region too well and I am quite satisfied it is a bog, but that does not necessarily mean it cannot be used for airport purposes, provid- ing the runways are made sufficiently long. Coming back to the airport at Langley, I have a clipping here from the Vancouver Province dated January 5, which carries the heading: "Langley Wants Bigger Grant for Airport." The report, which incidentally was also carried in the Vancouver Sun, stated briefly that a meeting was called which was attended by Senator Tom Reid, William Mott, M.P., Reeve George W. Brooks, Councillor 1147FEBRUARY 14, 1955 HOUSE O COMMONS Vancouver International Airport Noel Booth, and airport manager Art Sellers. The report in the Vancouver Sun continues: Mr. Sellers stated Skyway Air Services could handle all the aircraft likely to come, without being overcrowded for several years. He declared "Langley airport is becoming the prime field of the Fraser valley for light aircraft and a few more dollars spent here would be well invested." My purpose in drawing this to your atten- tion, Mr. Speaker, is to underline the fact that here we have an airport on the lower main- land in which the government earlier invested a total of more than $100,000 for construction purposes. They have invested an additional $5,000 annually over the past three years, and this year another grant will be required. I am well aware that we are not now dis- cussing the estimates, but I would suggest that in considering the problem of airport facilities it should be remembered that we already have an airport available, and that that airport can be made usable. Indeed, it is already being used today for agricultural purposes, and there is a private flying school operating from that field. I understand 25 light planes are already using that airport for agricultural purposes, principally for dusting. I discussed this matter earlier with the minister, and I would now urge him to take a very close look at the matter and see to it that the board submits its recommendation early so the people in the area can prepare themselves for the renovation work which will require to be carried out. They are ready to do a certain amount of work in the rebuilding of the airport, and advantage should be taken of their proffered assistance. We have the site available, the facilities are there, and I believe it will not take very much money to reconstruct the airport so it can be used for the very purposes outlined by the bon. member for Burnaby-Richmond. With reference to the article from which I have already quoted, I would like to draw attention to the fact that it refers to a gentle- man by the name of William Mott and has put "M.P." after his name. I take it "M.P." does not mean the military police, but in all likelihood means "member of parliament". On several occasions I have heard this gentle- man referred to as an ex-member of this house, but I did not realize until I saw this article datelined January 5, 1955, that lie had been again elected to this house. Mr. Knowles: Maybe it means "member for patronage." Mr. Hahn: The bon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) states that it means "member for patronage." That might be, but I believe we should be set right on this thing and the people of that riding [Mr. Hahn.] informed that they have a new member of parliament. I might say in justice to the man who invited this gentleman to this meeting- and I believe the house has the right to know-that the gentleman in question is also a member of that particular board and that was probably the reason for his being there. I might also say for the information of the house that I had this delegation to see me about two and a half months ago. It is possible, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre suggests, that there might be a form of patronage involved in this whereby the Liberal party hope to put their own rep- resentative back into the good graces of the public, and hope to keep their representative before the public by suggesting that he is the man who is accomplishing all these things. However, I am convinced the Minister of Transport is satisfied that such probably is not and should not be the case, and I am prepared to let the matter rest there. Hon. members have already spoken in support of the resolution outlining what should be done, and I believe the answer to the problems posed can be found in my riding. The Langley airport, for example, requires just a few thousand dollars of ex- penditure in order to make it a feasible prop- osition and it is within 30 or 40 minutes' drive from Vancouver. We have the airport, hangars, and 25 planes already there, and all that is basically required is the rebuilding of the gravel runway on which a plane nose- dived last year in nine inches of water. A certain amount of that money is required for sinking tiles to help dry up the runway. We have another airport at Boundary Bay which has been in operation for some time. It is possibly 25 or 30 minutes' driving time from the downtown section of Vancouver, and it is already being used by planes today. I believe we have our own caretakers there. The Minister of National Defence could pos- sibly tell us quite a lot about that if lie so desired. However, I merely wish to draw attention to the fact that it is there and I hope the new Minister of Transport will take advantage of it. We have the answer to most of these prob- lems in the riding of New Westminster, and we would be only too happy if the Minister of Transport through his department availed himself of the opportunity to make use of these facilities. More important, however, than any of these things is the fact that we must obtain a secondary airport on the lower mainland, and for my part I hope it will be established in the New Westminster riding. 1148 Mr. J. L. MacDougall (Vancouver-Burrard): Mn Speaker, I feel I should say a very few words in connection with this resolution. I am rather surprised that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) should have used the words "member for patronage" in referring to the former rep- resentative for New Westminster. But when I consider the matter I realize that he is an authority on that, perhaps more so than any other hon. member in this house. I do not think we should designate whether such per- sons belong to one party or another. I do not think we should have to listen to remarks about a former member of this house who served the people of his riding well and was defeated by the hon. member for New West- minster (Mr. Hahn), now sitting in this chamber. Mr. Hahn: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I merely repeated what was said by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Mr. MacDougall: I so stated. The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) spoke about the stupidity of the R.C.A.F. If the R.C.A.F. is stupid I hope I may be con- sidered to be in the same category. None of us is perfect. Of all the various branches of our services in Canada I think it is rather difficult for anyone to state that the R.C.A.F. is particularly stupid. Mr. Winch: As a correction may I say that I said that only about the dropping of para- troopers in mid-afternoon on Vancouver airport. Mr. MacDougall: I heard you the first time. Mr. Winch: You did not mention that in your talk, and you are not going to get away with that sort of thing. Mr. MacDougall: The hon. member for New Westminster said that when we get that super highway, that matter of 25 miles, 35 miles or 40 miles is going to mean nothing at all. Maybe that is so. I am not going to disagree with him on that point. But I say that as yet we are a long way from having that so-called superspeed highway. On top of all that there are several factors that are important. They have been touched upon by those who have preceded me in this debate. I must say in all sincerity and truth that I am in perfect agreement with the suggestion that some other alternative land- ing field ought to be made available for the various flying schools, and also for the var- ibus air lines other than Trans-Canada Air Lines, of which there are many, that operate from the international airport. Unfortunately I cannot offer to the house tonight a location 50433-74 Vancouver International Airport either for $3,000, $30,000 or $3 million within my own riding. But I would suggest to the Minister of Transport that if and when he considers some alternative to eliminate the congestion that now exists at the airport in Vancouver, we should at least avoid getting into a blueberry bog, regardless of whether we get it for $3,000, $30,000 or three cents. Having regard to the stage of modern aero- nautics through which we are passing today, I do not think we should take steps which, at the moment, may seem to be absolutely necessary but which, in the matter of a short time, may not be so necessary. I do not know-and I do not know of any member of this house who does-when we might have a type of airplane that will not require a lengthy runway upon which to land. If that situation should come about in the foreseeable future, as it might, then the runways of the international airport on Sea island, or a certain portion of them, could be utilized for some of the auxiliary flying services other than T.C.A. I must admit that I am out at the inter- national airport in Vancouver possibly as often as any of the hon. members who reside in and around that locality. I cannot impress upon you, Mr. Speaker, the terrific importance of the international airport in Vancouver. Mr. Winch: What is that? What did you say? Mr. MacDougall: You heard me. I was not stuttering. Mr. Winch: I could not believe my ears. Mr. MacDougall: Will you sit down until I have finished? Read it in Hansard tomor- row. I said no one can realize the importance of the Vancouver international airport. Mr. Winch: That is the reason I asked you what you said, because it did not sound that way from here. Mr. MacDougall: You had better go and get your ears washed out. An hon. Member: Don't go to a dentist. Mr. MacDougal: I did not ask you to come to me. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. MacDougall: This is a serious problem; make no mistake about it. I am as fearful as any one in this house about what might happen almost any day at that airport. Because of that fact there is one thing that I want to point out. It seems to be thé dogmatic statement of some hon. members that the federal government own the airport. Unfortunately we do not own the airport. As all hon. members know, of course, we are 1149,FEBRUARY... 14, 1955 1150 HOUSE OF COMMONS Vancouver International Airport spending a great deal of money in connec- and would look to the future with confidence tion with its upkeep; but I went through the in the matter of safety at the greatest air- last parliament and so far during this parlia- port we have in the land. ment trying to get an agreement among the Hon. B. O. Campne (Minuter of National federal government, the city of Vancouver Defonce): Mr. and the Vancouver airport so the federal a few words Spear I shl l tay government might own this great interna- dian Air Force, which seems to have been tional airport. Some three years ago we the butt of considerable comment tonight. were within some $50,000 of coming to an In the first place, the Royal Canadian Air agreement. The aldermen, three in number, Force does not operate training facilities in headed by the mayor, came down here; and the sense of traîning pilots at Vancouver. had it not been for an accident which occurred There is no elementary or intermediate fiy- on a particular day, I believe that gap of ing sehool or anything of that sort at Van- $50,000 would have been closed and that we, couver airport. We use the airport more or the federal government, today would be in less as an operational base. There are two complete possession of the Vancouver inter- auxiîiary fighter squadrons based on Van- national airport. couver, one equipped at the present time However, that has not as yet been done. I with Vampires and one with Mustangs, and think that is possibly one of the restraining I would doubt very much that the people of thoughts in the mind of the minister, if he Vancouver would want them moved some- has any restraining thoughts along that line, where else. These squadrons have to fiy dur- although I do not think he has. I refer to the ing the week ends, as the plots are engaged fact that at the present time we are not the in civilian activities during the week, and possessors and owners of the international they do fiy from that aîrport. But the plots airport. are experienced, many of them veterans of That does not mean we should not take world war II, and I do not think they should a vital interest in it. My interest is that of be classed as pilots in training. the people of greater Vancouver and of Then we have a search and rescue unit British Columbia generally. Vancouver air- at Vancouver airport which operates up and port has been described here tonight as the down the coast. It is equipped with quite a greatest airport in the dominion. I think the few planes, a number of them being sea- likelihood is that it is the greatest airport planes, and I doubt whether they could be in the commonwealth. The passenger services better based than on Vancouver. Our opera- operating from it and to it, together with tions are located at the far side o! the air- the haulage of freight and what have you, port away from the civilian activities and make it a terrifically important economic are not relatively very extensive, but I do item in the whole air transport system of the think they are and could be very use!ul to Dominion of Canada. the city o! Vancouver. I should be extremely happy, Mr. Speaker, The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. if the Minister of Transport would take this Winch) raised a question about paratroopers. matter under serious consideration. I have That is new to me. I have neyer known the sufficient confidence in his judgment to R.C.A.F. to conduct any paratroop training believe that he will go into the matter very at Vancouver airport. Probably it was a fully and that, having done so, he will find demonstration put on for some purpose, but some ingenious method whereby we may be I cannot say unequivocally that it was or able to have the additional facilities that are was not because I had not heard of it. now jeopardizing the T.C.A. in that area AU I want to say is that I think the Van- housed or based at a location not too remote couver airport is a very great airport, a from the great metropolitan centre of Van- very busy airport and a very well run air- couver city. If that is done I am quite sure port. The speaker who preceded me pointed that not only the press but the people of out that while it is called an international all political thoughts in British Columbia will airport, it is in tact a municipal airport in be more than happy. respect of actual operation. That does not In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say I detract o! course from the control exercîsed would hope that might be the outcome of by the Department of Transport. I have been consideration by the minister. If he would trying in my humble way for the last five do that, I am quite sure that all the repre- or six years to have the airport acquired by sentatives from that area in this House of the federal government. I thought I had Commons, regardless of the party to which arrived at that point after I had persuaded they belong, would be more than pleased the former minister o! transport to make an [Mr. MacDougalMs] FEBRUARY 14, 1955 offer and the city council approved it. Some- how the matter seems to have bogged down because now I understand it has to be voted on again. So far as our operations are concerned, I think they are a minor factor in the opera- tion of Vancouver airport. I also think they are carefully supervised, and are very neces- sary and useful to Vancouver and the lower mainland area. Mr. W. Ross Thatcher : Order. Perhaps at this moment the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre wrnl permit me to remind hlm that the operative part of the resolution is "action which will relieve the congested and dangerous con- ditions existing at the Vancouver inter- national airport". It is not my intention, and I do not; think it is the desire of the house, to hamper the hon. member too much in presenting his arguments, but he wil have to make them. apply to conditions at the Vancouver airport. Mr. Knowles: Our world is shrinking. These places are not very f ar apart. Mr. Thatcher: The first point the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond made was that he wants congestion at the Vancouver airport elirninated. I think that is a good idea and I support it, but at Moose Jaw our trouble is not the elimination of congestion. It is to have the air safety regulations im- proved. The second request of the hon. mem- ber for Burnaby-Richmond was to urge the segregation of various types of air traffic. I think that top is a good idea, both at Van- couver and Moose Jaw. I arn sure that if Trans-Canada Air Lines when fiying over Moose Jaw would just notify the R.C.A.F. control. tower- The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite): Order. Mr. Thatcher: --on the way to Vancouver- The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applfwhaite): Order. 1 do not think the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre would like to create the impression that he is deliberately twisting his argument to make it appear to apply to Vancouver when it actually applies elsewhere. I know the hon. member, having indicated the points he wishes to make, will now make a real effort to remain in order. Mr. Thatcher: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I accept your ruling, but I do hope that before the evening is through, the Minister of Trans- port will make a statement which will clarif y the safety situation at ail these airports. Mr. Pearson: He would be out of order if he did. Mr. Thatcher: I firmly believe that the air safety regulations could be improved to take care of cases such as have been dis- cussed tonight. 1 arn sure something can be done, and I think the safety of passengers travelling on Trans-Canada Air Unes is in jeopardy as long as some action is not taken. Mr. T. S. Barnett presented the first and second reports of the standing coin- mittee on banking and commerce and moved tbhat the first report be concurred in. Motion agreed to. INCOME TAX AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND IRELAND FOR THE AVOIDANCE 0F DOUBLE TAXATION Han. J. J. McCann moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 124, to implement an agreement between Canada and Ireland for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax. Some hon. Members: Explain. Mr. McCann: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of titis bill is to give legal effect in Canada to the agreement entered into between the government of Canada and the government of Ireland for the avoidance of douXble taxa- tion andthe prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income, which agreement was signed at Ottawa on October 28 last. This agreement, in line with similar agree- ments which we already have with the United States, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, France and Sweden, has as its purpose the avoidanoe of double taxation with respect to, trading profits, and also dividends, interest and royalty payments flowing between Ire- land and Canada. It systematizes taxes imposed on other types of income, including salaries, pensions and annuities which might be taxable in both countries. Provision is also made for tax credit and for the exchange of information. In addition, certain special provisions are made such as one which provides that profits from the operation of ships and aircraft will be taxed solely in the country of the residence of the operator, and another designed to foster cultural interests between the two countries which provides that professors or teachers from one country will be exempt from tax while visiting the other country for a period not exceeding two years. Students and apprentices from one country receiving educà- tion or training in the other country wfll ha exempt from tax in that country on payments received from. home for maintenance, educa- tion or training. Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. SUCCESSION DUTY AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND IRELAND FOR THE AVOIDANCE 0F DOUBLE TAXATION Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue> moved for leave to, introduce Bill No. 125, to implement an agreement between Canada and Ireland for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to succession duty. Some hon. Members: Explain. Mr. McCann: The purpose of this bill is to give legal effect in Canada to the agreement between the government of Canada and the goverrment of Ireland for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to duties on the estates of deceased persons. The agreement was signed at Ottawa on October 28 last. This agreement is based on the principles established in the present succession duty agreements with the United States, the United Kingdom and France. The principalpurpose of the agreement is to provide for a tax credit and for exchange of information. The agreement provides that the country of domicile will ailow a credit against Its duty i respect of property taxed by both countries. The agreement also provides that the two countries wiil exchange information HOUSE 0F COMMONS Inquiries of the Ministry upon request so that each will be advised of the death of its domiciled decedents apcl of the composition of their estates. Motion agreed to and bill read the first Urne. [Later:] APPLICATION TO CERTAIN COUNTRIES On the orders of the day: Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimalt-Saanich): May I direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Has the government reached any agreements sirnilar to those which he an- nounced as having been reached between Canada and Ireland with countries other than those that he referred to in his rernarks this af ternoon? Hon. J. J. McCann (Minisier of National Revenue): I think the list which I gave in- Cluded thern ail, the United States, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, France and Sweden. BLIND PERSONS ACT AMENDMENTS LOWERING ELIGIBLE AGE TO 18 YEARS AND INCREASING MAXIMUM ANNUAL INCOMES Hon. Paul Martin : Mr. Speaker, I should like ta address a question ta the Minister of Finance, of which I have given him notice. Is the recent move of the Bank of Canada as announced yesterday ta reduce the in- terest on loans to chartered banks from 2 per cent to li per cent a measure to make borrowing easier and is it expected by this monetary measure to stigiulate business? Does this action of the bank represent government pohicy? [Mr. McCann.] Hon. W. E. Harris White (Waterloo South) Johnson (Kinderaley) Winch Johnston (Bow River> Wylie Jones YuiUl Knight Zaplitny--83. NAYS Messrs: Anderson Applewhaite Ashbourne Balcomn Batten Benidickson Bennett (Grey North) Blanchette Boisvert Bonnier Boucher (Chateauguay- Huntingdon-Laprairie) Bourget Bourque Brisson Brown (Brantford) Buchanan Byrne Cameron (HIgh Park) Cannon Cardin Caron Carrick Carter Cauchon Cavera Cloutier Dechene Deschatelets Dickey Enfield Fairey Foflwell Fraser (St. John's Endt) Gardiner Garland Gautshier (Lake St. John) Gauthier (Nickel Belt) Gauthier (Portneuf) Gingras Gour (Russell) Gregg Habel Hardie Harris Harrison Hellyer Henderson Henry Hosking 1-ouck Howe (Port Arthur) Huftman .Tutras Kickham Kirk (Antigonish- Guysborough) Kirk (Shelburne- Yarrnouth-Clare) LaCroix Lafontaine Langlois (Gaspe) Lapointe Lavigne Leduc (Gatineau) Leduc (Jacques Cartier- Lasalle) Leduc (Verdun) Lefrançois Immigration Legare Proudfoot Lesage Purdy MacEachen Ratelle MacNaught Richardson McCann Roberge McCubbin Robertson McCulloch (Pictou) Robichaud McIlraith Robinson (Simcoe East) MeIvor St. Laurent McMillan Simmons Maltais Stick Marier Stuart (Charlotte) Matheson Studer Meunier Tucker Michaud Valois Murphy (Westmorland) Villeneuve Pickersgill Weaver Pinard Weir Pommer Weselak Poulin Winters-107. Pouliot Mr. Speaker: I declare the motion lost. At eight o'clock the house will resume the debate which was interrupted at five o'clock. As it is six o'clock I do now leave the chair. At six o'clock the house took recess. AFTER RECESS The house resumed at eight o'clock. SUPPLY The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Harris for committee of supply. IMMIGRATION Mr. Shaw: Mr. Speaker, at five o'clock I was commenting upon the fact that the Department of Citizenship and Immigration had, for some yet unexplained reason, im- posed restrictions upon the admission to Canada of certain children of Chinese origin. I think it would not be asking too much if I were to request that the minister give to the house a clear-cut explanation of the reasons for the imposition of these new restrictions. I feel now as I did when I heard the announcement of these regulations, namely that much of the good that had been accomplished by the repeal of the Chinese immigration act in 1947 had now been undone. I feel strongly about that matter. Many of these Chinese boys and girls are in Hong Kong. They left what is now com- munist China during or toward the end of hostilities there. Their parents reside here. In some cases the mother resides here as well as the father. I have been told by some of these parents what it is costing them in dollars to maintain those children in Hong Kong and certain other places. Of course we add to that something else the value of which cannot be expressed in terms of [Mrs. Fairclough.] dollars. ' I refer to the heartache these people must experience who are now faced with this new and rather rigid set of circum- stances. I am therefore going to ask the minister if, when he speaks, he would go into this matter in some little detail. Mr. Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? Mr. Shaw: Yes. Mr. Pickersgill: I am afraid I did not catch, if the hon. member gave it, what new regula- tion he was referring to. Mr. Shaw: Prior to last fall there were regulations respecting or governing the estab- lishment of proof of parenthood. New regula- tions were passed last fall, if I am informed correctly, providing that now in determining that parenthood the same laws that apply in Canada will be applied there. From past experience we all know that the situation is not parallel in China. Mr. Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. gentle- man would allow me to clarify that point right now. Mr. Shaw: That is fine. Mr. Pickersgill: I think the hon. gentleman is under a misapprehension about the facts. The facts are that under the regulations until June 30, I think it was-the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) will correct me if I am wrong-or until this judgment of the supreme court, we had assumed that "child" meant the child of the father and the mother who would be recognized as the wife here under Canadian law. As I apprehend it, the supreme court said that a child was legitimate who was the child of a concubine; and the governor in council, in his wisdom, then said that was not what he had meant by the regulation, and he made a new regulation making it clear beyond any doubt that the children of a concubine were not admissible under the regulations. But in fact they had not been admitted previously; so that, as far as practice is concerned, there is no change whatsoever. Mr. Fulton: The minister knows very well that when he uses the word "concubine"- Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Fulton: -that is not an accurate state- ment of the case. Mr. Speaker: Perhaps we should allow the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) to continue his discussion. If we are to have an intermediate debate interpolated in this debate, it will not make for good order. 1182 HOUSE OF COMMONS FEBRUARY 15, 1955 Mr. Fulton: That is flot the case at ail. It is a question of adoption and what is legiti- mate over there. Mr. Shaw: I was so anxious to hear what the minister might have to say in that respect that I was only too happy to sit down. I take it, then, that there bas been no change. Does the same appiy as f ai as adoption is concerned? Mr. Pickersgill: I understand-and again I ask the Minister of Finance to correct me if I arn wrong-that adopted children were neyer included and are flot inciuded now. Mr. Shaw: Possibly at another time we can pursue that matter. Ail I would say now, Mr. Speaker, is that if the situation is as it was before, then I arn extremely happy. But the impression which was conveyed to us by ail the reports we read certainly led me and others to the conclusion that there definitely had been a restriction. But if there is not, then o! course I arn extrernely happy to know it. Earlier ini the day, Mr. Speaker, I stressed the fact that, in our attitude toward prospec- tive immigrants, I believe there should be a different approach frorn the one we seem to have at the present tirne. I stressed that I thought we should display a belief-at least if we hoid it-that these people are human beings. I have cause to feel that the humanitarian aspect of this whole matter bas been subrnerged. Without having any specific information on the matter, I have sometimes wondered whether or flot those persons who have a good deai to do with the direction of policy are not trying to handie this whole question like an army is handied. I do flot know how rnany persons engaged in this particular aspect o! oui work are mllitary rnen, but I sometimes tbink there are sorne, maybe starting with the rninister's deputy; 1 do not know. There seems to be too much o! a rnilitary approach to the handllng of our prospective immigrants. There is another matter for which I hope the minister will give some explanation. It is rny understanding that today when a per- son escapes frorn an iron curtain country or is permitted to leave an iron cuitain country, as is sometirnes the case with older people, 65 years o! age or over, those persons must first find sheiter in what is designated as a friendly country, and there they mnust remamn for a period o! two years before favourable consideration can be given to the application -for admission to Canada; I say "favourabie consideration" provided other things are equal. They simply wiil not permit thern to corne in until after a period o! two years. I think they cail it aà period 50433-764 Immigration of quarantine. I do not know whether that is mental quarantine or quarantine because of the possibilîty of disease. What makes people wonder is this. If the escape from an iron curtain country is more spectacular and the press give it a good deal of publicity, the person very often lands right here and is permitted to remain. I am flot complaining about that fact, but it is certajnly an anomaiy. We have had that situation develop. I would flot have been a bit surprised, prior to this time, if more of them had tried to make their escapes a bit more spectacular and had made sure they did flot stop before they reached the shores of Canada because, nine chances out of ten, then they would have been perrnitted to remain here. I have a feeling, Mr. Speaker, that pos- sibly the department of immigration has allowed itseif to becorne too ciuttered up with regulations. Usuaily when a new minis- ter takes over we suddenly hear of something comparable to a housecleaning. I am not usmng that term possibiy in the same sense of the word as some would use it. When you say to a person that you are houseclean- ing, you alrnost aiways think o! sweeping out; this new broorn sweeps out. But in this department, as f ar as I am aware any- way, I bave not heard about too much of it. Mr. Pickersgill: There was no need o! it. Mr. Shaw: I arn not speaking of sweeping out and housecleaning in the sense of get- ting rid of personnel, if that is what the minister had in mind. I am giad he at least thinks that everything is ail right on immigration avenue. I for one would like to see ail this multitude of regulations which exist in the department of immigration brought together and some impartial body have a look at them. Mr. Pickeragill: I will send the hon. mem- ber a copy. Mr. Shaw: I arn rather of the opinion that that might be a desirable course of action with respect to flot only the regulations but the rulings. Bring thern ail together and let us have a look at them; or, better stili, let somebody who can be properly designated as impartial have a look at them. In that regard there is one thing the minister mnust not forget. No matter what he may think about bis own department-and I do flot blame him for thinking well of it- no matter what his supporters may think about it, the minister canniot close his eyes to the fact that right across the country criticism is appearing in some newspapers which we know are very strong political supporters o! the govérnment. Immigration I do not think it would do a bit of harm and it might do a lot of good if the minister would lay down again in clear and concrete terns a statement on immigration policy as it is now in effect. If he is able to do so, I think he should show that the government has something more than what one news- paper at least called high-sounding and meaningless platitudes instead of an effective immigration policy. I think he should make some move to prove to the house and the country that the statement in the Winnipeg Free Press to the effect that the government is profoundly suspicious of a policy and finds it politically wise to stay away from any- thing concrete is not according to the facts. In view of the rather conflicting statements that are made by ministers of the crown I think the minister should serve notice on his colleagues that henceforth he will make all statements, or if they are going to make them he will write them first. Mr. Pickersgill: That is the last thing this minister wants to do. Mr. Shaw: Possibly the minister has some better method of bringing the statements that are made by ministers a little closer together. Mr. Knowles: He had too much of that before he entered the cabinet. Mr. Shaw: Certainly the two that were mentioned this afternoon were just about as contradictory as any two statements could be, as far as I am concerned. Mr. Pickersgill: Parallel. Mr. Shaw: Since my time is almost up I think I should emphasize one thing. I am not one of those persons who look at the figures and says that certainly we must have more people come to Canada than came last year or the year before. I am not going to do that. In fact when I look at the figures I find that if you go back 40 years you will see that on the basis of numbers at least we had a more vigorous immigration policy then than we have today. But I know there are other factors that enter into the situation. People may not be very desirous of coming to Canada. On the other hand, I certainly would not wish to build up the numbers just for the sake of numbers because, as I said earlier, in my opinion the policy should be a selective one. I think we have a perfect right to choose. There is one thing I want to say about the report of the department. I stated earlier that I believe the department is in the habit of dealing too much with charts, statistics, etc. I find that in the report on immigration there are 20 pages of statistics, counting each side of each leaf as a page, and there are [Mr. Shaw.] only about five pages of text actually deal- ing with immigration itself from the point of view of policy. I believe the minister could probably escape a certain amount of criticism if in the production of the report of the immigration branch more information were given than is contained in this report for the year ended March 31, 1954. What is now contained in the report is just about the sane sort of information that one gets from a newspaper in reading an account of something that has happened. The house should have a more detailed statement of the operations of the department. I would not suggest dropping the statistics, because they have their place and value. I am not going to delay the house further. I hope the minister will see fit to give con- sideration to some of the matters I have raised. Mr. Pickersgill: If I may be permitted, I will send over to the hon. member a copy of the Immigration Act and the regulations. I think all the red tape is here within these two covers. Mr. Shaw: I would be very glad to review that in the light of all the various rulings and regulations that have been indicated to me. Mr. Daniel McIvor (Fort William): Mr. Speaker, I was not going to take part in this debate, but when I heard the hon. member for Kamloops paint a black picture of the services of the former minister of citizen- ship and immigration I thought I would state a few facts just as I know them. I have had a good deal to do with the minister in charge of immigration and with the departmental officials, and I must say that I have been well treated. I did not get every- thing I asked for, though everything I asked for was probably right. When I have tried to get an immigrant admitted to Canada I have been able to do so when work could be guaranteed. I must say that I had one case where an immigrant came to this country who was not guaranteed work, and he subse- quently took ill. I have the case before the minister now. I do not think the municipal- ity should have to pay the expenses of that individual. I think the government should pay. There are certain types of work that young Canadians will not do. I have found that they are not very keen to go into the bush. Neither are they very keen to work on the railroads or in the mines. We need men for these types of work, and I think it is the duty of the immigration branch to see that we have workers who will do them. I have also had some difficulty about the admission of 1184 HOUSE OF COMMONS FEBRUARY 15, 1955 young Chinese to Canada. We were able to bring one young student to Port Arthur. It was proved beyond any doubt that he was the legitimate child of the parents who were seeking his admission. It was proved by X-ray that he was under age, and he came to Port Arthur and made good. A local doctor of prominence wanted to secure the admission to Canada of two boys belonging to a Chinese doctor known to the local doctor, so- the boys could go to univer- sity at Winnipeg. I had no trouble securing the admission of these two boys because they were under age and everything was proved up to the hilt. I hear from them every Christmas. They are bright students and are making good. At the present time I am trying to secure the admission of two other Chinese boys, but so far I have utterly failed. However, I am going to keep at it until I find out the reason. When parents live in Canada and their children are in China and they want to bring them here, I think they should be allowed to enter the country, provided the children can be proved to be legitimate, because their fathers are citizens of Canada. I want to pay my tribute to the minister and the direc- tor of immigration for the patience they have shown me. There are two groups of people in Canada, one which agrees with the depart- ment and one which does not. There are those who think that immigrants coming here create unemployment. There are others who say that immigrants coming here make em- ployment. These two views are just the oppo- site, and they are held by members on both sides of the house. I simply rose to pay my tribute to the former minister of immigration. Mr. Auguste Maltais (Charlevoix)- I am very glad to take part in this debate, because the last time I took part in a debate on this subject was in 1952. The views which I expressed at that time were the same as the views I hold today. This afternoon I was rather surprised at some of the remarks made by the hon. mem- ber for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton). I believe the three main points in his speech were to the effect that this government had not spoken with a consistent voice; that our immigration policy was not in accordance with the needs of Canada; and that injustice and hardship had been worked on Canadians and non- Canadians alike as a result of our immigra- tion policy. I said that I hold the same views on this subject as I expressed in this house in 1952. I am glad to say, Mr. Speaker, that those were the views of the late Mr. King and of Immigration the Liberal party, and are consistent with the policy of this government. I believe it was in 1947 that the late Mr. King expressed the policy of his government on immigration along these lines: first, our immigration should be made up of permanent immigrants on a selective basis; second, our national economy should be ready and able to absorb this influx of immigrants; third, immigration should not be the cause of an undue change in the ethnical balance of the two main groups in this country; fourth, immigration is not a right but a privilege to be extended. I should say, Mr. Speaker, that as a sup- porter of this government I certainly share those views on immigration policy, and I shall certainly vote against the amendment that has been brought forward by the hon. member for Kamloops. Coming to the first point in this govern- ment's policy, that our immigration should be made up of permanent residents, one has only to recall what happened between 1901 and 1931 to realize the importance of this statement. In that time about 5 million immi- grants were brought into this country, and during the same period about 3-5 million left the country. I would dare anyone to say that our policy should not take care of this factor, and that our policy should be based on non-permanent immigrants being brought to this country. It is a very expensive way of getting immigrants into this country, when you bring in 5 million and during the same period 3-5 million leave. I do not believe I need develop the point that our immigration should be on a selective basis. As a matter of fact I believe the hon. member for Kamloops expressed this view, and I believe all hon. members are in agree- ment with it. I do not recall hearing the hon. member for Kamloops say that the policies announced by the late Mr. King, and pursued by this gov- ernment, were not announced in a very clear voice. Of course it may be that, being broad- minded, I do not pay too much attention if a minister of the crown says in one part of the country the optimum population should be 35 million, and if in the province of Quebec he says it should be 40 million. I do share this view that the optimum population of Canada within the next 25 years, that is around the turn of the century, should be about 40 million people. This is a very strange argument for a member of the Con- servative party to bring forward because at one time-I think I referred to it in this house in 1952-the leader of the Conservative party stated in British Columbia that the population of Canada should be 125 million people. Immigration This unclear and inconsistent voice of the Conservative party could be attacked in some other respects. It is only about two or three days ago that the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees) gave a statement to the press in Quebec. He said that Canadians speaking French should do their best to learn the English language and that Canadians speaking English should also try to learn the French language, so there would be greater national unity. This was a member of the Conserva- tive party speaking. I recall that in 1950 the same member of the Conservative party came to my riding and, under the sponsorship of the Conserva- tive candidate at that time, made a speech. This speech was written in French, and dur- ing the course of it the hon. member for Broadview left the implication that the Con- servative party, if elected, would nominate an ambassador or representative of the Cana- dian government to the Vatican. When we came back to this house for the first session I told the hon. member what he had said, and he replied that he had never said that. When he returned to Toronto he stated that his words never carried any such implication. I feel that the argument put forward by the hon. member for Kamloops to the effect that this government does not speak with a clear and consistent voice on immigration policy does not hold much water. The second point, as I understand it, is that our immigration policy should be based on the fact that our national economy is capable of absorbing this influx of immi- grants. Merely because this country extends from one ocean to the other, merely because there are only 15 million people in this land, does not mean that one should support a policy of wide open immigration into this country. Despite the very optimistic declara- tions of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage), I do not think any member in this house would take his family up to the Arctic circle or into the Northwest Territories. No one would expect these people who come here as immigrants to go to the northwest and freeze in the cold. It is true that this land does extend from one ocean to the other. It is truc that accord- ing to statistics there are only 2.5 persons occupying each square mile, but I feel there are limits to the population Canada can sup- port. There are limits to the number of people we can bring into this country, and those limits are set either by the development of our natural resources or by our capacity to produce. I have heard statements from businessmen during luncheon addresses to the effect that this land is full of opportunity and there is room here for many, many [Mr. Maltais.] people. My experience has been that the development of our natural resources is limited, and let me tell you this story to illustrate my point. The natural resources on the north shore of the St. Lawrence are being developed. We have Seven Islands and the iron ore develop- ment. I was up there myself. At the begin- ning of the development 6,000 people were employed there. That was in the boom years when the development first began. I venture to say that today, since most of the works have been completed, the labour force up there is not more than 3,000 people. Let me give another illustration. We had a development in the lake St. John district by the Aluminum company. Some dams were built on different rivers. I referred to that four years ago. At that time the labour force was around 6,000 people. I doubt at this moment whether there are a hundred people working on the same project. That means, Mr. Speaker, it is not good enough to justify immigration by the development of our natural resources. I should congratulate the government on the fact that its immigration policy is based on experience over a long period of time. A statement was made this afternoon by the hon. member for Kamloops and I am wondering whether this statement was based on the same statistics that I am now going to use. In the course of the debate he said that from the years 1950 to 1954, inclusive, the figures establish that British immigration on some occasions has been as low as one-sixth of the total immigration. I do not think that statement is fair, Mr. Speaker. I hold in my hands a report of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration dated March 31, 1954. I shall quote some statistics that appear on page 23. Over the last ten years the immigrants who came to this country were divided as follows: from the British Isles, 368,127; from Germany, 127,356. During the same period there came 97,122 Dutch; 98,187 Italians and 28,769 French. If you add the number of immigrants coming from countries outside of the British Isles you will find that in the last ten years 351,434 immigrants came from countries other than the British Isles, and 368,127 came from the British Isles. It would appear, Mr. Speaker, that the statement made by the hon. member for Kamloops was based on a very short period and was made for the purpose of criticizing the policy of the government. He has picked out certain years to suit the purpose he had in mind. I could criticize the government that I support because its immigration policy has 1186 HOUSE OF COMMONS iot tried to keep a balance between the two groups which form the majority in this nation. Of course I am very proud of those immigrants who came to this country from the British Isles and are now Canadians, because as a Canadian of French descent I think we owe very much to the British tradi- tions and we should accept and be proud to share with these new immigrants what Canada has to offer to our people. On the other hand, I can say I am sorry that our immigration policy does not take more account of immigrants of French des- cent. Perhaps I should apologize because, on reading this report of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, I find that most of the provinces have come to some arrange- ment with the federal government to help and to improve the conditions of immigrants coming to this country, but I regret to say that the province in which I live and of which I am very proud has not seen fit to enter into an agreement with the federal govern- mhent to try to increase the number of immi- grants of French descent arriving in Canada. Another point on which I should like to touch has to do with the immigration policy of the government with respect to the rights of immigrants. The hon. member for Kam- loops this afternoon expressed the view that immigrants have a right to come to this country. It might well be that we could discuss this matter for a very long time, whether immigration is a right or whether it is a privilege extended by the country that is receiving immigrants. If a nation has not the right to make regulations and laws regarding the matter of bringing immi- grants into this country I am wondering whether the same reasoning would not apply to a family in such a country. I do not think anybody has a right to come into some- one else's home and say to the head of the family "I am a neighbour of yours. I want to share in your welfare. I want to sit at the same table and be sheltered in the same house." If we adopt the argument which the hon. member for Kamloops put forward this afternoon it will lead us into a position that will be very hard to maintain. He'said there are at least 5 million people too many in Europe; but I do not think it is the right of those 5 million people to come to Canada at any one time and endanger our economic way of life and the structure of our population. The view that immigration is a right should not be accepted without limitations. It is true, as the hon. member for Kamloops said, that cases have arisen in which the officers of the department do not deserve too much congratulation. But even when you think of these specific cases you Immigration must realize that our country has welcomed over a million people since the war. One should realize that with such a large number of people coming to this country quite a few might suffer hardship because of the regulations or the legislation, but that can be found in any branch of human endeavour. We are always ready to take note of the exceptions and close our eyes to the great majority of the people who came to this country and made a decent living and are now Canadians, sharing in the ideals of democracy and freedom of which we are proud. We do not always agree on the ways and means of obtaining democratic freedom and these other ideals which we all share, and we should not use exceptions like that as a basis for broad statements that the immigration policies are all mixed up with regulations which have accumulated over the years. I do not think that is fair. As far as I am concerned I shall continue to support this government in its policy of immigration. One can have only praise for the former minister of immigration and for the present minister. I think they have followed the policy which was enunciated in 1947 by Mr. King. I do not see how this policy could be challenged. There are those who believe that immigration should be based only on economic principles, but I think we should keep in mind that humanitarian and Christian principles should apply also. If my memory serves me right, in 1946 we welcomed into this country over 100,000 soldiers from Poland, Czechoslovakia and eastern Europe. That was based on Christian principles. It is not so many years ago that this country opened its doors to a great num- ber of displaced persons from Europe. I would say that the present government has even broadened the principles which were enunciated in 1947 by Mr. King. I do not hesitate to support the Liberal party in this policy which it has expressed in such a clear and consistent way. I share the view of a majority of good Canadians that this country is certainly in need of immigration to help in the growth of our population. I share the views which have been expressed in the house this after- noon that immigrants do not contribute to a very large extent to the problem of unem- ployment which occurs every year at this particular time. I shall not hesitate to support this same government in the years ahead in its immigration policy which I know will be flexible enough to take care of the natural increase of population and which will respect our economic way of life. My suggestion would be that great care should be taken FEBRUARY 15. 1955 1187 HOUSE OF COMMONS Immigration to try to maintain a balance between the ethnie groups which form this country. I share the view that immigration, which might be a natural right, should also be considered in the light of our political and economie situation. These matters should be taken care of before an assertion is made, like that made by the hon. member for Kamloops, that immi- gration to this country should be increased and that immigration should be made up of more British stock. It is not that I am against British stock. I welcome them here, but I think we should admit that in order to main- tain a balance between the two groups we should have respect for one another's desires and wishes, that this country shall be great and that the two groups in this country shall keep in balance. In conclusion I would say that the hon. member for Kamloops is not right when he says that only one-sixth of immigration was made up of British stock. Mr. Fulton: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege I should like to correct a figure I used this afternoon, and to some extent I must thank the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Maltais) for directing my attention to it. I refer to the figure of one-sixth as represent- ing British immigration. I said that British immigration had fallen to as low as one-sixth in one year. I have no correction to make as to that. However, I think I used an expression to the effect that for the ten-year period it had never averaged more than about 25 per cent. Unfortunately I do not have the Hansard take in front of me, but that is my recollec- tion of the figure I used. I should have said that it has never averaged more than about 30 per cent. If I have misled the house I ask the house to understand that it was entirely through inadvertence. I like to be accurate in my use of figures, and my figure should have been about a 30 per cent average for the entire period. Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford): Mr. Speaker, we have heard a great deal today about people having trouble with young Chinese. I must say that I have had trouble with one older Chinese who wanted to bring into Canada a woman he contended was his wife. I shall not trouble the minister with that tonight, as he and I have had correspondence about this in the past. In the few remarks I intend to make, first I should like to pay a compliment to the former minister, for whom I have great respect. Then I have a question I should like to ask. Next I have a story to relate, which I think will be found to be quite surprising. [Mr. Maltais.] First, with respect to the compliment; during the last five years a great many people have come into my constituency from Holland and in this respect I think the department of immigration and the present and immediate past ministers should be highly complimented. These people who came to Canada from Holland have proved to be very good farmers. My constituency is semi-urban and semi-rural. Many of these people who have come from Holland were most anxious to get hold of plots of ground, and they have made excellent farmers. They had very littie money, but they borrowed money and they have always paid their debts on time. Many of their mortgages have been paid ahead of time. They are hard-working people who never get involved in any serious crime. I found that to be the case from my previous experience in the legal field. These people from the Netherlands have a particularly fine sense of social responsi- bility. Since they come from one of the democratic countries in the western hemi- sphere I suppose that is only reasonable. Just to illustrate this, when Woodstock was building a new hospital these Dutch people put on a concert and sang their native songs dressed in their native costumes. They raised money for the community fund. When "Hurricane Hazel" devastated parts of west- ern Ontario, as it did the Toronto district, the Dutch people again put on a concert and raised money to help those in need of relief. If the minister of immigration has a policy no doubt we will hear about it before this debate is over; but if under that policy he wishes to bring in more people from the Netherlands I for one will welcome them. I certainly would like to see him bring in more from the British Isles as well. The second point I would like to deal with is a question. I should like to ask this of the minister of immigration and also the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg), who I think is in- volved in it as well. Quite a number of persons who immigrate to this country be- come unemployed for various reasons a short time after their arrival. If they have not paid in the 180 contributions toward unem- ployment insurance within a two-year period they cannot, as we all know, collect any un- employment insurance. In addition, if they have been only a short time in a community they cannot obtain any relief from that com- munity. I understand municipalities vary as to how long they require a person to be resident before they pay relief, but in On- tario, after making inquiries, I find that the rule of thumb method adopted is a period of three months, which seems to be the generally accepted figure. Quite a number of people who arrive here have been resident in these communities for a matter of only several weeks. They are out of a job; have no money, perhaps because of the fact that they can bring very little with them; they cannot get relief, and when they go to the unemployment office they are refused unemployment insurance. They are then in a fine kettie of fish and many of them are afraid of becorning public charges, because, as I understand it, they have been told they then will be shipped back to their country of origin. I would ask the minister what is the policy in this regard. If these people become un- employed and have no means of subsistence, if they try to obtain relief will they be sent back to where they came from? If this is the case I do flot think it is fair. They should flot have been brought here in the first place unless the government could give them some assurance of employment, or alternatively assure them relief. I arn told that in some constituencies the Department of Labour helps these people in some manner or other. In some other places it certainly does not. There seems to be littie co-ordination between the department of immigration and the Department of Labour in this respect. I would like ta direct this question to the ministers in charge of these departments. Is there any consistent policy with respect to immigrants who corne here and become unemployed? Are the Depart- ment of Labour going to assist these people, and if so are they going to adopt a consistent policy throughout Canada? 1 think the policy in this regard should be made quite clear. It is very embarrassing for municipal officiais to have people who are starving corne to thern for relief. The municipalities do not like to turn themn down. On the other hand, the people are not resident in that municipality, and the municipality itself will probably have to suifer in the long run if it gives out llmitless relief. I know that some municipalities, when they have people corne to them fromn adjacent municipalities, got in touch with the original municipality and agree to pay the relief if it will foot the bill. But that practice cannot be put into eifect with regard to those who corne from another country. The last point I wish to mention is amazing and I believe quite shocking. In fact the story seemed so amazing ta me that I made several inquiries before I decided to bring it before the house. I arn convinced that My sources o! information are reliable, and I hope the minister wrnl have some comment to make when he speaks in titis debate. Immigration Greek mythology had a story, Mr. Speaker, to the eifect that persons who died and de- parted thîs world had to be put into a boat and taken across the river Styx to the next world by an old ferryman called Charon. This story bears some relation to the modern world, or at least that period to which my particular story relates, and that period was three years ago. The metaphor is flot exact, because the river Styx would have to represent the At- lantic ocean, and I would flot care to compare either the present or the past Minister of Citizenship and Immigration with the old ferryman who carried the bodies across the river into the other world. In addition Can- ada, instead of being the other world, is a land of promise, free of despair. However, in other respects that Greek story has some application to the story I am about to tell. I was informed by two persons who came to, Canada over three years ago from a camp in Germany that the following incident took place on the S.S. Beaverbrae, which is out of service now but which at that time was used to bring immigrants to Canada. These people were Estonians originally and now ive in my constituency. They were displaced persons located in a camp in Germany. They paid, I am told, $190 each for their passage on the Beaverbrae. They had a young baby with them. On the way over the men were made ta sleep in bunks in one hold and the women were provided with bunks in another hold. In addition the men were made to scrub the decks and passageways, and the women made to dlean up the toilet fadilities and pre- pare vegetables for the meals. The meals, such as they were, apparently were not always edible, and I amn told that the eggs were rotten. The passengers-I caîl thern passengers because they paid a fare of $190 although they seem to have been regarded more as part of the crew-were told that if they did flot work they would not receive any meals. Apparently the crew took considerable delight in this situation and on arrival in Canada-I ar n ot sure whether it was Quebec or Montreal-the crew told the pas- sengers that if they said anything about it they would be sent back home. As I said earlier, this story seems utterly fantastic, but I checked my sources of in- formation and I arn inclined to believe it is true. I believe it will be difficuit to confirm this story because the events took place three years ago, but I hope if there is any truth in this story the minister will see to it that con- ditions such as this are not permitted to exist on ships bringing new Canadians to Canada. I hope the minister will be able to give us some assurances on this score. FEBRUARY 15, 1955 1189 HOUSE OF COMMONS Immigration Mr. Elmore Philpoit (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, I am not going to keep the house very long tonight. When I heard re- marks from several speakers on the other side of the house to the effect that the depart- ment of immigration was all tied up in a policy of calculated confusion: and I heard this talk about the lack of humanity in the treatment of immigrants and that immigrants were being treated as statistics; I could not but help think that the experience of these hon. members was very different from my own. During the very short time I have been a member of this house and for several years before that I had occasion to deal with im- migration cases, and during the time of the present minister and the period during which his predecessor held office I received every courtesy from the department and my ex- perience was the exact opposite to that men- tioned by some hon. members here today. I would like to remind the house of one quite well known case involving two Korean boy refugees with whom I had some contact. As a matter of fact we had to get them out of the immigration shed at Vancouver by methods which I will not now reveal to the ex-minister of citizenship and immigration. But it is not true that we backed the hook and ladder truck of the Vancouver fire de- partment against the window of the shed. We got them out by some other means. But when the war started in Korea and the R.C.M.P. suggested to some of us that it might be a good idea to have these Korean boys report, we were able to get them to report within three or four hour's of the time the R.C.M.P. suggested it to us. I am just bringing that matter up tonight in order to remind the house that on that occasion the ex-minister of immigration, the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris), stretched the law to the utmost possible de- gree in the interests of human compassion. He did as the great Nelson did at one of his famous battles, when he put his biind eye to the telescope, in the interests of human judg- ment. I could cite several other instances which have never had one line in print, where when everything else failed and I was able to appeal to the former minister on the straight ground of compassion for a human being in distress, he went far out of his way and beyond the line of duty to do a great act of kindness to a human being in distress. Mr. Knowles: Will he do that when be brings in the budget? Mr. Philpoti: For the benefit of my friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) I may say that was done before I was a member of parliament or had any idea of sitting here where I am tonight. [Mr. Nesbitt.] There is one point I wish to bring to the attention of the house. I had intended to do it on the estimates, but since we are now talking about immigration this seems to be a good time. We have in British Columbia a small but highly respected minority of what we call the East Indians. They have been a respected minority for many years. They are almost entirely of the Sikh religion. They are not Mohammedans; they are not Hindus. They are of the Sikh religion, which is a fine religion that believes in one God, the father- hood of God and the brotherhood of man. I may say that these people practise their religion. For many years the community did not grow. These people came here away back at the turn of the century. Most of them were in the wood business. For many years the restrictions were such that it was difficult for the young men in the community to bring out from India girls who were suitable as wives. The East Indians, like everybody else, as a general rule prefer to take their mates from among people of their own culture and re- ligion and, I might say, most important of all, from among people who can cook the kind of meals they like to eat. When India became a great free nation within the British commonwealth and when the East Indians of Canada were at long last enfranchised and became fully free and equal citizens of this great nation of Canada, this country made a treaty or an agreement of some kind with three new nations out in that part of the world, namely India, Pakistan and Ceylon. As a result of that agreement there is now a quota on East Indian immigration. I am well aware of the fact that the ar- rangement we now have represents a tre- mendous advance and all concerned were glad to get it. But in my opinion it has served its purpose, at least at the level at which it is now fixed. I myself do not believe in quotas on any nation. I believe we should judge every human being on his merits when he applies for admission into our country. If there is no good reason why we should keep him out, and if there is every reason to be- lieve that he will fit into our Canadian family life, we should let him in. I would suggest for the consideration of the minister and the government that we should do one of two things. We should either make the quota arrangement more liberal, espe- cially with regard to India-because almost all our immigrants from that part of the world come from India, not from Pakistan or Cey- Ion-or we should abolish the quota alto- gether. I have just one final word to say. I have not said anything much on the question of PEBRUARY 15, 1955 Chinese immigration and I do not intend to do sa, but I want to leave this thought with the house. When we are dealing with the people of other nations whose laws with regard to marniage are not in ail cases exactiy the samne as our own iaws right down to the crossing o! the last "t' and the dotting o! the last "i" let us tend to take a broad-minded approach. Let us remember that great man King Solomon, whom we ail hear about if we go to church or perhaps if we go to lodge; and let us nemember that if we appiied to him the samne rules that we now appiy to some of the younger sons of the second wives o! Chinese immigrants he wouid neyer have been admitted into Canada if hie had applied for admission as an immigrant. Let us just remember that if we draw the lune too fine we may be keeping out more than one patential Solomon. Mr. H. A. Hosking (Wellington South): Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to take part in tis debate tis evening, but aften listen- ing to the remarks o! the hion. memnben for Oxford (Mn. Nesbitt) I thought how different his expenience was from the one I had this past summer: I had the happy experience of coming to know a German immigrant who came to this country this summen and who worked for a friend of mine. During the summer he informed me that hie had applied for the admission of is wife and five chil- dren, and that he hoped to bring them out. While hie was waiting for them to come I spent some time In bis company and became acquainted with hlm and is chum. When I knew that the family were anriv- ing at Montreai I found myseif in that city, and went down to the wharf to see the arrivai and the reunion of that famiiy. I shouid like to take just a moment or two of the time of the house to descnibe the wonderful organization I saw at pier 4 in Montreai when that ship was unloading. The first thing that happened was that al the baggage was taken off and laid out i aiphabeticai arder in the A's, B's, C's, D's and sa on right down that long pier. When the owners of the baggage came off the ship they were conducted ta the nows of baggage which belonged to them, and they veny quickly sarted out their hand luggage and were conducted fnom that position to the buses and taken to the train. In ail the army movements I have been on I have neyer seen a more compiete organiza- tion than that which I observed on the arrivai of that ship. The immigrants were conducted in a comfortabie and orderiy man- ner to the train and were dispersed to their varions destinations. The freight, the heavy Immigration baggage they had-and they were allowed to bning large parcels-was moved off and arrived at its destination almost at the samne time as did the immigrants themselves. In talking to Mrs. Manhardt, I was informed that they had only the choicest cuts of beef and that they had ail the fresh vegetabies, apples and oranges they could eat. They said that during the course of their trip, from the time they left home until the time they arrived in Canada, a peniod of some 12 days, they had better food than ever bef are in their lives. 1 was very pnoud to think that the treat- ment of these new citizens on their passage to Canada indicated that they were coming to the land of plenty, and I am quite confident that the minister will see to it that the good conditions present on the ship which. saiied from Holland that brought the Manhardts to Canada will continue. It is important that they exist. It is important that when these people are conting to Canada for the first time they should be provided with gooci service, shown every courtesy and given good food, as has been the case. 1 would flot have taken part in this debate if it had not been said that these conditions do not exîst, when I knew from my expen- ience last summer that the absolute reverse was the case, that they neceived the best treatment and were treated on thein first trip to Canada much betten, so fan as food and general onganization were concerned, than we were as soldiers. Mr. H. 0. White (Middlesex East): Mn. Speaker, I should like to make a few remarks regarding the Department o! Citizenship and Immigration. I understand that during the first year of residence in Canada of an immigrant the depantment is responsible for the cost of any sickness or hospitalîzation the immigrant may incur, but that after the period of one year has elapsed the munici- paiity and the province are saddled with the cost of hospitalization and so forth if the immigrant becomes iii and is not in a position ta pay. I understand that in cases where the hospitalized immigrant is flot able to pay a deportation order is issued against the immi- grant and in same instances hie is deported. We ail realize that none of us know when we may become iii and need haspitalization or the services of a doctor, but under the ?present set-up once a deportation order is issued the department immediately becomes a collecting agency for the hospital. These immigrants do not want to return to their homeland, and consequently their friends are called upon to dig up the funds to pay the hospital costs, and they do so. HOUSE OF COMMONS Immigration I had a case brought to my attention of a mother and father up in years, and their daughter. They were all employed, then the father lost his job. There is a certain amount of unemployment, whether or not the govern- ment is prepared to acknowledge it. Then the mother became ill. The family was not able to meet the cost of hospitalization and a deportation order was issued. There were no other members of the family in Europe to whom the mother could return. We call ourselves a Christian country, yet the depart- ment of immigration is a party to that sort of proceeding. I asked one of the officers of the depart- ment how many deportation orders ars issued a year or week or month, and I was amazed to find that in this particular district it averaged two to three a week. I grant that all these deportation orders are not carried out, but the orders hang over their heads for the rest of their lives and I understand that these people will never be able to obtain Canadian citizenship. Surely some better method could be worked out. I suggest to the government that instead of only being responsible for the hospital expenses of immigrants for a period of one year they should be responsible for such expenses until such time as these people have an opportunity to become Canadian citizens, which is a period of five years. There is one other matter which I believe I have mentioned before, namely that a good many people who would become good citizens would come to this country if it were possible for them to bring more of their capital with them. We know, of course, that some are without any great means, but there are others who would come here if they could bring their capital. I have suggested that some system should be worked out whereby loans would be made to them against the money or wealth they possess in their homeland, so they would have capital to use here when they arrive. I also had it brought to my attention last summer that a couple of truckloads of people, who formerly lived in the northwestern part of our country but migrated to Mexico some 25 years ago, had returned to Canada. They brought with them their children who were born in Mexico. When these people arrived in Canada they failed to send their children to public school, and when it appeared that they would be required to do so they moved to another locality and thus avoided the edu- cation of their children. When I inquired about the matter I was told that these people were Canadian citizens and could not be kept out of the country. [Mr. White (Middlesex East).] I am not going to go into that point, but it seemed to me that it was a rather far-fetched story. I want to point out to the minister that the people in the community to which these people came were not too happy about the situation. When investigations were carried out recently with respect to whether the children were going to school the investi- gators were told that these people had moved out of the community. There were over 30 of them living in one bouse in a rural com- munity not too far from London. I point out these things to the minister. I hope the department will see fit to assume the hospitalization costs of immigrants who become ill so that the municipalities, already overburdened as they are with costs of one kind and another, will not be saddled with another burden, one that could be removed if the department would assume the responsi- bility. Mr. Angus MacInnis (Vancouver-Kingsway): Mr. Speaker, I wish to take advantage of this debate to say a few words on a particular phase of immigration matters that I have taken up with both the present minister and his predecessor. I am not going to go into the question of general policy now, but will deal with the policy of the department respecting certain people found more gen- erally, I think, in the province of British Columbia. The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) referred to the East Indian residents of British Columbia, and I can save time by saying that I agree with what he said and support him fully in the points he raised. I wish to take up the case of other persons of Asian origin in Canada, the Chinese. It is just possible the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) may have touched on this, too; I went out of the chamber while he was speaking, and I do not know. I am sure the minister will know, even although he did not hold his present office at the time, that the Chinese benevolent associa- tion of British Columbia presented a brief concerning immigration laws and the citizen- ship act to his predecessor, the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris). I must say that I am in complete agreement with the association when they say they want to be put on the same basis as other residents in Canada in regard to immigration. I do not believe that is too much to ask. I see the minister is paying attention, and he will find on page 3 of this brief-I am sure he has a copy of it on file-a request for modifications. Under that heading they say this: As you know, the Chinese benevolent association has, on behalf of its members, long pressed and stili presses mast strongly for the repeal of the discriminatory arder in council P.C. 2115 and of the footnate thereto, and for the repeal of P.C. 2826 which replaces former orders In council P.C. 2743 and P.C. 4849. If, hawever, the total repeal of the aforementioned provisions of the immigra- tion regulations is at this time Impossible, we would petition for at least the following modifications ta the immigration regulations. I amrn ot going ta take up the tie ai the house by reading the modifications particu- larly requested. I do insist, however, that we should not; have in this country two classes of citizens or even two classes ai residents. What we do for a resident, let us say ai Swedish nationality who is flot a citizen, we should do for a resident ai Chinese nationality, Japanese nationality, or East Indian nationality wha is not a citizen. I ieei the hause will agree with me when I say that is not too much ta ask. Now I shail read the last request made by the Chinese benevolent association. I arn going ta say a iew words about that, and then I shahl conclude my remarks. This is clause : This is indeed an extraordinary situation. Since three o'clock this afternoon the house has heard a number ai hion. members speak ta a motion which is technically and, in fact, an expression ai want af confidence in the gavernment and indicts the government's immigration policy. As yet flot one word has been heard from the treasury benches. The Minister ai Citizenship and Immigration and the former minister, now Minister ai Finance, have been present in the house during the greater part ai the debate and have had every apportunity ta participate had they chosen ta do so. Now, as the day draws ta its close, the house is faced with a situation where the government has dedined ta take advantage ai its oppartunity ta answer, if it has an answer, these charges that have been made against it. Thtis is indeed an extraordinary situation. Does the governmnent feel sa secure in the support ai the large majority ai members ai this house that it daes not ieel called upon ta state a policy or deiend its administration? Does it expect that hon. members who meekly follaw themn when the division belîs ring wlll raily ta thefr expected duty again by expressing confidence I the government in titis atmosphere ai silence, without a word being said by the gavernment con- cernig Its policy or its administratian? Mr. Pickersglll: We wanted ta hear the hon. member first. Mir. Fleming: The minister wiil indeed, then, have the oppartunity. I arn just sorry FEBRUARY 15, 1955 1193 Immigration that his patience has been so extraordinary on this occasion. I might have been very happy indeed to have heard what the minister had to say, if he had anything to say, in defence of this record of administration of his department in the light of this indictment of it. We have gone a long way apparently, Mr. Speaker, in this country in the policy and administration of this government from the time when the Prime Minister is reported in a Canadian Press dispatch of January 16, 1953, as saying: Mr. St. Laurent, declaring this country has great opportunities, said, at the same rate of growth as the last half century Canada might have 35 million or 40 million people by the year 2001. "There is room enough for that number and for many more", he said, "and there is wealth enough for that number and for many more awaiting use and development". I wonder whether the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Maltais) was aware of that statement of the Prime Minister. Perhaps it would be proper at this time for the Prime Minister to reiterate those views, if he retains them. Perhaps it would be opportune now if the Prime Minister made a declaration of policy on behalf of the government in rela- tion to those views, if he still entertains them. While I am on that subject, Mr. Speaker, I might quote to the same hon. gentleman an expression of opinion on this subject that is contained in a Canadian Press dispatch of October 9, 1952, in which the archbishops and bishops of the Catholic church in Canada are quoted as having expressed themselves to this effect in a prepared statement: Immigration is a social question with many aspects. The church does not wish to pass judg- ment on the details of policy regarding immigra- tion, but does point out to all that immigration is a moral question, subject to moral laws which should direct and inspire those whose duty it is to determine a policy on immigration. Since God created the entire earth for man's use and benefit, the countries which have un- occupied lands should open such territory to people of over-populated countries. The policy that governs the flow of immigration should be truly democratic and any regulations that would restrict in an arbitrary manner, the immigration of people from an over-populated country, or of refugees from persecuted lands would be contrary to the fundamental principles of justice and true peace. Now, sir, I would have thought an expres- sion of that kind would command the atten- tion and respect of hon. members of this house. This country must, if it be true to itself and its history, look on immigration in a very different manner from most other countries of the world. This country was built by immigration. All of us in this cham- ber tonight are either immigrants or the children of immigrants, some the first gener- ation, some the second, some the third, some even the seventh or the eighth. But this [Mr. Fleming.] country is an immigrant's country. The aboriginal population of this country is very small in numbers indeed. And, for that reason, all of us must approach a question of this kind with humane considerations as well as an honest and a realistic appreciation of the benefits that immigration has conferred upon this country. Immigration has not been given sympa- thetic treatment in this house by this govern- ment. As we were reminded this afternoon by the hon. member for Kamloops, the studied attempt of the government year after year has been to thwart and frustrate discussion on immigration. When questions have arisen we have been told to bring them up on the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, and in those characteristic manoeuvres of the government those estimates have almost invariably been brought down in the very dying hours of the session for the deliberate purpose, and no other, of restrict- ing and thwarting discussion of that subject in this house. And, sir, if there is one subject more than another that does call for the clarifying benefits of discussion in this house it is the subject of immigration, because of all the subjects on which the government has in- dulged in contradictory statements, I suppose immigration ranks pre-eminent among them. Think of it, as we were reminded this after- noon; on one day, January 28 last, we had contradictory statements made in this country by two members of this government on the subject of immigration. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has at least been consistent on this subject, and has been a spokesman year in and year out for more immigration for Canada. I have read statements attributed to him urging that Canada should have as many as 500,000 im- migrants in a year. But on the very day the Minister of Agriculture was making his last pronouncement on this subject the Min- ister of Citizenship and Immigration was making what one might have thought was a statement of policy in which he served notice that the government was not having any wider immigration and making it quite clear, as the statistics are making it quite clear today, that we may look for less immigration into Canada now than we have had in the past several years. Notwithstanding speeches bristling with contradictory statements by ministers of the crown no light is thrown on the subject in this debate, no effort has been made on the part of the government to establish clarity where contradiction now flourishes. Well, sir, what has been the record in the face of a situation in the world today to which 1194 HOUSE OF COMMONS FEBRUARY 15, 1955 we dare not close our eyes? We have been reminded in this bouse ini recent days o! the concerfi whlch conditions abroad in the world today force upon ail Canadians. We have been called upon to make sacrifices, continu- ing and heavy sacrifices, to make a contribu- tion to easing the threat o! aggression ini tbe world. May we at the same Urne indulge in the pastime of closing our eyes to the fact that in the world today covetous eyes are cast in the direction of Canada, her resources and ber great broad lands? Well, sir, if we are going to encourage a policy of making gifts to the world, gifts in varlous forms representing our share of the cornmon responsibility o! the free western world, to keep sanity alive ini a frenzied world, then, Mr. Speaker, we had better do a little bonest and searching thinking on the subi ect o! immigration. Sir, I amn satisfied, indeed I well know, that if some bion. members in this bouse who normally support the government would unlock their lips on this subject and speak from their hearts we should indeed bear some interesting speeches and some very teiling indictments of governiment administra- tion of the Department of Citizensbip and Immigration. Immigration bas brougbt great benefits to Canada; immigration in this post-war period bas already brought vast benefits to Canada. Mr. Pickersgill: Hear, bear. Mr. Fleming: I bear tbe Minister of Citizen- shlp and Immigration say "bear, hear". WeUl, wby does bie not on the one band rise in bis place and tell us that the government's policy is to give faix encouragement, under proper safeguards, to immnigration, and on the other band see that his department is adxninistered witb some regard for humanity? Here is a statement concerning post-war immigration whicb appeared in the press of May 8, 1954, by E. B. Reid, chief of the immigration de- partment information service: About hall these immigrants were workers. he said. Their wages provided a total annual buying power cf about $750,000,00O. If the government are reaily serious about immigration wby do they flot go about tell- ung our people of the benefits which. this post- war uimigration bas brougbt to Canada? We have had sometbing over a million immi- grants corne to Canada since the war. Hall of tbemn have been workers, and tbose work- ers have created a total annual buyung power Of $750 million. Mr. Harris: I made at least four speeches with that i it. Mr. Fleming: It is amazig that the former rninister of citizenshlp and immigration bas made his speeches ini such places as have Immigration attracted so littie publicity. Wby did he not rise and say that ini this house? There bas been plenty of opportunity for hlm, or bis colleague who sits bebind hlm to rise today and say that the governiment recognizes the tremendous benefits that immigration bas brought to this country ini the years since the war. There are hon. members opposite who could testif y to this in eloquent terms, but thus far we have not beard from tbem. On well-chosen occasions members of the government, and indeed the Minister of Citizensbip and Immigration, have permitted tbemselves to pay tribute to the great cul- tural enrichment that Canada bas enjoyed by reason of the addition to ber population o! these immigrants who have corne to this land ta become members of the Canadian family. Why do they not say so today? Why do they not rise in this bouse and pay tribute to tbe great benefits we have obtained from immi- gration? Wby do we not hear from. themr something about tbe dispersai througbout ail parts of Canada of the benefits of immi- gration? Here are some of the ways ini which that great consumning and buying power of the immigrants bas reacted to the general bene- fit. I arn quoting from. a study made by a Canadian organization witbin the past year: The 1951 census revealed that 52 per cent of the post-war immigrants llved in single dwelngs, and that close t0 40 per cent of them had been able to acquire their own homes, wlth over one-third of these home owners carrying no mortgage. The household convenlences whlch newcomers were able to provide for themselves not only created work in Canadian factories, but would also Indicate that new Canadiens were living on f airly good incarnes. For example. mechanical refrigeration was to be found In 42 per cent of the newcomers' households, as compared wlth 47 per cent for the total canadian aggregate. There were radios In 92 per cent of the Canadian households, but also in as many as 84 per cent of the newcomers' dwellings. While 42 per cent of the Canadien. households were equipped with passenger motor vehicles, as many as 33 per cent of the newcomers' households had the samne convenlence. These effects have been widely distributed over the Canadian economy. I turn now to, a speech made recently by the Hon. Mr. Daley, minister o! labour ini the Ontario government: It is not toc, much ta say that without the large scale immigration of the post-wer period, Canada&: great industrial expansion would not have been possible. Workers were needed ta go to remote areas where resource development wes taking place, ta work in the mines. in the forests. and on the power and transportation developments, and In meny cases, immigrants took jobs which native- born Canadiens would not accept. The new Cana- dians also made an important contribution i the factories and in the service industries in our large and growing centres., And in the immediate post-war years especilly. workers were despereteir needed on Canadian farmns ta replace those who had left ta live in the cities. HOUSE OF COMMONS Immigration Let us face frankly the fears which immi- gration has engendered in some Canadians. Those fears have been principally on the grounds of race and employment. On the subject of race I think the government owes a duty to the people of Canada to say, as we Conservatives say and say emphatically, that immigration into this country must never be permitted to have for its purpose disturb- ance of the fundamental racial composition of Canada. We subscribe most emphatically to that point of view. There are those in this country who have feared immigration because they thought it offered a threat of assimilation into an English-speaking community. That is not our view of immigration. We would resist with all the power at our command as a party any attempt to use immigration for that pur- pose. We owe a duty to Canada to allay that fear that admittedly has existed in certain quarters. I say at the same time that the government owes it to the people of Canada to make a similar declaration to allay those fears. Mr. Pickersgill: Has the bon. member not read the statement made by Mr. King on May 1, 1947, by which we still abide and in which a declaration of this character was made long before the Conservative party had any policy on the subject? Mr. Fleming: Observe that at last the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has found it possible to say something in this debate. But typically be has chosen to try to smuggle his statement into the midst of a speech made by another hon. member. If he has some declaration of policy to make which be thinks is worthy of attention, why has be not made it in the house before now? I will tell him about the statement made by Mr. King. I heard that statement. The minister probably heard it from the gallery, and for all we know he may have inspired it. Apparently be has lost his sources of in- spiration since, because we have been waiting for a long time for him to make some affirma- tion on that subject. I am glad that at last some remarks of mine have had the effect of drawing from the reluctant lips of the hon. gentleman a statement of this kind. Small credit to him that he sat through this long debate, and that it remained for an opposition member to make the statement that was made by myself just now to draw such a statement from the lips of the minister. He should have been in this debate early this afternoon declaring a policy on behalf of the [Mr. Fleming.] government and making a reassuring state- ment to those who have entertained fears concerning immigration. Mr. Pickersgill: He is just bashful. Mr. Fleming: The minister is just bashful? It is the first time we ever heard that jack- in-the-box or jumping jack was bashful. An hon. Member: Glamour boy. Mr. Fleming: I think the government should offer some reassurance on this subject in order to allay the fears of those who have looked upon immigration as something offer- ing a threat of racial assimilation. At the same time they should say that they will never use immigration as a weapon for that purpose. They should say that by respecting the constitution of this country they will give assurance, in those quarters where that fear now exists, that neither immigration nor attempts to override the constitution will be used to attempt assimilation or centralization. The other fear that has existed in this country has been that immigration displaces Canadians in employment. I have given cer- tain figures already to indicate how extensive has been the contribution to employment of immigration through the vast expansion of purchasing power in Canada. It is very true that in individual cases where someone sees an immigrant taking a position that he would have liked to have had be will say that in the net result immigration is destroving the employment of native-born Canadians. We must take a very careful look at both the short-term and long-tern effects of immigration, and we must gear our policies as a country with both those factors in mind. I have mentioned the contributions to employ- ment. Immigration is not simply immigration of persons alone. Many of these immigrants are enterprising people who are often accom- panied by immigrant industries. The minis- ter of labour in Ontario, Mr. Daley, whom I quoted a moment ago, in a recent speech also pointed out that 350 new industries had been established in Ontario by immigrants in the five years from 1949 to 1954. Because of the fears which exist on this point, let us look at some of the important statements on this subject that have eman- ated in recent times from responsible labour leaders. At its annual convention in Toronto last September the Canadian Congress of Labour in its statement of policy advocated this policy in regard to immigration: A planned immigration policy based on the country's capacity to absorb immigrants in an expanding economy without lowering the standard of living. That, sir, is the declared policy of the Canadian Congress of Labour. Mr. Millard, a ieading figure in the Canadian Congress of Labour and united steel workers, in a state- ment referred to this afternoon by the hon. member for Kamloops, drew attention to the fact that Canada should take more immi- grants, and that because our forefathers came to this country as a land of opportunity we have no right to deny the samne benefits to many others. But I turn to an article in the publication Labour Research, an organ of the Canadian Congress of Labour, the issue for May-June- Juiy, 1953, in which the author takes up the point as to whether immigration actually deprives native Canadians of employment. After a frank review of the figures both for employment and immigration hie proceeds to his conclusion: It cannot be too strongly emphasized, however, that these figures have only a limited anid negative value. They certainly prove that In most of the country, during most of both periods, immigration cannot have been a factor of any importance in the unemployment situation. But they do not prove that even in the exceptional cases where the number of immigrants who camne In was some- where near the increase in unemployment In the same period, the immigration caused the un- employxnent. And further: Sa the mere fact that immigrants camne In and took jobs while Canadians were out of work does flot prove anythtng. It certainly does flot Prove they did Canadians out of the jobs. Only a careful Inquiry Into what jobs the immigrants took. and whether Canadians could or would do them, would shed any llght on that. Therefore, sir, we say that our immigration policy in this country should be frank and realistie. It should not be a policy the gov- ernment is trying to hide ail the time. It should be a policy the government declares so people know about it, and s0 those who are planning immigration or are making their own plans with respect to immigrants' enter- prise wiil know what to expect from year to year. We naturally subscribe to the idea of gearing immigration to the season. We have had occasion to criticize this govern- ment because of the large number of immi- grants being brought into the country in Immigration winter. We are glad to see that our comn- plaints in that regard have borne some fruit. We look upon the many existing safe- guards as quite adequate assurance that if the government is reaiistic in its immigration policy there is no reason to expect that immi- gration wiil resuit in unempioyment. If due regard is had in the selection of immigrants to skill and enterprise, and the strength of organized labour in Canada is, as I believe it to be, great enough now to assure that immi- grants are not used to destroy or weaken the standard of living in this country, then we can have immigration poicies that will be of inestimable value to Canada. Above ail there must be the closest co- ordination between relevant government poi- cies in this regard. We have had reason to complain, and we still complain, sir, that there has been a lack of co-ordination ini this country ini the efforts of the Department of Labour on the one hand, and the Departmnent of Citizenship and Immigration on the other. There has been a lack of co-ordination be- tween the efforts of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation on the one hand and the policy, or lack of policy, of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration on the other. In Australia, for example, the portfolios of labour and immigration are held by one minister. I do not know if that is practicable in this country, but there is need, and an imperative need, for co-ordination of the poli- cies of the various government departments. With it ail must go a recognition of the duty o! the government to contribute to the crea- tion o! such a climate as will be favourable to the expansion of the enterprise of this country, and will be conducive to the expan- sion of the economy of Canada. I see it is ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker. May I move the adjournmnent of the debate? On motion of Mr. Fleming the debate was adjourned. At ten o'clock the house adjourned, with- out question put, pursuant to standing order. FEBRUARY 15, 1955 1197 1199 HOUSE 0F COMMONS Wednesday. F.bruary 16. 1955 *The house met at 2.30 p.m. NATIONAL HOUSING ACT ANNOUNCEMENT 0F REDUCTION IN INTEREST RATES ON INSURED LOANS Hon. Robert H. Winters : 1. Yes-7. 2. $8,304.28. [Mr. Winters.] 3. By cheques in favour of the Receiver General o! Canada for which departmental receipts were issued on October 27, 1953, and which were deposited forthwith into revenue. PUGWASH, N.S., HARBOUR-DREDGING Mr. Brooks: What was the coat of dredging Pugwash harbour and Pugwash entrance for each of the last five calendar years? Mr. Bourget: 1949-50, nil; 1950-51, nil; 1951-52, nil; 1952-53, nil; 1953-54, $83,060.41. EXCISE AND SALES TAXES, AUTOMOBILES AND FARM MACHINERY Mr. Fraser (Peterborough): What was the total arnount of (a) excise tax; (b) sales tax. collected on each of the following articles sold in Canada durmng the year 1954: auto- mobiles, farm trucks, fanm water pumps. farmn steel stanchions, farmn litter and feed carriers and track, fanm electric water heaters, farmn hay and other forks. milk filter dises, 8 gallon milk cana, mechanical milk coolers? Mr. McCann: Excise tax collected during the year 1954 on automobiles was $76,562,846.67; trucks are exempt from excise tax; no segregation of sales tax collections according to articles is made, hence information is not available concerning sales tax collected on automobiles or farm or other trucks. The following items are exempt from excise and sales taxes: Farmn water pumps, farm steel stanchions, farm hitter carriers and track therefor, farm feed carriers and track therefor, farm hay and other forks, milk filter discs, 8-gallon milk cans, mechanical milk coolers. Farm electric water heaters, if o! the im- mersion type and used in connection with watering livestock, are also exempt fromn excise and sales taxes. TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY Mr. Maclnnis: 1. What wlll be the total mileage of the trans- Canada htghway when completed? 2. What wili be the total mileage In each prov- ince? 3. Hlow many miles of the trans-Canada hlghway have been gravelled in each province to date? 4. Slow many miles have been paved In each province ta date? 5. What la the average cost of construction per mile in (a) New Brunswick; (b> Ontario. (c) Saskatchewan; (d) British Columbia? Mr. Bourget: 1. An estimated total of 4,497 miles in nine provinces. 2. Newfoundland, 610; Prince Edward Is- land, 74; Nova Scotia, 310; New Brunswick, 388; Ontario, 1,412; Manitoba, 305; Saskatche- wan, 414; Alberta, 292; British Columbia, 692. FEBRUARY 16. 1955 3. Application of traffic gravel is a tem- porary measure to facilitate traffic and pro- tect the sub-grade prior to the application of base course and paving. No records are kept as such gravel is later incorporated with the base course. 4. Newfoundland, nil; Prince Edward Is- land, 46.1; Nova Scotia, 2.7; New Brunswick, 52.2; Ontario, 314.8; Manitoba, 130.1; Saskat- chewan, 230.4; Alberta, 150.9; British Colum- bia, 138.8. 5. As yet none of the provinces have sub- mitted final dlaims for completed sections of the highway. Average cost per mile cannot be establlshed until final costs are known. STE. ANNE DE BEAUPRE WHARF Mr. Maltais: 1. Was repair work on the Wharf at Ste. Anne de Beaupre during the year 1954 mnodlfied or discontinued on instructions from the engineering branch of the public works department, at Quebec, following objections or representations from the individual holding the lease on part or the whole of the land along the wharf? 2. If so, will the work be continued durlng the 1955 season? Mr. Bourget: 1. Yes. 2. Yes. "DUSTY" TRADES DISEASES Mr. Fraser (Si. Johns. East): Has any consideration been given by the Depart- ment of National Health and Welf are to the problem in Canada of diseases arising from work- ing la the "dusty" trades? Mr. Martin: Yes. The program of the oc- cupational. health division of the Department of National Health and Welfare places major emphasis on the problem of diseases of the dusty trades in Canada. The latest X-ray diffraction equ.ipment is maintained in the occupational health laboratories for the study of offending materials in industrial dusts. In addition an electron-microscope has been ac- quired so that attention may be given to finer dusts known to produce lung disease. A free service is extended by the Department of National Health and Welfare under which dusts suspected of causing dust diseases may be sent to the departmnent for laboratory examination. Special assistance is also ren- dered to provincial health departments, on request, in surveys o! dust conditions i industry. COD LAINDINGS, GLOUCESTER COIUNTY, N.B. Mr. Robîchaud: 1. What was the total catch of cod landed in Gloucester county. New Brunswick, la eacb of the following years: 1925, 1930, 1935, 1940, 1945. 1947, 1948, 1949, 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954? Ordmr for RetlLrns 2, What was the total catch of flounders or plaices landed in Gloucester county, New Brunswick, in each of the above mentioned years? 3. What was the total catch of haddock landed ia Gloucester county, New Brunawick, in each of the years mentioned in question l? 4. What was the total number of draggers licensed ia Gloucester county, in each year from 1947 to 1954 inclusive? Mr. MacNaught: 1, 2 and 3: Cod Haddock Plaice (CwtS.) (Cwts.) (Cwts.) 1925 . 176,989 1,498 - 1930..120,781 360 - 1935..130,700 3,897 991 1940..113,998 3,853 1,634 1945..129,283 - 4,231 1947..182,192 55 1,117 1948..212,884 173 6,832 1949 . 251,824 101 14,617 1950....196,750 15 54,408 1951..219,845 2,376 63,344 1952..209,142 2,184 66,992 1953...... 176,626 5,473 69,682 1954..201,890 24,679 78,286 4. Dragger licences are issued by fiscal years, and the following information is on that basis: 1947-48, 5; 1948-49, 12; 1949-50, 18; 1950-51, 18; 1951-52, 20; 1952-53, 32; 1953-54, 42; 1954-55, 49. QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS OLD AGE SECtTRITY PAYMENTS Mr. Kuovie.: 1. How many persons la Canada, 70 yearm of age or over, by provinces, are Ia receipt of old age security? 2. How many persons, if any, 70 years of age or over, by provinces, la receipt of old age security. are receiving less than $40 a month? 3. For what reasons and by what authority are the pension payments to such persons leÈs than $40 a month? STE. ANNE DE BEAUPRE WHARF Mr. Maltais: 1. Does the federal government own the bed of the wharf at Ste. Anne de Beaupre, Quebec, the approaches adjacent to the said wharf, and the entrance to such wharf? 2. If so, bas the goveramnent leased, whoUly or partly, the land owned by it along the wharf at Ste. Anne de Beaupre, and for what consideration? 3. Since what date bas this land been leased. and has there been a change of lessees la the last ten years? 4. If there bas been a change of lessees, on what date did it occur and who la the holder of the existing lease? 5. What amount bas been received by the gov- ernment on accoi.mt of such lease to February 1, 1955? PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE, ALBERTA Mr. Quelch: 1. How many farmers received payments under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act la subdivisions HOUSE OF COMMONS Conservation Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of special district number 3, in the province of Alberta, for the crop of 1953? 2. What were their names and the location of land on which payments were made? 3. What was the amount of payment and average yield per acre in each case? 4. What was the cause of crop failure in each case, drought, hail or frost? CONSERVATION PROPOSED CONFERENCE TO CONSIDER NATIONAL POLICY Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West) moved: That, in the opinion of this house, the govern- ment should consider the advisability of calling a dominion-provincial conference on conservation with a view to the establishment of a national policy on soil, forest and water conservation and land use for Canada. He said: Mr. Speaker, in 1952, 1953 and 1954 I moved a motion identical with the one which I am moving today. In view of my own conviction and belief that action along the lines I suggest is urgently needed, I return to the fray with undiminished ardour in the knowledge that there is grow- ing support for this resolution, not only in this house but in the country, growing support for the calling of a dominion-pro- vincial conference such as that which I suggest to deal with this extremely important question. Before proceeding, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that, in my opinion, the question of conservation of natural resources is not a partisan problem. It is a problem that con- cerns us all in this house and all in the coun- try, regardless of our political or economic theories. In my opinion conservation offers ample scope for the application of public ownership, co-operative ownership, private ownership and private enterprise. I there- fore judge, Mr. Speaker, that in discussing this question we are meeting it as Canadians facing a question that must be dealt with in the very near future if we are to arrest some of the erosion and loss of natural resources that are going on today. While in recent years provincial govern- ments and the federal government have given effect to some measures designed to heal the scars in our land caused by the exploitation of our natural resources over a period of many years, in my opinion the pace is too slow and the actions of governments are too unco-ordinated and too unrelated to meet the situation effectively. In previous discussions on this question I dealt at some length with the historical aspects of the problem of conservation and outlined in detail some proposals I put before the house concerning the objectives for a sound national conservation policy, and it is [Mr. Quelch.] not my intention to repeat those arguments today. My argument today will be directed principally to three points. The first is that many years ago there was a recognition in this house of a measure of responsibility by this parliament for conservation as a national problem. The second is that because of the success that has resulted from federal and state co-operation in the United States, ex- perience clearly teaches us that dominion- provincial co-operation would bring much greater results than have the activities in this field by federal and provincial govern- ments to date. My third point is that if we are to spend the sums of money that will be required to develop a national conservation policy, before spending that money efficiently and satisfactorily we certainly require a federal-provincial conference to lay down a national policy accepted across Canada. I have taken the opportunity to discuss this question with a large number of people who are interested in the problem. Last year it was my privilege to attend the public con- ference called by the Canadian Forestry Asso- ciation in association with the Agricultural Institute of Canada and the Engineering Insti- tute of Canada for the purpose of restating a long-range policy for the management of our renewable natural resources. At that con- ference I repeatedly heard the opinion ex- pressed that we are moving too slowly in the direction of the conservation and develop- ment of our natural resources and in the development of policies to meet the situation effectively. While governments may con- tinue to pay lip service to the principles involved in conservation, their actions are too limited and often too unrelated, in my opinion, to turn the tide of continued exploi- tation and neglect. I might say in passing, Mr. Speaker, that I was sorry there were not more provincial cabinet ministers at that conference. It was a conference that was called at considerable expense and it was well organized. But as far as I can remember, there were only one or two members of provincial cabinets present at that conference. I realize the difficulty inherent in this question. While I say that this parliament and the federal government have a responsibility in the matter of conser- vation of natural resources, for the calling of a conference and so on, I know that we can- not get effective action unless we get co- operation from the provinces in this respect. I recognize the difficulties that are entailed. While it is repeatedly brought to our atten- tion when dealing with this subject that the provinces have control of their natural re- sources, a reading of the debates of this house years ago indicates to me that parliament and 1202 FEBRUARY 16. 1955 both old-time parties in this house have recognized the fact that the federal govern- ment has somre responsibility with respect to a national conservation policy. In support of that contention, Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of the house the fact that on February 1, 1909, the late Sir Robert Borden moved the following resolution in this house: That in the opinion of this house it Is advisabe to appoint a select standing committee on natura1 resources who shall have authority to inquire int and consider and report upon ail matters appertain- ing to the conservation and deveiopment of the natural resources of Canada, inciudlng fisheries, forests, mines, minerais, waterways and water powers, and to whomn may be referred from tinte to tinte any report, document or matter touching the subi ect which they are apppinted to consider. I th.ink the introduction of that resolution into this house by such an important gentle- man as the late Sir Robert Borden who was then leader of the opposition indicates the recognition that some responsibility rests with this pariament and the federal government for the consideration o! conservation on a national basis. When speaking in this debate Sir Robert Borden had this to say. I quote from column 356 of Hansard of the session of 1909: We have had a great many stimulating addresses throughout the country an the importance of these great resources. One ntlght expect that the parlie- ment of Canada would be one of the great forces inawakening public interest in aur resources, and the consideration of mneans bY which the deveiop- ment and conservation of these resources shouid be carried out. Then later on in his speech Sir Robert Borden said: Sa, while men everywhere In Canada are lifting up their voices for the conservation and deveiop- ment of our natural resources, it seerns ta me that some initiative should camne front parliament, and that the members of pariament. without regard to Party, sinking for this purpose ail partisan considerations, should take Up this work and endeavour ta accomplish sontething for the good of the country. In my opinion we should ail be able to endorse the words spoken by the late Sir Robert Borden on that occasion. I certainly belleve that we should expect the parliament of Canada ta be one o! the great forces in awakening public lnterest in our resources in this country. Then later on in the samne debate the then prime minister, the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier, rose to express his support for the principle of the motion in the following words which are found at column 371 o! Hansard o! the same date: I amt happy to say that I have no word of dissent to express regarding the principle Involved in my hon. friend's motion. By that it wifl be seen that Sir Wilfrid Laurier quite agreed that this parliament Conservation should appoint a committee-which was later appointed-to consider the question of re- sources on a national basis in Canada. To illustrate further the necessity for co- operation between federal and provincial governments in the matter of conservation, in further suppiort of my argument I wish to quote fromn a message to congress by the president of the United States in 1909 when referring to the work done by the national conservation commission in the United States. I might say that it seems, from reference to the record, that there was a great surge of interest in the early days of this century ini the question of conservation not only ini Canada but in the United States; but since that time there has been a great lag, a great deal of inertia and a great lack of interest on the part of this parliament and succeeding federal governments. This is what the president of the United States on that occasion had to say in part: The principle of the community of Interest among ail our people in the great natural resources runs through the report of the national conserva- tion commission and the proceedings of the Joint conference. These resources, which form the common basis of our welfare. cen be wisely developed, rightly used, and prudently conserved only by the common action of ail the people acting through their representatives In state and nation. Hence. the fundamentai necessity for co-operation. Without It we shall accomplish but little and that Uittie badly. That has been our experience in Canada. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, because of the lack of co-operation between the federal and provincial governments with respect to the pressing problemi of conservation, we have accomplished but little and ini many respects that littie badly. As the result of the interest in parliament and in the country at that time an act was passed by the house in 1909 ta establish a commission for the conservation of natural resources, and by an order in counicil of September 3, 1909, a national com- mission was appointed. There was a different attitude to the whole question in 1909 from what we find today in the government and in the house. It is evident from reading the reports o! the commission-I have read themn through completely and they are well worth studying-that the commission made a very comprehensive study and review of the whole situation with respect ta, renewable natural resources in Canada. Unfortunately it was abolished by an act of parliament in 1921, and since that time successive governments have dealt with the problemn of conservation on a piecemeal basis. A treinendous amount of material and ini- formation were gathered by that commission, and in my opinion a great deal o! the good HOUSE OF COMMONS Conservation work that the commission did was wasted by the dropping of the question by the gov- ernment of the day. I wish to quote from the Globe and Mail of Saturday, March 13, 1954, an article entitled "Ottawa's Conservation Help Niggardly" by J. Bascom St. John. I quote it because it is an excellent article which deals with this subject with knowledge and clarity and is most informative. Out of respect for the person who wrote the article I think I should quote it rather than para- phrase it. I like to give credit to those who express their ideas in such a clear and ex- cellent manner. The article reads in part as f ollows: No comparison of Canadian and American gov- ernment expenditures produces more dramatic contrasts than those on conservation. The two governments take completely different views of the matter. The United States spends lavishly on a widely varied program. This has been a funda- mental element of its national policy since 1908. That is the reason for the success of the conservation programs in the United States. I continue: The Canadian government, on the other hand, has no discernible policy on conservation. It does spend money for this purpose, but its activities are largely determined by political factors, and in almost all cases are on a project basis. In nearly every instance, comparable expenditures by another authority are required. I am not underestimating our efforts. There has been a great deal of good done by various federal government agencies but in my opinion their efforts have been too piecemeal and too unrelated to provincial programs. The writer goes on to say: Canada's failure to pursue a consistent national policy on conservation is all the more strange in that 45 years ago this country was in the forefront of the conservation movement. In 1907 a com- mission of conservation was set up under the chairmanship of the Hon. Sir Clifford Sifton, and included a large number of representative Cana- dians. The commission's function was chiefiy fact-finding and research. It pursued an active publication policy, and while it functioned, con- servation and related matters such as town planning were kept strongly before the public. In this writer's view, a great mistake was made when the commission was abolished in 1921. I agree with the writer. I think it was a backward step to abolish that commission in 1921. I quote one more short paragraph: The Canadian government sometimes suggests that it has no specific obligation to support con- servation because natural resources were made a provincial responsibility by the British North America Act. The projects it does accept it claims to regard as having "national interest". So far as can be judged by the record, this is a somewhat capricious standard. But since virtually all the taxable wealth of the country derives from natural resources it is clear the dominion govern- ment on its own terms has a primary interest in maintaining and developing them at the most productive level possible. if anything is a national obligation to the present and future generations, this is. [Mr. Herridge.] I want to make a few comparisons between what has been spent on over-all conserva- tion policies by the governments of the United States and Canada. In 1953 the government of Canada spent approximately $30 million on what could be termed conservation projects. Just think of it-six-tenths of 1 per cent of the national budget in that year. I am going to compare this expenditure with the amounts spent by the United States govern- ment in the same year. The United States government spent $1,122 million on the conservation of land and water resources in 1953. In the same year it spent $107 million for the conservation of forest resources. It spent for fish and wildlife resources $34 million in the same year and for the survey of various other resources $25 million. In addition, the production and marketing division of the United States de- partment of agriculture spent $308 million on various projects of conservation development, and the soil conservation service spent another $66 million for conservation projects. In total the United States government spent in one year on conservation programs more than $2 billion. I wish to point out that if a Canadian government spent in proportion to its population and national wealth it would spend about $180 million on conservation projects this year. In fairness I must recog- nize the fact that the United States is forced to spend considerably more in proportion to the expenditure in Canada on the conserva- tion of natural resources as the process of exploitation and destruction of natural re- sources in the United States, because it is an older country, is much further advanced than it is in Canada. However, Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe that with a national conservation policy estab- lished as the result of co-operation between the federal and provincial governments we could well afford to spend five times the amount we are spending at the present time. As I said before, I have no hesitation in pay- ing tribute to the good work done to date by the federal and provincial governments and by some sectors of private industry. There are certain industries in the country, particu- larly certain sections of the lumber industry, strangely enough, that are leading the way in the practice of conservation policies. I pay tribute to their efforts and also to the work done by such organizations as the Cana- dian Forestry Association, the Agricultural Institute of Canada, the Engineering Institute of Canada, a multitude of other organiza- tions and many individuals who have been interested in the problem of conservation for a long time. FEBRTJARY 16. 1955 However, tbere is increasing evidence that the provinces and interested organizations and individuals are corning more and more to recognize the need for a national conserva- tion policy witb sorne leadersbip on the part of tbe federal government. The experience o! the United States is in rny opinion con- clusive proof of the beneficial effects of co- operation between federal and provincial or state governments in tbis field. In the light of tbeir experience 1 tbink we would be well advised to proceed along tbe lines I suggest. Under our constitutional circurnstances the role of the federal government must neces- sarily be that of a co-ordinating agency will- ing to supplernent tbe efforts of the individual provinces wben necessary from the national treasury in order to give eff ect to a na- tional policy on conservation. The relationsbip between the federal governrnent and the prov- inces calîs for a dominion-provincial confer- ence on this question witb sound planning, good will and a determination to succeed. 1 say again tbat tbis conference is necessary to decide on a major policy witb respect to conservation in Canada before you can satis- factorily expend rnoney in the developrnent of any policy. I arn not; taking a great deal of time today because I know tbere are a number of otber members wbo want to bave sometbing to say on tbis question. Before concluding I want to quote from an address given by Mr. F. H. Kortrigbt, president of the con- servation council of Ontario, at a meeting beld in Ottawa on November 22, 1954, at a preview of the film known as "Proud Land" wbicb was sponsored by tbe Agricultural Institute of Canada. Mr. Kortrigbt bas taken a great interest in tbis question throughout the years, and in a very few sentences I believe hie gives expression to wbat is a common sentiment across this country at this tirne. This is wbat bie bad to say, in part, in concluding bis remarks: Yet it is to government that we must turn for leadership in conservation action, if we are to enjoy, to the f ull, long-lasting abundance from natural resources. Ini this wonderful Canada of ours, stili a land of comparative plenty, there is no reason why, given the will to do so. we could not become a nation dedicated to the conservation and wise use of renewable natural resources. This could be a national projeci for the spiritual, moral and physical well-being o! the people of this land, and, by example, for ail other people of the worid. This is not a starry-eyed notion. It is not an impractical idea. ]ýut it implies leadership. Our federal and provincial governments have an oppor- tunity today that they will not have 50, or even 25 years hence. Any government announcing such a national policy. publicizing the facts which dictate it to be necessary policy. and giving contlnued leadership, 50433-77 Conservation would be performing a service of supreme Impor- tance, flot only to Canada, but to, mankind... No Policy would do more for the national economy of Canada. No policy would give greater assurance for the well-being of our eildren and grand- children. I feel that Mr. Kortright bas expressed the sentiments of the members of this bouse in excellent language and in excellent form. I said when I rose that 1 was returning to the fray with ardour and continued hope. My bopes were flot only further stirnulated because of the great interest in this subi ect in tbe bouse and in the country, but by the fact we have a very alive, alert and active Minister of Nortbern Aiffairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage). Last faîl be rnade a trip into Britisb Columbia and 1 can assure hirn tbat a nurnber of the people witb wborn I bave talked were very pleased in having bim visit the province and were pleased witb bis keen interest in the problern of natural resources. I arn very optimistic, as a result of the introduction of this new blood into the department, that we shaîl possibly rnake some progress with tbis resolution in the near future. I urge the government to translate its awareness of this problemn into effective action by calling a dominion-provincial con- ference witb a view to the establishment of a national policy on soil, forest, water con- servation and land use for Canada. In conclusion, in our opinion, the over- riding interests of the nation and the immediate interests of the provinces mnust be barmonized by some action along these lines if we are to conserve and develop our renew- able natural resources to the advantage of thîs and future generations. Han. Jean Lesage (Minister of Norihern Affairs and National Resaurces): At the out- set I wish to thank the bion. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) for the com- pliments hie bas paid to me, and under those circumstances I arn sorry I shaîl have to disappoint hirn this afternoon by telling hlm I do not believe the time bas corne yet to accept the principle of bis resolution. I agree witb him, bowever, that conservation of our natural resources is undoubtedly one of the rnost important subjects than can be dis- cussed in tbis bouse. For a number of years the bon. member for Kootenay West bas pro- vided an opportunity for such discussion by placing on the order paper a resolution sim- ilar to the one we bave before us today. I certainly welcome, in common with rnany bon. members, I arn sure, the opportunity afforded to discuss this very important problern of the conservation o! our natural resources. As you can imagine, Mr. Speaker, HOUSE OF COMMONS Conservation I have read the debates of the past several years and I am sure all hon. members will agree they have been very much worth while. I heard the hon. member for Kootenay West refer to the resolution which was moved by Sir Robert Borden in 1909, the principle of which was approved by the then prime minis- ter, Sir Wilfrid Laurier. He has said that since then such a committee has been established, and as a matter of fact it still exists. There is a standing committee of the house on resources, but it has not sat during the past few years. I hope it will sit this year to consider at least one of the bills that I will sponsor at this session. The last time there was a discussion of a resolution similar to the one we have before us was on December 14, 1953. At that time I reviewed in some detail the actions taken by the federal government over the past few years to further the cause of conservation. I do not intend to repeat what I said at that time. The action taken by the federal govern- ment has included the passage of such im- portant measures as the Canada Forestry Act; the Canada Water Conservation Assistance Act; the Eastern Rocky Mountain Forest Conservation Act; and this year we are cur- rently studying the international rivers bill, which is a conservation measure. It has in- cluded also works performed under these acts and others, a good many of which come under my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), such as the Maritime Marsh- land Rehabilitation Act and the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. Generally speaking, the federal government is carrying on an extensive program in so far as the conservation of natural resources within the fields for which it is responsible is concerned. Part of the program is devoted to surveys and research of many types in the fields of agriculture, forestry and water resources. In so far as surveys are concerned one can see in this year's estimates that the amount to be spent for hydraulic surveys of the Columbia basin has been greatly in- creased for the benefit of the international joint commission studies of that basin. In the field of forestry research an amount has been provided in the estimates of my colleague the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) for the building of a new forest products laboratory on the campus of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. Plans have been made also to build a new forest products laboratory here in Ottawa, and a site has been chosen on the Montreal road. A contract has been let for the expansion of the forestry experimental station at Petawawa to provide additional facilities for research and for the research workers. Part of the program, sir, [Mr. Lesage.] is directed towards assisting the provinces financially with conservation work. That is a provincial responsibility. It is generally of such great importance that I agree with the hon. member for Kootenay West that pro- visions for assistance by the federal govern- ment are warranted. However, I must repeat something which has been said time and again in the house, that we must be ever mindful that the prime responsibility for the conservation of resources rests with the pro- vincial governments. I know the bon. member has already said that when I mention this I am repeating an old argument. However, I do not believe that the age of the argument weakens its strength, because it is a fact that the prime responsibility for the natural resources rests with the provinces. There now exists con- tinuing co-operation between federal and provincial governments in many conservation fields, and I have no doubt that this co-opera- tion has been of substantial benefit to Canada. It seems to me, however, sir, that the respon- sibility for initiating a conference such as the resolution proposes rests primarily with the provinces; and if this initiative is taken on a suffliciently broad basis I am sure the federal government would be prepared to consider the matter most carefully. The hon. member for Kootenay West has asked that leadership be given by the federal government in the domain of conservation, and has said that we could act as co-ordina- tors of the policies of provincial governments in that field. Sir, we have no objection to giving leadership; we have no objection to acting as co-ordinators; but it seems to me that first we should be asked to co-ordinate by those whose activities would be co-or- dinated. It seems to me that the suggestion that we act as co-ordinators should come from those whose activities would be co- ordinated by us. I do not believe we can take upon our- selves the responsibility for deciding that policies of conservation in Canada, despite the fact that these matters lie primarily with the provinces, are going to be dealt with by the federal government and parliament, and that the provinces should have uniform poli- cies. I do not believe we can do that. It is my belief that if we are to take any action by way of co-ordination we must wait until we are asked by the provinces to co-ordinate their activities. And since I have occupied my present office I have not been asked by any provincial governments to try to co-ordinate their activities in that field. Another reason why I cannot accept the resolution is that I have grave doubts as to the success of a conference called for the purpose of discussing the problems connected with ail the renewable resources, as is sug- gested in the resolution, even if land use, forest, soil and water conservation are closely allied subjects. I suggest any such congress or conference should be preceded by indivi- dual meetings in the specialized fields, before any co-ordinated effort could be made by way of a joint congress. This is one aspect of the matter which was clearly indicated as a result of the resources conference held in Ottawa in April of 1954, and to which the hon. member has referred. As he said, this conference was sponsored by five of Canada's national organizations, one of which was the Canadian Forestry Association. The hon. member for Kootenay West was there, and I was there and addressed the meeting. But, a number of provincial forest authorities declined to send representatives to this meeting which, they suggested, dealt with the ýconservation of too many resources. The reason they offered was that it involved a discussion of too many resources at one time. A number of papers were delivered at the meeting but, so far as I know, no published resolutions have resulted. Of course, valuable publicity favour- ing conservation generally came from the meeting; but I am led to believe the sponsors found that the whole field of renewable resources was too large an order for a con- ference of that kind. As a result of this experience the same five organizations are now being asked to con- sider a proposal to sponsor the calling in 1956 of a conference to deal with forestry alone. It seems to me that the experience of last year must leave in one's mind grave doubts as to the possibility of covering in one meeting the field of ail renewable resources in Canada. It is for these reasons, Mr. Speaker, that at this time I must oppose the hon. member's resolution. Mr. *D. S. Harkness (Calgary North): Mr. Speaker, I have two regrets so far as this debate is concerned. The first is that it happens to come on a Wednesday when we will have debate for only half a day instead of a full day. I know there are many members who would like to take part in this discussion, but I am afraid some of them will not have the opportunity. *My second regret is that the minister is opposed to the general principle of the reso- lution. I had hoped that this year he would be prepared to support it. There is no question in my mind that the basic and most important matter with which as a country we must deal, from the long-term point of 50433-774 Conservation view and having in mind the welfare of our people and the building up of a great nation, is the conservation of our soil, our forests, and our water and mineral resources. That fact being accepted, I think there is no question that ail of us should be prepared to take any means possible to further con- servation measures. Certainly the general principle of the resolution is in those terms, with a view to having something definite in the nature of a scheme to bring about the conservation of these most essential resources, upon which our lives are built. As to the importance of the problem, I would direct the attention of hon. members to a headline which appeared in this morn- ing's issue of the Montreal Gazette, where it says "Quebec Lumber will Last Fifty Years, Roos Predicts". Many people who do not read more than the headlines might draw the conclusion that that is a satisfactory con- dition: but so far as I am concerned it is alarming to think that in the great lumbering province of Quebec, according to this article, there is lumber sufficient to last for only 50 years more. The article says: At present rates of consumption Quebec's lumber resources will last for more than 50 years, K. O. Roos, president Canadian Lumbermen's Association, said here yesterday. The article goes on to say that provincial authorities have- -warned that if the present deterioration of white and yellow birch continues the hardwood industry will have difficulty in maintaining its present scale of operations after the next 15 or 20 years. Mr. Roos called for closer collaboration between, the industry and the federal and provincial governments. This is an indication that the people con- cerned with the forest industries, including the lurnbermen and those who are doing the cutting are alive to the necessity for co-op- eration between federal and provincial gov- ernments to conserve these most important forest resources. They are important from the point of view of the lumber they provide, but are obviously more important from the general conservation point of view, the main- taining of proper water levels, the preventing of spring run-off, soil erosion, and so on. The minister brought up the matter of provincial rights in connection with this prob- lem. That cry of the infringement of pro- vincial rights in regard to what might be done from the dominion point of view in the matter of conservation has been fre- quently raised; but I should like to point out that soil erosion by wind and water, forest fires and other things of that kind which destroy our resources, are absolutely no respecters of provincial boundaries or of the British North America Act. In other- words, we have a practical situation, as far FEBRUARY 16, 1955 1207 Conservation as conserving our resources is concerned, with which we have to deal. To raise the cry of provincial rights in regard to this matter is completely begging the question. I thought the minister was extremely coy in regard to this matter. He said he had not been asked, and therefore he did not think he should take any action until he was asked. Mr. Lesage: I admit that. But, may I go farther and say that last year when I was discussing forestry in one province at a luncheon I was told later that I should mind my own business because forestry was a provincial matter. I was told that by none other than the premier of the province. Mr. Harkness: However that may be, Mr. Speaker, I do not think it takes away from the general proposition that a lead in this matter has to come from some place, and the natural place that it should come from is the dominion government. The minister took what I would call an old-maidish attitude in connection with this: "Nobody has asked me." That seems to me to be hardly in character with the hon. gentleman's usual way of going after matters. However, in spite of the discouragement he may have had from one provincial premier, I would hope that he will not let that stand in the way of instituting a system of conser- vation. There is no question whatever that the proper handling of conservation measures involves the co-operation of two or more provinces and the dominion government. In many instances there is just no question about it. May I give one example of that as far as the western prairies are concerned? All of the rivers which flow through the western prairies, with some minor exceptions such as the Milk river in Alberta, take their rise in the eastern slopes of the Rocky mountains in Alberta, and then they flow on through Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. A proper handling of these water resources, upon which the whole prosperity of the three prairie provinces depends, is not a matter for Alberta because they rise there, or a matter for Saskatchewan as far as the waters in the rivers of Saskatchewan are concerned. It is a matter which has to be dealt with in co-operation with the whole three prairie provinces, and there is no question that it has to be co-ordinated by the dominion gov- ernment. Western Canada is a good example be- cause of the fact that it is particularly subject to and in danger of soil erosion. We have already had a great deal of erosion on the western prairies, particularly in the southern parts of Alberta and Saskatchewan and in southeastern Manitoba. This has been mostly [Mr. Harkness.] wind erosion. A great deal of land was broken up there which, in my opinion at least, should never have been put under the plow. As a result, during the dry years, a great deal of the top soil has blown away. As far as maintaining the water level is concerned, which of course is one of the main things that prevent this soil blowing, the maintenance of the flow of these western rivers is essential, because as long as you have that flow your water table is kept up, you have the water there which you can dam by creating artificial lakes. The south Saskatchewan dam, about which we have heard so much, is really entirely dependent on the flow of the south Saskatchewan river. As a result, as I said, it is a matter which bas to be dealt with by the three provinces, or by some central authority acting with and for them. A considerable amount bas been done in regard to preventing soil erosion out there by the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. It is one of the most worth-while things that have been donc in western Canada. The Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act succeeded in taking a certain amount of very dry land out of cultivation and getting it regrassed, and so forth, and it has been responsible for build- ing a large number of small dams and thus conserving local supplies of water as well as larger dams for irrigation purposes. The work of P.F.R.A. of course is a federal responsibility. The federal government car- ries it on. They work in conjunction with the provinces. t do not think the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) will say that he bas ever had any difficulty with the provin- cial governments out there in regard to carry- ing on those P.F.R.A. activities. I think it is a perfect example, which disproves what the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage) said about the fact that the provinces had to move first in the matter, they have to ask us, and so forth, before we take any action. Here is a definite example of where the dominion government does take action, of where it has accomplished an extremely worth-while thing through giv- ing leadership in this matter. I do not want to take too much time in regard to our particular western problems, but from the conservation point of view they are our most important and essential prob- lems. I should like to emphasize that. I would hope that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources would consult with the ministers in the cabinet from the west, particularly the Minister of Agricul- ture, and become convinced of that fact and thus be more prepared to go ahead with those essential conservation measures. 1208 HOUSE OF COMMONS As far as a conference of the provinces and the dominion is concerned in order to con- sider the setting up of a national plan of conservation, there are several very impor- tant matters, definite matters, which can be and should be considered. First of all, there are definite schemes which are needed imme- diately, which should be considered and a priority set up, and arrangements made as to how costs should be shared, and so forth. One of those conservation measures is a matter which would concern largely the dominion, and they should bear the major portion of the cost. In other cases it would be a matter which concerns chiefly the prov- inces, and the provinces should bear the major portion of the cost. That is one of the things on which a conference is essential in order to settle just how a particular scheme should be proceeded with and how the cost should be borne. Then, there is the matter of future schemes, the long-term point of view. A definite plan should be worked out with respect to those schemes which are not needed immediately or urgently at the moment, but should be started and gone ahead with and how they are to be put into operation. Then there is the very important matter of research. One of the most essential parts of the whole conservation picture is deter- mining and finding the best methods of carrying on conservation of those different resources. There is the matter of education and publicity, both tied in quite closely together. In order to get really widespread and gen- eral acceptance not only of the cost but of the methods which in many cases would per- haps be resented by certain individuals, a very wide use of publicity and education is necessary, and the dominion government is the only body that could possibly direct the publicity and education, and co-ordinate it. Mr. G. W. McLeod (Okanagan-Revelsioke): Mr. Speaker, I must commend the bon. mem- ber for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) for his persistence in bringing this matter to the attention of the house. At the same time I cannot help but commend the minister who replied for making the same excuse for pay- ing no attention to the request that has been made for so many years. His excuse has been that the time has not come as yet. They want to wait and see what is going to develop. I- think that this government will go down in history as one of the greatest wait and see governments that this country has had for a good many years. Another remark that came from the hon. member was that the responsibility for a Conservation conference of that type rests with the prov- ince issuing the invitation. If I heard him correctly he said that as yet they have not been asked. That may be quite right in so far as all the provinces of Canada are con- cerned, but I am satisfied that a request has been made by the province of British Colum- bia for a conference with the federal author- ities. I would refer the minister to the brief which was presented to this government on December 14, 1953. He mentioned some plans that they had in mind. There is one especially which I hesi- tate to refer to, but in the light of what has been said to the effect that the federal govern- ment should be asked before they take any action I would like to ask the minister if they were asked to carry out this conserva- tion of which they speak so highly and which is embodied in the bill for the control of international rivers. I should like to ask the minister if they were asked by the govern- ment to bring in that legislation. Mr. Lesage: Since I have been asked a question I assume I have the right to reply. In the case of the international rivers bill we have acted because that is our constitu- tional responsibility. Mr. McLeod: To carry on with the question under discussion, I am glad to see that some action is being taken by various departments of this government. The Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources is spending over $1 million in forest research. This is a step in the right direction. I have heard a lot today about co-ordination. I prefer to use the word co-operation, although it does not make any material difference. I would think that if we had a conference between the various interested parties which would co-ordinate, if you want to use that word, the efforts of the provinces and of the dominion, much more would be accomplished. I am glad to note that the Department of Public Works is spending quite a sum for flood and river control. These are important things, especially in British Columbia, and we appreciate it very much. Coming back to forestry, I am sure you are all aware that the forest industry in British Columbia is our greatest asset. A wide program is required for fire protection and reforestation. In this connection it is interesting to note that the provincial gov- ernment will spend upwards of $4 million this year for that type of work. It is also interesting to note that the government of British Columbia is making earnest efforts through the issuance of forest management licences to control cutting 'and avoid wastage FEBRUARY 16, 1955 120à HOUSE OF COMMONS Conservation of our forest products. Under the provincial legislation the holders of permits in the province are allowed to cut only the natural growth in any one year on their limit. This is certainly a forward step in controlling the wastage of this asset. I am deeply interested in another problem, that of water storage. I do not mean water storage for power, I refer to water storage for irrigation purposes. A few nights ago we heard considerable talk in this house about water storage. The hon. member for Okana- gan Boundary (Mr. Jones) told us that if a sufficient amount of water were made available to the farmers in the interior of British Columbia they could double their acreage. I agree wholeheartedly with that, as I know it is a fact. Therefore we are most anxious that some system of controlling water for irrigation purposes be inaugurated and that the province of British Columbia and the federal authorities get together on this. We of course are thinking of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. We are not saying for one minute that the huge grants made to the prairie provinces should not be made, but we do note that $7 million of the tax- payers' money will be spent this year for the storage of water for irrigation purposes. Un- less I have passed up something in the estimates for which I was looking most earn- estly there will not be any money spent in British Columbia. In fact, word has come to the government of British Columbia that the faint tie that existed between our prov- ince and the federal Department of Agri- culture in connection with P.F.R.A. may be severed completely. I regret this very much because, as I said, irrigation means so much to us. We have to have controlled water. We have to have water, but I do not imply that there is any scarcity of water. We have ample supplies of water but it must be controlled and made available for agricultural use. Reference is made in the house quite often to the three western provinces, but I would remind the house that there is another prov- ince a little further west. I do not see why it should not be the four western provinces. I understand that a conference of Depart- ment of Agriculture officials and ministers from the four western provinces met a few short months ago and agreed unanimously that the provisions of the P.F.R.A. should be expanded and extended to include the four western provinces. I can assure the house that there is no jealousy or desire on the part of the three western provinces to retain P.F.R.A. exclusively for their own benefit. There has been unanimous approval for the extension of the act to British Colum- bia. I think that that is long overdue. [Mr. McLeod.] I just wanted to put myself on record as supporting the measure that has been asked for by the hon. member for Kootenay West and to bring to the attention of the house the need and the urgency for the province of British Columbia being given thorough consideration in the matter of forest con- servation, flood and river control and in the extension of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. Mr. W. M. Johnson (Kindersley): Mr. Speaker, the subject under debate at this time is one of the most important ones ever to come before the bouse. It is a subject which cannot be ignored because the civiliza- tiens of today will thrive or perish, as have those in the past, depending on our fore- sight and planning in conserving our resources of today for the use of the generations of tomorrow. Lord John Boyd Orr in his book "The White Man's Dilemma" stated as follows: There are two great issues facing mankind, one political and one material. The political issue is whether the so-called ideological conflict between the group of governments headed by the United States which thinks that communism must be destroyed and the group headed by the U.S.S.R. which thinks that capitalism must be destroyed, will end in a third world war. The material issue is whether the earth can be made to supply sufficient food for its rapidly increasing human population. These two issues are merely different aspects of the question whether the enormous new powers of science will be applied in war, for the destruction of our civilization, or applied in peace, to the development of the vast potential resources of the earth and provision for the physical needs of every member of the human family. Mr. Speaker, development of potential natural resources is related to the neces- sity of every nation of the world adopting the terms of this resolution which requests on the national level a policy of conservation for soil, water and forest resources and a plan for land utilization. It was in 1930 that the late President Roosevelt said: There are so many people ill fed, ill clothed and ili housed that if we set out to supply their needs there would be work for every man and woman willing to work. The very fact that that same statement can be made with equal validity today is proof of our failure, both nationally and internationally. The fact that we have over 500,000 unemployed in Canada today is proof of the failure of this Liberal government to follow the objective of supplying human needs. At the conclusion of world war II the nations of the world which had united for war gave the promise of freedom from want for all men in all lands. Is this statement just idle mockery or is it still our objective? Surely we in Canada can show our faith in 1210 FEBRUARY 16, 1955 our promise by passing unanimously the resolution now under consideration. The most dynamic argument for conserva- tion and utilization is based on the relation- ship of world population to world food sup- plies. We must be aware of the fact that world population is increasing by some 26 million to 32 million a year. The birth rate ranges from that in India of 1 per cent a year which, based on their population, gives them an annual increase of 4 million, to that of the Latin Americas which have a birth rate of 2 per cent per year and Japan with 1.4 per cent whereas Canada and the United States in the period from 1940 to 1949 had a birth rate of 1 -4 per cent. The birth rate in those countries is now among the highest in the world. We must be aware that world population has doubled in the last 100 years. In 1850 the world population was 1,171 million. In 1950 it was 2,400 million. With developments and improvements in health and disease con- trol I think we can expect that the world's population will double within the next 50 or 60 years, within the lifetime of many of the members of this chamber. On the other side of the ledger, Mr. Speaker, is the shocking fact that there is less food per head of population in the world than there was in 1938. The food supplies kept pace with the increase in population during the last century by the development of nearly 22 per cent of the world's cultivated land, that on the North American continent. This is coupled, of course, with the advance of science related to agriculture. Except for areas where there is really intensified cultivation, we find that production per acre has declined. For example, in Chili in 1911 the production was 10-4 quintals per hectare. In 1939 it had dropped to 7-1. India since 1910 has had an average yield drop of from 10-1 quintals to 8.8 quintals per hectare. Coming closer to home, we find that in my own province of Saskatchewan the average yield in the period from 1905 to 1914 was 18-6 bushels to the acre and for the period 1943 to 1952-a particularly profitable period as far as the weather was concerned-our yield was only 17 -9 bushels per acre. In considering this matter of conservation we must be aware of the fact that there are 8,000 million acres under cultivation in the world but there are 12,000 million acres of desert in the world, the greater part of which was man-made. Professor Toynbee points out that 21 civilizations have prospered, and then perished through lack of conservation. We must turn ourselves to thinking in terms of a solution to these problems. In some of the Conservation Asiatic countries-I think in India in particu- lar-they are attempting to promote birth control as a means of limiting the population. This project has many difficulties and it is not working too efficiently. I do not think that we for one minute can assume that the greatest asset some of these Asiatic countries have is their high death rate. In this troubled world of today it appears that one means of controlling the world population might be the weapons that we are producing in such a mad furore. In this morning's Globe and Mail I noticed a report that one hydrogen bomb is capable of killing everyone in a 2,800 square mile area. I do not think for one minute that any member of this house would ad- vocate that system; I think there are few in the world who would do so. It looks as though we should perhaps be talking in terms of con- serving the human race rather than in terms of conserving the food supplies of the world. In addition to the matter of food supplies, we must consider the fact that the earth is not made of rubber; it cannot be stretched. Every nation is limited by the number of acres it possesses. As the human beings in- crease in number, the relative amount of productive earth decreases. If agricultural science were applied to the land already under cultivation, I believe that the food sup- plies in the world could be doubled. This would include such things as chemical weed and insect control, mechanization, plant development, irrigation and all that the in- genuity of man could devise to improve the productive capacity of the world. But the matter finally resolves itself into one solution. That solution is conservation. As I pointed out, we cannot rely on vast uncultivated acreages in the future. We find that in Canada we have 96-8 million acres of cultivated farm land of which 71 -8 million are in the prairie provinces, or 74 per cent of the total. It is estimated by Mr. A. M. Thomson, the director of the lands branch in the province of Saskatchewan, that we cannot increase the cultivated acreage in that province by more than 2 per cent, or somewhere around 200,000 acres. We think in terms of domestic potential on the one hand, but true perspectives can only be gained in terms of both the inter- national and domestic potential. When we think in terms of the international situation, we usually think of what the other fellow is going to do or has done. Too little do we think about what we are prepared to do ourselves, and can do, before circumstances force us to do something, and perhaps some- thing not of our choosing. Land, forest and water are indivorcibly married in their relationship. With depletion 1212 HOUSE 0F COMMONS Conservation of the forests, the hydrologie regirne is dis- located. As has been pointed out by the hion. memnber for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness), it is estimated that the forest resources of the province of Quebec are only expected to, last another 50 years. Mr. Lesage: Who said that? Mr. Johnson (Kindersley): The hion. mem- ber for Calgary North. Mr. Harkness: Mr. Roos said that. Mr. Lesage: That is flot what hie said. I was there. Mr. Johnson (Kindersley): It was pointed out in the Country Guide, and I quote: Unless the area is saved by rain or snowfall, a dust bowl worse than that of the thirties may develop this spring in the great plains area of the United States. Only a near miracle wjll prevent the widespread soil blowing on 26 million acres inl a tefl-stdte sector which extends frem west Texas te the Nebraska panhandie. This, Mr. Speaker, is in spite of the con- servation prograrn 0f tho United States and in spite of the fact, as the hion. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) has pointed out, that the United States is spending up to $2 billion a year for conservation. Coming dloser to home, Mr. D. A. Brown, assistant suporintendent of the Brandon experimental farm, has stated: If dry weather and high winds combine next spring in western Manitoba, we could have a worse soul drifting situation than wve had in the worst of the thirties. I should like to relate this problem to my own province where there is at the present time an apparent surplus of wheat. As we go back in history we find that over any oxtended period in the history of the world there bas neyer beon a surplus. The surplus today exists only because of a lack of policy to store the wheat for future use and to dispose of it at that time. The surplus is due to weather conditions and not to any plan or policy devised by the govornmont. In view of the population of the world and food statistics, wo must gear ourselves to maximum production. Wo must utilize every means at our disposai to conserve and utilize our land, water and forest resources effectively. As found at page 872 of Hansard of February 4, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) said: As I have said before, in recent years we have begun to realize that water is not a limitleas reseurce, fier is ita develeement purely a local problem. In the light of this statement let us look at a proposed undertaking which will enable Canada to play her part in supplying the world with food. It could be said that every drop of water that runs to the sea [Mr. Johnson (Kindersley I.] without renderîng a return to humanity is wasted. Therefore we cannot allow ourselves to waste the opportunity of putting in storage 4 million acre feet of water. 1, of course, arn referring to the South Saskatchewan river development projeet. In ternis of world popu- lation and food supplies I do not think that there is a moment to lose. In my opinion the jockeying and procrastination practised by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) in delaying this proj oct is nothing short of shocking. An hon. Member: Read on. Mr. Johnson (Kindersley): It is estimated that the dam itself would require six to ten years te build and that the irrigation facili- ties would require 35 to 50 yoars to be fully developed. By that time the population of the world will have doubled, as will have the population of Canada. I think it is foolish to deny Canada an opportunity to play her part in this groat task of supplying world needs simply on the basis of the national interest. Recent developments have shown that the leader of the government has a flexible policy with relation to the national interost. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) recently reversed his stand on another important issue, and it is to be heped that hoe can reverse his stand on the important issue of the South Saskatchewan dam with equal facility. The west at one time was important to Canada. Sir John A. Macdonald stated: The United Statea gevernment are reaolved to do alI they can. short of war, te et eoasessien ef the western territory, and we must take immediate and vigorous steps te counteract them. The construction of the Canadian Pacifie Railway was one of the means of counteract- ing them. Surely now that we have won the west it is still in the national interest, and I do not think for one minute that we can lot any part of it become the desert that Captain John Palliser visualized in 1859. Certainly the maintenance of sound economic conditions in an area that has suffered a less than aver- age crop in seven out of ton years is werthy of the samne concern and expenditure as the maintenance of a healthy gold mining in- dustry on which the government has spent $6512 million in the last six years. An hon. Member: And more so. Mr. Johnson (Kindersley): Ail of the fea- tures of the South Saskatchewan river devol- opment proj oct are rolated to the topic under dehate-irrigation, maintenance of lake levels, urban water supplies, power, river regula- tion and floods. Until this river is regulated wo cannot utilize a large sector of the fertile 1212 FEBRUARY 16, 1955 land in the Carrot river valley which in the future will be so desperately needed to fulfil our responsibility to the world. In view of the increase in population in relation to world food supplies, it is impera- tive that we do all within our power to utilize and conserve. The first step must be a dominion-provincial conference to outline a policy towards which we can all aim. We must plan for the maximum utilization of the resources of Canada and fulfil our commit- ments to the Atlantic charter to eliminate poverty, with its evils of hunger and disease. Sir John Boyd Orr has stated: A declaration by one of the great powers that it was prepared to co-operate in such a plan- That is, to eliminate poverty. -with other nations, irrespective of their political system, would win for it the sympathy and support of the poverty stricken peoples who form two- thirds of the world's population. They are more interested in the war on want than in treaties and political boundaries or in the relative merits of capitalism and communism. Let us consider the importance and urgency of this matter. There is not a moment to lose in establishing a national policy on soil, forest and water conservation to enable Canada to play her future role. Mr. Armand Dumas (Villeneuve): Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in this debate I have in mind that the conservation of our natural resources is the privilege and the duty of every good Canadian. I really believe that conservation is one of the most important subjects that we could discuss. I also realize that the problem of bringing about greater conservation of our country's natural resources is a complex one. At every session since I have had the honour of sitting in this chamber, whether the subject was brought up during study of a government measure or during discussion of a private member's resolution similar to the one we have before us now, the question of soil and water conservation has always provided interesting and instructive debates. Moreover, the subject of conservation has been discussed at length at meetings and conferences in every province across the country. Politicians, professors, lecturers, representatives of industry, farm organiza- tions, forestry associations and many others have expressed their views on the problem. The majority of those who have debated the subject are of the opinion that in the past we have been too prodigal. Who would dare deny it? For instance, in the early days of the colony the abundance of trees was a drawback to the opening up of the country. The forests were not treated as they should have been. In the years that followed, large 50433-78 Conservation scale operators added their efforts to those of the colonists and were no more careful than the colonists had been. Are we treating the forests with the respect they deserve today? While in some sections of the country fine farms have advantageously replaced large tracts of wooded land, in many other sections abusive cuts have created deserts where there could have been an abundance of wood forever. It has been demonstrated over and over again that we have all been guilty of abuse, industry and government alike, with regard to the exploitation of our forests. Fortunately, during the last three or four decades there has been a better understanding of the necessity for conservation. For instance, today many of the operators harvesting Canada's wood crop are seriously concerned about the future wood supply, and are actively engaged in doing something about it. Many of the leading operators have already achieved sustained yields in their operations. Large amounts of money are being spent every year by industry for road construction, fire prevention, research work of all kinds and investigations into improved methods of operation. These are very vital contributions by industry. The provinces, with primary responsibility for the welfare of the forests as owners and lessors, have shown a growing sense of responsibility in all branches of forestry as well as in the field of conservation. The federal government has assisted, and does assist on many occasions in a great number of ways, the provincial governments in their efforts toward greater conservation. We find on the statute books of Canada legislation such as the Canada Forestry Act, the Canada Water Conservation Assistance Act, the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and the Mari- time Marshland Rehabilitation Act, to mention only a few. Each of these measures has been enacted for the benefit of the provinces who wish to take advantage of them. There are also other fields in which the federal government has made valuable con- tributions to forest conservation. I shall mention only the forest research branch which has conducted, and is still conducting, exten- sive studies in silviculture, logging, protection, inventories, reforestation, utilization, preser- vation, mechanics and chemistry. In spite of the progress we have made in the field of conservation, I admit there is still much to be done. I repeat that the problem of attain- ing the utmost in conservation is not an easy one. Problems of this nature are more often solved through compromise and co-operation. I am of the opinion that one of the impor- tant duties that rest with the different govern- ments, industry and the people of this country HOUSE OF COMMONS Conservation as a whole is to ascertain the responsibilities and shortcomings, and decide upon the logical steps to be taken to solve the difficulties. There are some important questions which are in the minds of the Canadian people, regarding which no clear-cut answers have been given. For instance, here are some of those questions: How serious is our forest problem? What must we do to conserve this national asset? What are the ideals towards which industry and governments should aim? If there is some danger of losing this very important asset, what must be done to avoid such a disaster? How can we keep every tract of forest land continuously growing and producing trees? This is not the first time the hon. member for Kootenay West has introduced a resolu- tion to the effect that the government should consider the advisability of calling a federal- provincial conference on conservation with a view to establishing a national policy on soils, forests, water conservation and land use for Canada. In the past, and again today, I have listened carefully to the remarks made by the hon. member. I do not hesitate to say that he deserves to be congratulated upon being such an ardent lover of the forests and such a strong supporter of conservation. However, I am not convinced, Mr. Speaker, that the calling of a federal-provincial con- ference would give this country a national policy covering these subjects. I am not absolutely sure that without some additional studies, and some real co-operation, we could gain much at this time by calling such a conference. I should like to draw to the attention off hon. members what was said by the then minister of resources and develop- ment during the session of 1952, when he participated in the debate on a similar motion. He had this to say, and I quote from page 835 of Hansard for March 26, 1952: There is, I believe, pretty wide public acceptance of this general principle that some of the costs of conservation should be borne by the taxpayers generally, but there is room for considerable dis- cussion on two points concerning its application. The first is the extent to which it should be applied, the degree to which the taxpayer should carry the burden of conservation. The second is the determination of what proportion of the burden should be borne by private enterprise, and what should be carried by the taxpayers of the province on the one hand and by the taxpayers of the whole country on the other. In other words, how much of the government contribution to con- servation costs should be made by the provincial and municipal governments concerned, and how much by the federal government. Problems such as these are usually best solved by dealing with each case on its own merits, rather than by trying to lay down general principles because the surrounding conditions tend to vary so widely from case to case. [Mr. Dumas.] On another occasion, during the 1952-53 session, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), after having cited some extracts from the federal-provincial conference of 1945, added the following: Well, here I rather shy away from using the expression "national policy" in connection with things of that kind. There are people who think that, when you use the term "national policy" there is some way in which the central authority is going to reach out and try to draw to itself some of the provincial jurisdiction. We do not want to do that. We want to have this country continue under the constitution that was set up, and we do want to co-operate with the provinces. Later on, referring to the resolution, he said: It asks that we consider calling a dominion- provincial conference to bring about a greater degree of collaboration and co-operation. Well, we are quite prepared to consider that. But we do not think it would be apt to produce very great results to do it right away or to do it on any wide scale. Let us continue to demonstrate, by the co-operation that will be taking place, that there are no ulterior motives in doing it, and that it is merely a genuine desire of Canadian citizens, to whatever administration they belong, to help the Canadian people of this generation dis- charge the responsibility they have to Canadian people of future gencrations to see that the resources of this country are not depleted, but are maintained, and will be available to be used by thein, and will have increased productivity as the size of our population increases. Well, Mr. Speaker, those words coming from the Prime Minister should make it very clear that this government is anxious to do everything it can in order to further the cause of conservation: and moreover we have proof in the legislation which has been en- acted that this government is willing to go a long way to help those who want to help themselves. As a legislative body, I would think we could better discharge our responsi- bilities by insisting that a special committee of this house be set up to make further studies and investigation of this matter. It is possible that a full and comprehensive report on the subject would supply the real approach to our forest problems. The job that needs to be done and the opportunity we must seize will require increasing co-operation among the forces of governments, industry and private owners of land. The encouragement of teamwork must be considered a prime requirement of a national policy on conservation, and this can be assured only when all the interested parties agree that the problems are national in scope and that their solution depends on co-operative efforts. Mr. John B. Hamilton (York West): Mr. Speaker, I know I am not the first or the only new member in the House of Commons who has had great difficulty in fathoming all the 1214 FEBRUARY 16, 1955 rules of procedure of the house, all the spe- cial customs, all the special days. But it is with a little consternation that I find myself taking part in this debate. You see, last night at 9.45 I was ready for immigration, but at ten o'clock I was told to be ready for con- servation. I have searched through my immi- gration speech, but I cannot find a single paragraph that I can use on conservation. Be that as it may, at the risk of talking myself out of the house-and I have been warned that this is a common malady: I hope I just talk myself out, period-I would not be fair to my constituency of York West if I did not say a few words on this resolu- tion. I do not like to limit my remarks in any debate to the narrow scene of one con- stituency, and even in this instance I shall attempt to talk on a wider basis. I must point out, however, that this resolu- tion is of the utmost importance to the con- stituency of York West, because this area suffered by far the greatest loss during the recent "Hurricane Hazel". On one street alone, Raymore drive in the township of Etobicoke, 45 people lost their lives, and property damage was terrific. Although the brunt of the loss of life and damage was borne by the township of Etobicoke in the easterly part of York West, severe damage and loss of life occurred in the extreme westerly part of the constituency as well, notably in the Long Branch area. All told, property damage totalled almost $3 million. As Werden Leavens of Bolton, the former chair- man of the Humber valley conservation authority, pointed out: The flood conditions are not new. There have been floods in this valley for at least the last 158 years with increasing frequency and severity. "Hurricane Hazel" was by far the worst but it was only a dramatie and tragie summary of the need for flood control. Members from the greater Toronto area cannot speak today without mentioning the outright heroism of many of our citizens during and after "Hurricane Hazel". The spirit of co-operation among all agencies that volunteered their services; the efforts of the Red Cross, varlous church and women's organizations, service clubs, the armed forces, the press, radio and television-and, yes, I believe for the first time in Canada the various political parties helping on an organized basis-directed in round-the-clock work by efficient municipal authorities, resulted in the performance of miracles of rehabilitation. Now the work of financial adjustment goes on. But-and it is a very large "but"-have we learned any lesson? At the risk of being 50433-78J Conservation out of order, speaking from a national view- point I would repeat that here was the greatest argument for a complete reappraisal of our civil defence set-up. I have said before in the house that a few air raid sirens are not enough. At least a small permanent force must be maintained in the larger areas of concentrated population. There must be adequate direction and, with all deference to the Minister of National Health and Wel- fare (Mr. Martin), I am coming to the con- clusion that the national direction and the permanent force staff should be under army control. Even in "Hurricane Hazel" army troops were required, and I believe that in a national emergency the over-all direction must fall to the army. But if we need national direction of that kind, we also need national direction and assistance of the kind envisaged by this resolution. In my constituency of York West a very urgent brief has already been pre- sented to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage) by the Humber valley conservation authority, in which they request the federal government's aid in their plans to prevent further loss of both life and property, and also to ensure adequate soil and forest conservation. As deputy reeve Tonks of York township has said: Over the last 200 years one of the most dense forest areas in Ontario has been denuded. Today we have flash floods washing away the land and leaving practically no water in some areas. In summer the river la often a filthy and polluted mess. Yet the Humber la the drainage depot for a vast amount of heavy industry building up in an area of major national importance. I have already indicated to the minister in this house the very great urgency in this matter. No time should be lost; we cannot delay when lives are at stake. I must say I am hoping that the demands in this brief do not get the same treatment as requests for action on the Dundas-Royal York subway, which we have not obtained though the first request for it was made in 1917. I hope, Mr. Speaker, I may be forgiven for inserting that remark into this debate. I gather that to date federal assistance such as requested, by the Humber valley conserva- tion authority is based on the provisions of section 3, subsection 3b, of the Canada Water Conservation Assistance Act, 1953, which provides that an agreement between the gov- ernment of Canada and any province for contributions by the federal government in respect of the cost of projects for the con- struction of dams and other works for the conservation and control of water resources in such province shall also provide that: The province will carry out a program of re- forestation or other ancillary conservation measures Conservation in the area affected by the project, unless the agreement provides that reforestation or other ancillary conservation measures are not required. It is further noted that in section 19 (1) of the agreement between the government of Canada and the government of the prov- ince of Ontario for the construction of the Conestogo dam on the Conestogo river dated September 15, 1953- The province covenants and agrees to submit to the federal minister . . . an over-ali plan for ancillary conservation measures in the watershed of the Grand river and its tributaries. These provisions would seem to be quite adequate to cover the work required, but under section 5 (1), (2) and (3) of the Canada Water Conservation Assistance Act, 1953, it is provided that- (1) The minister may, in accordance with an agreement with a province and subject to this act, pay contributions to the province out of money appropriated by parliament for the purposes of this act. (2) The contributions paid by Canada in respect of an agreement with a province shall not exceed the amount paid by the province in respect of the project referred to in the agreement, and in no case shall the contributions paid by Canada exceed 371 per cent of the cost of the project, as determined by the governor in council. (3) Contributions under this act shall be limited to projects that in the opinion of the governor in council are of a major character. Section 39 of the conservation authorities act, revised statutes of Ontario, 1950, as amended in 1954, reads as follows: The lieutenant governor in council may make a grant to any authority out of such funds as may be appropriated therefor by the legislature. The acts quoted in the foregoing paragraphs provided for dividing the costs of construction of works to which their provisions apply on the basis of 372 per cent paid by the dominion government and 37½ per cent paid by the provincial government. This leaves 25 per cent of the cost to be borne by the municipality. Here again we must come face to face with stark reality. As I said in the throne speech debate, we are fast reaching the stage, if we have not already reached it, when the municipalities cannot continue to provide on the basis of real property taxes all the serv- ices demanded of them. I say this today notwithstanding a report which I have read in this morning's Globe and Mail, which indi- cates that, in so far as the Humber valley development is concerned, the per capita cost to the municipalities will be among the lowest for a development of this kind. Today the fact is that no matter how few dollars or how few cents per capita are involved, we are at the stage where the government could agree to pay 37J per cent of the cost of any number of projects of many kinds in many places, yet they could not be constructed !Mr. Hamilton (York West).] because real property cannot bear the tax load placed on it. Perhaps I am even more concerned about this problem today because I just had to forward a cheque to my munici- pality for $400, which was long overdue. I believe a real word of warning is re- quired. If we face only a slight decrease in our high level of business activity, I feel that we will have as many bankrupt muni- cipalities as we had in the 1930's, and if real property taxes continue to rise we shall have the same proportion of lost homes. This is the serious message contained in this resolu- tion. The work is most urgent. I do not think it can be accomplished without the dominion-provincial conference suggested, and then only if a more equitable distribu- tion of cost can be reached. Let us not stand on ceremony as to who shall seek or look for an invitation to such a conference. I am amazed that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources should be looking for such a feeble excuse to pass the buck. Let us give a hand to the home owner, a real investor in Canada with faith in its future. Let us support this resolution. Mr. A. H. Hollingworth (York Centre): I should like to say a few words about conser- vation generally and about a problem in my own riding particularly, which has come to the fore as a result of "Hurricane Hazel." I should like to compliment warmly the hon. member for Kootenay West on the introduc- tion of this resolution and on his great and abiding interest in this subject of conserva- tion. The importance of conservation, refores- tation and flood control was brought home to me forcefully recently when I was reading a book by the late secretary of the interior in the Roosevelt administration, Mr. Harold Ickes. It shows clearly the great importance of this work in the United States. It would appear to me that it is of equal importance in Canada at this time, particularly because of the continuing depletion of our natural resources as a result of the increasingly vora- cious appetite of our industrial economy. I should like to make a few comments on a brief presented recently by the Humber valley conservation authority to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Hon. members will know the tremendous havoc to life and property which resulted this past fall from the cyclone called "Hurri- cane Hazel", or more specifically from the flood which resulted from that hurricane and which caused devastation to portions of the metropolitan Toronto area. Before coming into the house this after- noon I received a supplementary brief from the Humber valley conservation authority HOUSE OF COMMONS1216 which. sets out in detail the damage f rom the flood of October 15 and 16. It will be o! interest ta hon. members ta know that the total estimate of the damage is aver $2,150,000. The area I amn chiefiy concerned with titis afternoon are the villages o! Woadbridge and Humber Summit in my own riding, which was struck by the f ull farce of the flood. Wood- bridge is situated on the Humber river which, with its three main branches, drains an area o! 366 miles north of lake Ontario. One- sixth o! this watershed lies within the baun- daries of metrapoitan Toronto, the remainder being largely agricultural. About 10 per cent has some f orm. of tree caver. Since 1791 I understand that 72 floods have been recorded, but by far the worst was "Hurricane Hazel", in which the flow was approximately four times the maximum flow recorded in any previaus high water period. The purpose of this brief ta the minister was ta show the urgent necessity o! com- pleting as soon as possible the requisite dams, reservoirs, and flood contrai works on the Humber river ta eliminate the possi- bility of loss of life and property such as occurred during the disastrous flood on October 15. According ta the authority it is imperative ta erect five dams lacated at strategic points, because the Humber river is almost without natural contrai cancerning the flow o! water. For example, there are few lakes ta act as reservoirs, and forest caver and swamp can be o! only limited use because of the necessity of using the land intensively for agriculture. As a result large dams and conservation reservoirs must be constructed ta take the place o! nature. The advantages of the dams are several. First, the reservoirs resulting from the dams would hold 52 per cent of the total run-iff from a storm equal in severity ta that o! "Hurricane Hazel". In brie!, they would regulate the flow of the water. Second, proper operation of dams would result in an increase in the summer flow o! the river, which is important because of the heavy pol- lution which now exists. Third, the dams would also create lakes which could be used for recreationi in the summertime, as weil as resulting in the develapment of parks on the shores of the lakes. I have before me a repart which appeared in this marning's Globe and Mail referring ta Mr. Leavens, chairman of the Humber valley conservation authority. This reads: Mr. Leavens urged expansion of the parks and recreationai facilities sponsored by the authority. RUsing land prices and the Increasing number of city dwellers purchaslng the more desirable properties in the watersheds were gradually robbing residents of the valley of the resources they need for recreation. Conservation Consequently you can see how important it is to have authority for this project. Fourth, the dams would also supply the municipalities bardering the shores of the Humber river with necessary water. They would also contrai stream bank erosion. Finally, such a scheme of flood contrai would assist any co-aperation among farmers in undertaking various phases of soil manage- ment. The authority also advacates that a concrete-lined channel should be constructed ta divert the flow of the river around Wood- bridge. This is the type of channel which was recently erected at Bramptan, which I submit saved Bramptan from seriaus disaster during the same flaod. I submit that there is the necessary legis- lation ta carry aut the plan af the autharity. Section 5, subsections 1, 2 and 5 of the Canada Water Conservation Assistance Act, provide that the federal government will pay 37J per cent af the proposed cost of such flood contrai project if in the opinion of the governor in council the project is "of a major character". My respectful submission is that this cornes within that category. Similarly the provincial government has authority ta cantribute 37J per cent, and the remaining 25 per cent wauld be paid by the appropriate autharity which wauld be set up. In this case a! course that is the Humber valley conser- vation authority. I arn told that an engineer- ing report has been made and the estimated cast of the praposed praject is $14,747,000. This would mean that the federal gavera.- ment's share would be $5,530,000. In concluding, I should like ta pay a brief' tribute ta the magnificent spirit shown by the people af the village of Woadbridge dur- ing this unprecedented disaster. I happened ta be out of my riding at the tîme the flood struck. 1 arrived back in my riding the fol- lowing Tuesday, and even at that time one could see the terrible consequences. Houses were tilted crazily on end, human suffering was still unspeakable, the angry, churnlng water o! the Humber had settled back into its accustomed bed but the high water mark 10 ta 12 feet above was still plainly visible. Everybody in the village assisted the vic- tims. The Woodbridge United Church served as headquarters for food and the Woadbridge arena served as headquarters for the gather- ing of clothing, mattresses, bedding, etc. I should like ta pay tribute ta the many volun- teer arganizations which participated, ta the men and women af the different churches, the Canadian Legion, the valunteer fire depart- ment, the Red Cross and the many service organizatians who worked day and night ta he]p the victims. If anyone doubts the utility of service clubs he would have had his doubts FEBRUARY 16, 1955 1217 HOUSE OF COMMONS Conservation dispelled had he seen the members of such organizations-for example, the Toronto Ave- nue Road Lions club, of which I am privileged to be a member-working night and day dis- tributing sandwiches and coffee. Of course the immediate sufferings of the people affected by the hurricane were and are being taken care of by the "Hurricane Hazel" fund. The purpose of the authority's brief is to make sure that this does not happen again. I would urge upon the government that they take a sympathetic outlook in regard to this matter and participate in the scheme to help make the Humber valley flood project a reality when the authority itself passes on this scheme. Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York South): Mr. Speaker, certain facts have been brought out clearly in the course of this debate. The first, of course, is that the government and the present minister are not prepared to support this resolution. The second is that while Liberal members have spoken in favour of conservation, no Liberal member has com- mitted himself to support this particular resolution. What is quite evident is that the govern- ment and the Liberal party do not believe that we should have any such thing as a na- tional policy on conservation or a national pol- icy regarding soil, forest and water conserva- tion and land use. Apparently in the opinion of the government those are provincial resour- ces, not national. The thing I wonder about is why we have a minister of national re- sources if we have no national resources for him to administer. Apparently land, soil and water are provincial resources, and one wonders just what are the national resources over which the young and energetic newly appointed minister has control or in which he is interested. The minister made a great point of want- ing to be invited by the provinces to partici- pate in any co-operative effort regarding the conservation measures outlined in this reso- lution. The excuse the minister gave for taking no action on this resolution is the same old excuse that every politician since confed- eration has used when he did not want to do anything. Every politician who has been presented with a problem which he did not want to face up to has fallen back on the poor old British North America Act, which leaves certain affairs in the hands of the provinces, and the excuse has been that it would interfere with provincial rights. Let us assume or take it for granted that these resources are provincial resources. What is to prevent the national minister-the [Mr. Hollingworth.] Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources-from taking some initiative and giving some leadership to the provincial authorities in this matter? Why must he sit back and permit some province to take the initiative in getting a conference together or in trying to arrive at some degree of uni- formity in this matter of the conservation of these resources? There is a great need for the education of Canadian citizens in the matter of conservation. Why must the Min- ister of Northern Affairs and National Resources sit back and wait for some provin- cial minister or some provincial authority to come forward and take the initiative in instituting such an educational program? Apparently the government does not believe in anything approximating a uniform policy for all the provinces. Quite evidently what the government wants to do in the matter of conservation is deal with each province separately and make a different agreement with each province, without any effort to see that all the provinces are treated alike or that this matter of conservation is dealt with as a matter of national importance. Just as soon as a catastrophe strikes, such as the one that struck the Humber valley last fall, and just as soon as damage such as that which has been outlined by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Hamilton) and the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Hol- lingworth) is sustained, these provinces and municipalities come to the federal government for help; and they usually get it. In all fair- ness to the government I think we must admit that on this piecemeal basis the government has assisted where catastrophe has struck in the various provinces. But surely a more satisfactory solution of this problem would be an effort to arrive at some form of national policy, some measure-granted that it may have to differ from province to province- with some degree of uniformity which would indicate that the federal government is assuming some responsibility in the matter of conservation of these resources. Why must we wait until catastrophe has struck before we can get any action from the federal government or any assistance on matters of this kind? It has been estimated, as has already been stated, that "Hurricane Hazel" did over $3 million worth of property damage in the Humber valley last fall. There was loss of life and untold suffering which cannot be measured in terms of dollars and cents. I am told that years ago recommen- dations were made for the building of dams and reservoirs that would have prevented that catastrophe had those recommendations been carried out. Had the federal govern- ment and the provincial government been 1218 FEBRUARY 16, 1955 working together with municipalities where conditions existed such as those prevailing in the Humber valley; had they been co- operating in attempting to prevent such catastrophes instead of just coming in to help after the catastrophe has taken place, hundreds of people living in that valley would have been saved the inconvenience, the loss and suffering which they endured as a result of that hurricane. I want to support the resolution. After all, if our soil, forests and water are of no concern to this federal government, then what in the world in Canada is of any concern to them? There is little in this country that is of more concern to the people of Canada as a whole than are our soil, forests and water. Certainly they are interests which should concern the federal government and as to which the federal government should no longer hesitate to give some leadership. It is not necessary to foist a federal policy upon the provinces or upon any municipality. What we want in this matter is the kind of leadership and initiative that a federal gov- ernment in this country exists to give. When we are given that kind of leadership and initiative there will be no stepping on provin- cial toes, and no necessity for it. We can have that kind of leadership which only the federal government can give, and we can solve these problems on a co-operative basis to the benefit of the people of Canada in every province and in every municipality. Miss Margaret Aitken (York-Humber): Mr. Speaker, I should like to say just a few words on why I am supporting this resolution. I am, like the hon. member for York West, support- ing it because conservation has become some- thing of tremendous importance to me and to the people I represent in this parliament. During the past month or more subjects of vital concern to the Canadian people have been debated in this house. We have talked about unemployment, education, foreign affairs and immigration. Al these things affect the lives of the people we represent in parliament. But it seems to me that today we are talking about something that affects life itself. Con- servation is something more than the building of green belts, the replanting of forests or the maintenance of soil values. Those of us who saw "Hurricane Hazel" in action know that, in speaking of conservation, we are also speaking about the preservation of life. York-Humber, the constituency which I represent, is bounded on the west by the Humber, which is a lovely, winding, slow- moving, docile river. On the night of October 15, it was a seething raging river of terror. Conservation A short time ago, as has already been men- tioned, the Humber valley conservation au- thority presented a brief to the government asking for aid in building dams to prevent such flooding and tragic results as were caused by "Hurricane Hazel". I ask the gov- ernment to give this brief the closest scrutiny and most sympathetic consideration. It is very easy and perhaps natural for legislators to ask why people build their homes in areas threatened by natural disasters. More than 1,400 homes and small businesses were destroyed or damaged by "Hurricane Hazel". There were 85 lives lost, and property damage ran into astronomical figures. Why do people build their homes in such areas? I suppose economic circumstances make people choose low-lying and therefore low-priced properties. That is one reason. Perhaps another is an instinct that is as old as civilization. Men have always clustered by river banks. In early days transportation and sources of energy were the reasons. To- day the reasons are economic and perhaps aesthetic, too. Homes beside river banks are always very attractive. But there certainly are reasons why people build their homes in these low-lying districts. I do not believe you can legislate those reasons away, nor do I think you can scare the people away. But governments can build barriers against dangers. In my constituency the old story of wolf, wolf was tragically exemplified. It was the oldtimers who lost their lives, not the new- comers. Those who had watched the spring floods pour into their cellars year after year paid no attention to the warnings of danger. They went to bed on the night of October 15 resigned to the chore of bailing out their cellars the next morning, and within minutes they and their homes were swept away. More recent residents were alarmed by the tor- rential rains and left or were rescued. Since 1791 there have been 72 floods in the Humber valley area. "Hurricane Hazel" was, of course, the worst and most destruc- tive of them all. As a representative of those who have suffered so tragically from these fioods, I cannot let this opportunity pass without paying tribute to the people who were battered by "Hurricane Hazel", both those who were affected by it personally and those who helped others. They were mag- nificent. It seems to me that in my lifetime all our energies have been directed toward the development of weapons of destruction. Here is our chance to do something toward construction. Here is our opportunity to pro- tect life and conserve our natural resources in the form of water, soil, forests and human beings. HOUSE OF COMMONS Conservation Mr. John Palleti (Peel): Mr. Speaker, the resolution before the house reads: That, in the opinion of this house, the govern- ment should consider the advisability of calling a dominion-provincial conference on conservation with a view to the establishment of a national policy on soil, forest and water conservation and land use for Canada. The thought comes to me that the mover of the resolution is a bit of an optimist, because if the government were to do what he suggests it would be the first time it has been able to formulate a clear policy on anything. I would also point out that con- servation means saving, and to expect such a policy on the part of the government is a little too much because by their actions they have indicated that they are completely in- experienced in saving. The minister has stated that such questions are matters of provincial rights. We hear a great deal about provincial rights in this house, but there is very little discussion of human rights. Conservation deals with the rights of human beings. However, notwith- standing the minister's diffidence about con- sidering the resolution, there are certain matters that I feel should be drawn to his attention and the attention of the house and the government. If the government fail to take proper steps with respect to conserva- tion I foresee that the flood waters arising from their lack of action will flush them frorn office. A number of conservation authorities have been set up in the province of Ontario with the co-operation of the provincial govern- ment. In some instances conservation meas- ures have been taken in time, and in other instances steps were not taken soon enough. It may be that some of the lessons that have been learned will help the government cast aside some of their diffidence and take a step forward rather than acting like the little girl who never went out because she was never asked, and would not go out by herself. In Canada we are blessed with a great abundance of natural resources. We have been entrusted with their care. Perhaps we have violated that trust, and have been too indecisive in taking conservation measures to protect our natural resources and the heritage which is ours. This indecision brings the same result involved in all indecision, some form or other of disaster, floods in many parts of the country and the loss of natural forest resources in other parts. Perhaps the most recent illustration was the flood, already mentioned, on the 15th and 16th of October last year that followed "Hurricane Hazel", although in this instance a conservation authority had been [Miss Aitken.] in operation for some years. There were more floods occasioned by "Hurricane Hazel" than those in the Humber valley. Our hearts and sympathy went out to the staunch Dutch immigrants of the Bradford marsh area who were also affected. There was no indecision in their case so far as relief was concerned. There was no question whether agriculture was a provincial or a federal matter. Not- withstanding that agriculture concerns both the federal and provincial governments, the province of Ontario said that in this case it was a provincial matter and proceeded to help those people. They did not argue about the rights of the two governments. The most extensive flooding, of course, was in the Humber valley. We always watch events in the Humber valley rather carefully because the river starts in Peel county as a pleasant little stream, but in a distance of 58 miles and a drop of 1,200 feet it can be- come quite a torrent of water. The minister has received representations from the Hum- ber valley conservation authority. The bon. member for York Centre referred to certain parts of the brief submitted by the authority, although he did not quote it directly. There have been additional submissions to the minister by the Humber valley conserva- tion authority. I feel it is most significant that these submissions have been made as a result of his inquiry, so I trust the fact that the minister bas requested further submis- sions indicates he is genuinely and seriously casting aside the provincial rights aspect of this particular question. Mr. Lesage: I believe, Mr. Speaker, I should make a correction at this point. These sub- missions are made under an existing act, the water conservation assistance act. In such a case there is no question of provincial priority. Mr. Pallefl: I am certainly pleased to hear the minister say that. Mr. Lesage: The request bas been made by the province in the case of the Humber valley. Mr. Palleil: The minister referred to the provincial rights aspect of the resolution. As I read section 7 of the resources and development act which sets up the minister's department, it says: The minister may formulate plans for public works and improvements, housing, community development, research and the conservation and development of the resources of Canada- Mr. Lesage: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this act has been repealed and has been replaced by an act which was adopted by this house in December of 1953, creating the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. 1220 FEBRUARY 16, 1955 Mr. Palleft: Is the minister suggesting that this section does not apply under the new act? Mr. Lesage: Not in those words. Mr. Palleit: Is the minister suggesting he does not have the same authority under the new act? Mr. Lesage: The Canada Water Conserva- tion Assistance Act is still in force, and it was under that act that I received the submission from the Ontario government for assistance to the Humber valley conservation authority. Only yesterday I received the additional information that I requested from the delega- tion that came to my office on January 31, and the officers of my department are presently studying the technical details of the submission. Mr. Palleft: Yes; that is dealing with the Humber valley authority representation. I am referring now to the original submission that the matter of conservation was within provincial jurisdiction only. Mr. Lesage: That is not what I said. I said that natural resources were primarily the responsibility of the provinces, and I could ask the hon. member if he does not agree with what I said. Mr. Palleit: The minister could ask that, but since he did not I do not believe I should be obliged to answer the question. Mr. Lesage: No, you are afraid. Mr. Palleti: I return now to a consideration of the resolution before the house. Since the minister has indicated that he will perhaps support the representations of the Humber valley conservation authority, after receiving advice from his officials and if he believes they should be supported, I may relate to him some of the incidents that occurred on the night of the flood which will perhaps encourage him in the human approach to this question. Yesterday in the house we had a great oration on the human element that comes into the consideration of everything this government does. To assist the minister in that consideration I may give him some of the human elements involved in "Hurricane Hazel" which occurred on the night of October 15-16. I would say it was about eleven o'clock at night when I received the first indication there was something amiss. I had a telephone call from a constituent of mine who said, "John, we are taking people out of the homes on First street in boats; what do we do?" I thought, that is rather interesting. We had a big flood in Winnipeg, so there must be some organization set up to look after these things. I recalled the many newspaper arti- cles about civil defence, so I looked in the Conservation telephone book to see if there was a listing under "civil defence". I did not see anything under that heading. By that time our local firemen were on the job. The Lions Club were out doing their bit. Traffic was being directed on this rainy night by a boy scout, 16 years of age. The girl guides were out. The Kiwanis Club was distributing food. Blankets were needed and the problem was how to get them. I called a friend of mine in the army and he said, "John, you cannot get them out; you have to get the council to get them out." I said, "That is all right." I was given a number and I called our deputy reeve. She called the colonel in charge, and out came the blankets and beds. I wish to say that, although the red tape was fairly extensive, the army responded magnificently and should be given full credit for the work they did. There was one humorous incident which would be appreciated by those who have been in the services. At the Port Credit high school where the blankets, beds, and mat- tresses were being unloaded there was a sergeant supervising the job and a brigadier carrying the blankets. An hon. Member: A democratic army. Mr. Palleit: Yes, a democratic army. I cannot pass over this incident without men- tioning the fine work of the Canadian Red Cross that evening. However, there was no over-all organization. Each of these individ- ual service clubs-and I may have forgotten to mention some of them-did its bit. As the hon. member for York West has said, this storm certainly highlighted the lack of any civil defence organization in this country. The minister may feel that before be expends this great sum of money be will want a few more humanisms. There is nothing so desolate as a man whose home, whether it be a house or trailer, has been washed away from underneath him. If the minister acts quickly in connection with this conservation authority he may prevent such occurrences. In addition, I believe the brief shows the actual cost of these dams will be very small to the country as a whole. In other words they will create benefits them- selves by increasing the potential water sup- ply for certain areas, creating parks and reservoirs of water to assure a continual flow at certain times of the year. As a result, this is not a charitable gift by any government but rather a project which, while not entirely self-liquidating, will in part liquidate itself over the years. The total cost of these dams would be $14,747,000, a very small outlay for such great benefits. I am glad to see the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) in the house because Conservation as the brief points out, in addition to the many other benefits this project will create employment. The construction of these dams would create work to the extent of 2,507,000 man hours, and this would be spread over a period of about two and a half years. That is the kind of work that should be encouraged, because it would take care of the seasonal unemployment to which the government refers. At the time of the hurricane we saw indi- vidual feats of bravery which may never be repeated in the history of Canada. I suggest to the government that to recognize feats of that kind it should take from its storehouse, or wherever it may have been placed, the Canada medal which, I believe, was to cover occasions of this kind. Thus far the govern- ment has not seen fit to make any awards- and someone interjects that perhaps the reason is that there are not enough Liberal heroes. I do not know whether we differenti- ated at the time of the hurricane between our political friends and those who were not in that category. Mr. Philpoti: Liberals are heroes, but they are not working for medals. Mr. Palleti: That is right; they prefer money. I am leaving this suggestion with the house as sornething which might be given favourable consideration. Then tribute should be paid to the wonder- fui coverage given by the press at the time of the hurricane. I take special pride because a constituent of mine, Mr. Ivan Lavery, of the Toronto Daily Star, a newspaper known to most hon. members, was awarded one of the highest awards for his work that night, which was carried out at great personal risk and danger. And so I point out there are human ele- ments which might help the minister to determine that the purse strings should be loosened to assist the Humber valley con- servation authority, and for that matter any other conservation authority that would approach him with a similar scheme. The Etobicoke river is much smaller than the Humber, but at its lower end near the lake it causes damage and used to cause heavy damage to the town of Brampton. At that time-and I stand to be corrected on this- it is my understanding the federal govern- ment refused any assistance for the diversion of that stream because, as they pointed out, it was not within their scope. Some might have said, "well, we will have to let it go because the federal government will not talk to us. They will not invite us to discuss the matter, so we will do nothing about it." But the prov- [Mr. Pallett.] ince of Ontario and the town of Brampton combined their efforts to bring about that di- version. Believe me, some of the Liberals in the legislature were rubbing their hands in glee because it seemed to them the province was spending a large sum of money, without any tangible results. "Hurricane Hazel," how- ever, showed the foresight of the then pre- mier of Ontario, Colonel T. L. Kennedy, be- cause the town of Brampton was saved from that hurricane. That is the kind of foresight the minister must show if he is going to encourage steps toward national conservation. He must net try te shilly-shally behind the facade of do- minion-provincial rights. I believe agriculture in Canada has pretty well overcome that handicap, and I see no reason why other ministers should not follow a similar course. For the reasons I have indicated, I support the resolution. Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, it is only very occasionally that hon. members have the opportunity to discuss matters of really fundamental importance to the whole population. We spend a great deal of our time discussing relations with each other and a lesser time discussing our relations with people in other national groups, but very seldom do we discuss our relationship with our environment. I think it would be a good idea if sometimes human beings were to forget their exalted role as something just slightly less than the angels, and regard our- selves as an extremely voracious species of animal that is rapidly eating itself out of house and home. We have built, on the resources of this globe, various social and political institutions, and we have developed various philosophies; but the whole edifice will fall around our ears unless we deal with this question of abuses in our life on this planet. This requires the adoption of policies that will see to it that those resources provide the most fruitful returns for the enrichment of human life. I am not saying that we have not improved considerably in our outlook in this regard within recent years. I can remember very well 40 years ago on the Pacifie coast when each summer we had a haze of smoke ail over the lower mainland because of the vast quantity of timber that was being burned, due to human greed and human stupidity. Now that is almost a thing of the past. We have been able to curb some of the more flagrant examples of waste in our various industries in British Columbia. It was about Il years ago that I appeared as a witness before the royal commission headed by Mr. Justice Sloan which dealt with HOUSE OF COMMONS1222 the forest products industry in British Colum- bia. It was on that occasion that I first heard promulgated the idea of a forest management licence, to which reference has been made this afternoon. There was a very interesting incident at that time which I think throws some light on the problem of the conservation of our natural resources. I may say that the idea was advanced by the spokesman of one of the largest lumber corporations on the British Columbia coast. When he advanced the idea, commission counsel questioned him very closely about it, and asked whether his company really be- lieved they would have financial resources sufficient to fulfil their side of the bargain, which was to provide a continuing supply of new timber in return for cutting rights on existing stands of mature timber. This was in connection with the proposal of a forest management licence. I shall always remember what the repre- sentative of that large lumber corporation said. His reply was, "Oh, I think so-that is, so long as conditions stay the way they are today. But of course if times get tough we might feel it would pay us better to get a pair of scissors and clip coupons." That gave me an inkling of the sense of public responsibility large lumber corporations in British Columbia have toward the develop- ment of our natural resources. Much has been said about the development of the forest management licence scheme. This was brought about as a result of the deliberations of that royal commission; and the royal commission was established because of conditions which had become evident for many years past. The chief forester in the province was the late E. C. Manning who, some may recall, was killed in the aeroplane crash in which the late Hon. Norman McL. Rogers met his death. Mr. Manning year after year had been warning the provincial legislature in Victoria that time was running out in the forests of British Columbia; that there was serious and dangerous overcutting in all species; that no care was being taken to reforest the logged-off lands, and that our backlog of logged-off and totally barren land was increasing at the rate of some 25,000 to 35,000 acres a year in the coast forest alone. I should say this, Mr. Speaker, to illustrate the importance of the forest stands not merely for the people of British Columbia, not merely for the people of Canada, but for the people of the whole world. The forests of British Columbia constitute over half the total timber resources of Canada. The coast forests constitute the last remaining stand of virgin soft timber in the world, and as a consequence I say they are the responsibility Conservation and concern not just of the people of British Columbia, not even just of the people of Canada, but of the people of the whole world. The forest management licence idea was based on a very sound principle. It was based on the principle that forest products are a continuing resource, if properly harvested and farmed; but the forest management licence system of British Columbia did not take into account a very important factor in the situation, namely the enormous back- log of logged-off timber lands in the most valuable timber growing areas of Canada. At the present time some million and a half totally barren acres of what was formerly the richest timber land in the world exist on the coast of British Columbia. In the 10 years since forest management licensing was started there has been an ominous silence from the licensees under that act. We get very little in the way of reports of the actual areas that have been reforested by the licensees, very little in the way of reports of the manner in which logging operations are now being con- ducted. There are, I am aware, some com- panies, some licensees, that have adopted modern silvicultural methods; there are others which definitely have not. I say the principles are sound, but they have not taken into account the factor of this enormous backlog that can now be over- come only by a vast capital expenditure. In that connection I should like to refer the house to the view of the late Professor George Drummond of the University of British Columbia, an economist who had specialized in forest economics. Ten years ago he was asked to prepare a brief on forest economics for a royal commission. Professor Drummond had this to say. It was his con- sidered conclusion that it was impossible to expect private enterprise to undertake the task of growing new crops of trees. He said: Except in times of exceptional economie activity, with very high prices and with exceptionally low taxation, no large company could be expected to undertake this enormous economic and financial responsibility. Still less could they be expected to under- take the job of reforesting areas which had been logged off in past years and are now completely barren. At the time of the royal commission in 1944 and 1945 I pointed this out to the royal commissioners and suggested that here was a field into which the provinces would probably have to step. At that time I suggested also that it might now have already gone beyond the point where it was within the financial scope of the province, that it was in fact a national problem and one in which Canada as a whole should be taking a hand. FEBRUARY 16, 1955 1223 Conservation No one knows at the present time just what the situation is with regard to that enormously important natural resource, the softwood stands on the coast of British Columbia. There are conflicting reports both as to the inventory and as to the volume and age of the immature stands of timber; but I will say this, Mr. Speaker. Past experience has proven beyond a doubt that the time is coming when the public interest will demand a major public capital investment in those stands which will be beyond the resources of the province of British Columbia and I think should be considered beyond their competence. In fact, sir, I would go so far as to say I think it is a very dubious proposition that a major natural resource of that sort, and major natural resources, for instance, such as the oil of Alberta, the iron ores of Ontario, of Quebec and of Newfoundland should be considered solely the responsibility and solely the property of the people who dwell in the various provinces. They are matters that zoncern all the people of Canada. We are coming now to the point, Mr. Speaker, where we are beginning to consider the global con- trol of many of these vital natural resources. I suggest to you, sir, that if Canada is going to play its part in the discussions that must take place with regard to the allocation of the remaining resources in the world, then we must have a unified, integrated national policy. It will not do for our Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources to go to an international conference and say, "Well, it is unfortunate, but I must call up the premier of British Columbia and put in a telephone call to the premier of Alberta and another one to the premier of Quebec to see whether we can agree with this proposition that you put up"; because that is the state we will be in if we do not establish some sort of national policy with regard to these resources. The minister has suggested that the resolu- tion we are debating attempts to cover too much territory, to provide too heavy an agenda for the proposed dominion-provincial conference. I presume that might be true if one considered it a conference that was going to go on for a short time and disband. But my concept of it is that it would be a conference that would at least set up a con- tinuing body to study and co-ordinate poli- cies in this field. In that regard I would point out the experi- ence of our friends to the south, who after countless and repeated experiments in piece- meal control, this state doing it this way, that state doing it that way, each state [Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo).] demanding some help from the federal gov- ernment but not prepared to co-ordinate its policies, set up a national conservation com- mission in the United States not to deter- mine and dictate policies to the states but to meet with the state representatives to devise a unified, integrated program to which the federal government could contribute. Surely, Mr. Speaker, we have as much capa- city as our United States friends to deal with this agenda. Surely we have an equal capa- city to meet with our fellow Canadians in every province to evolve some sort of a unified national policy. I cannot help thinking, Mr. Speaker, that it is political considerations that prevent the government from taking the essential step at this time. I would conclude, sir, by remind- ing the minister that no doubt constitution- ally and legally he is perfectly right, but he is rather like the man in the jingle who was right as he stepped along, but he is just as dead as if he had been wrong. Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture): When I came into the house this afternoon it was not my intention to speak on this resolution, but I usually come into the house prepared to speak on anything that I happen to feel like speaking on. So many references have been made to what agriculture does and what others might do that I thought I might take a little time to indicate some of the things agriculture does. Before proceeding to do that I should like to read the resolution again. The resolution says: That, in the opinion of this house, the govern- ment should consider the advisability of calling a dominion-provincial conference on conservation with a view to the establishment of a national policy on soil, forest and water conservation and land use for Canada. In the first place the resolution assumes that there is not a national policy now. I should like to suggest that if there is one on these different matters, then the necessity for call- ing a conference of this kind is obviously non- existent. I can quite understand a member of the house who sits with either of the groups on the other side at the far end having that opinion, but I can scarcely understand my hon. friends immediately opposite having such an opinion. I have not taken the trouble to go back over the history of these matters to find out which party in power from time to time established the different policies which we have, but I do know that we have had policies on all these matters ever since I came into the house. 1224 HOUSE OF COMMONS FEBRUARY 16, 1955 Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo): Could the minister tell me where I can find the last statement on a national policy in connection with forestry? Mr. Gardiner: The hon. member can find it by understanding what is being done in the different departments over the years. I shall come to that in a minute. He prob- ably will not need to look further after I have finished my speech. I repeat that ever since I have been in this house one of my chief duties has been to learn just what my hon. friend has asked me to state to him, and then keep right on doing it. Any minister who comes into this house representative of any party would find exactly the same situation in relation to most of the important problems that concern the people of this country. For anyone to sug- gest that there has never been a national policy in relation to forestry is to misunder- stand two things. In the first place, as the minister said a few moments ago, with the exception of three provinces natural resources have since confederation been under the con- trol of the provincial governments. They were under the control of the federal govern- ment for a considerable period of time in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, and it is only since 1931 that they have been under the control of those provincial governments. Forests, lands, waters and all other matters associated with natural resources were re- tained when the prairie provinces were set up, and were therefore handled from Ottawa. But the natural resources of all the other provinces right from the time they came into confederation were under the control of the provincial governments. Those provinces had control of their own resources and they were very much concerned that they should have control of them. The provinces were responsible for their development, and they carried on that development. To say there has been no national policy is to state what is not a fact. There has always been a national policy in relation to resources. The government of Canada-it does not make any difference whether it was a government elected by the supporters of the party who sit directly opposite or a government made up of mem- bers who are seated behind us in this particu- lar session-has always had a national policy. Members who have come here from the different provinces of Canada have always insisted on there being a national policy. That national policy relates to the matters which were raised this afternoon by one hon. member sitting directly opposite-I think it was the bon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness)-when he called attention to the Conservation fact that winds do not stop at boundary lines, that many rivers do not stop at boundary lines, that erosion whether by wind or water is something that a province cannot control completely. In addition, there are insects which fly over the country and destroy forests. It has always been recognized that there was no way of stopping them at boundaries. Therefore there have been understandings over a long term of years as to how such questions could be dealt with by means of co-operation between the provinces and the federal government. Reference was made to that fact a few moments ago by the minister, when he said the Department of Agriculture did certain things in connection with these problems, and his department did certain things in relation to them. So we have a policy-I am not going into the details of it-which has been set up for a long period of years, of trying to control insects which destroy forests, trying to control the different dis- eases that attack trees in order to prevent the destruction of our forests. This work has been carried on with complete co-operation between the provinces and the federal gov- ernment through a definite national policy established for that purpose. Just within the last half hour we have had it shown very clearly that in 1953 the minister who was administering the depart- ment of resources before the minister who spoke this afternoon brought in a bill which provided the leadership which my hon. friends have been asking for this afternoon, in connection with the control of streams and water within the provinces. The Canada Water Conservation Assist- ance Act gave leadership in this way. Ever since I came to this house, and long before I came here-I suppose ever since confedera- tion-Ontario has been coming to the gov- ernment here and saying they were having difficulties on the Thames river, on the Humber river or on other rivers within this province. We were asked to help in provid- ing controls of some kind or another, either to build dams, to widen the stream or deepen the bed of the river in order to carry away the water. As was said this afternoon, right down to the time this government came into office there was no definite plan as to how. this work could or should be done. It was simply a matter of coming to Ottawa when they had a problem, trying to get whatever money they could in order to deal with the par- ticular problem, and then going home and proceeding with the work. The Canada Water Conservation Assist- ance Act which was placed on the statute books in 1953 definitely states that whenever Conservation a province has a problem of that kind the federal government will provide up to 372 per cent of the cost. It is presumed that the municipalities concerned will pay 25 per cent, leaving the province and the federal government to divide the remaining 75 per cent of the cost. That is a policy, that is a plan recognizing the fact that the province has a responsibility and will at least control the development which is going to take place in order to bring about the results they desire. They know they can come here and if they put up a reasonable proposition to the government they can get that much assistance in connection with the under- taking. I repeat that there was no plan here in connection with matters of that kind until this government came into power. Previous governments dealt with the question, piece- meal if you like; they dealt with each prob- lem as the problem arose. For many years there was a prolem down in the maritime provinces which was causing a great deal of trouble. This had to do with the control of water; with the control of the ocean, which is not so easy. Account had to be taken of the fact that down there the tides rise to levels found in very few parts of the world, if any. When those waters rose to their heights they came in over the land. It is quite proper to say that before there was a federal government in Canada at all there were people who found ways of dealing with that problem. They did not live on this continent. Some of them lived over in France. For one period they took care of it. For an- other period it was under British control, and the British took care of it. You might say that sorne of these works were probably done in the aftermath of war in order to give employment to men who otherwise would have been out of employment, just as we are talking about similar undertakings now in this country. Nevertheless, whatever the reason was, they found ways and means of putting in dikes and aboiteaux down along the coast and prevented that water from com- ing in. Then after those dikes and aboiteaux had served their purpose for probably 100 years; after they wore thin, and the waves of the ocean dug underneath the dikes and they fell into the ocean, somebody started talking about it. Under the constitution of this country it was a provincial responsibility. Nobody ques- tions that fact. Everyone agrees that it was a provincial responsibility. No government had dealt with it before. I have said here on the floor of the house before, and I am going to say it again now, that it took this government 13 years to convince many people that it was more than a provincial question. [Mr. Gardiner.] So after 13 years of discussion we now have a system which was set up by the passing of an act in Nova Scotia, the passing of an act in New Brunswick, the passing of an act in Prince Edward Island, and the passing of an act here. Under these pieces of legislation we have expended millions of dollars in car- rying out a plan which, when it is completed, will as completely control the ocean coming in over these lands as did the old dikes and aboiteaux that were put there by the French and the British in years gone by. I recite this history in order to say again that this government has not been without plans in these matters. In a few moments I shall deal with some of the questions that were raised by western members, but before doing that I again want to call attention to the fact that the very first words used in the active part of the resolution are "with a view to the establishment of a national policy on soil". That is the impor- tant question in so far as agriculture in this country is concerned, though I must say that in most countries of the world forestry is con- sidered to be a part of agriculture. There is a reason why it has not been so considered in this country. The reason is that we have eleven different governments and the natural resources of this country have been under the provincial governments. Where you have one government, and in some places where you even have a federated form of govern- ment, forestry is considered to be a matter of planting and harvesting just like all other agriculture. So trees are planted. I was never so surprised at anything as I was on the first trip I made up the east side of the Alps. I found that there were more sawmills on the east side of the Alps than there are in Canada. When people started to talk to me about coming out to this country to engage in lumbering I had to say to them, "You must get into your minds an entirely different picture from the one you have here". There is a little sawmill in practically every town and in places that are not towns at all up over the sides of the mountains. I made inquiries as to how they could go on lumber- ing in that area to the extent they were, and I was told that every time you cut a tree in that section of the continent of Europe, you must plant one. Whoever cuts it is responsible for putting another tree in its place. There is only so much of it that can be cut. It goes on growing over the years. There is a con- stant supplry of timber there to keep their little mills going, and so they have a supply of lumber. This country has not followed that practice. One of the statements made this afternoon was that up at the source of the Humber 1226 HOUSE OF COMMONS FEBRUARY 16, 1955 river, or up at the sources of some of the other rivers in Ontario all the timber was cut off and, as a result, in the spring the snow melts more rapidly than it did before, water rushes down in these streams and causes floods and erosion of the soil; and suggestions have been made as ta what ought ta be done about it. I do not know of any place which is as young as the province of Ontario where I have come across as many places where they are planting trees and doing reforestation, whether it be over in Scotland where they have a great deal of it, or whether it be on the continent of Europe where they have considerable of it. I must give credit ta the province of Ontario. I do not know whether it was started under a Liberal government or a Tory government, but all up through this province, for example as you go from here ta Prescott, you see plantings of evergreen trees. Everybody knows ta what party Mr. Howard Ferguson belonged. You can see the place from which they get their trees, which is marked "The Howard Ferguson nurseries", just off the side of the road. Al through that country you find trees being planted. Down in my own section of Ontario where I was born and raised the sharp corners of the three-cornered sections of land are planted in timber. I have been surprised at the way in which it has grown. It is all very well ta say ta us that we should have been doing something about it. What I am saying ta you is that the provinces in this country are doing something about it. In so far as the plantations out west are concerned, they have been under the control of this government simply because of what I said at the beginning, namely that down until 1931 we were responsible for natural resources. Sa it is that we have a forestry farm at Indian Head. We have another forestry farm up at Saskatoon. Trees have been given away for years. I went ta Regina in 1904 and they were being given away then. They are still being given away. Any farmer can go ta these plantations, get trees, take them home and plant them. Reforesta- tian has been carried on in that way over a considerable period of years. Sa I repeat that policies have been in existence with regard ta reforestation, and policies have been in existence with regard ta the fighting of insects and the fighting of parasites. As ta those policies there is no disagreement as between Conservation the provinces and ourselves. We meet together from time to time and discuss them. There was no necessity for our meeting all the provinces of Canada when we were con- sidering building dikes and aboiteaux in the maritime provinces. We met the three prov- inces down there and considered the matter. There was no necessity for meeting all the provinces in Canada when we were dealing with the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act out in western Canada. The provinces out there were met. My friend the hon. member for Calgary North stated this afternoon that the Depart- ment of Agriculture does something, and asked why the other minister does not alsa do something. Fortunately for the other minister, I was not always here. I was premier of Saskatchewan before I came here. Whatever other people might think about it, the first meeting with regard to P.F.R.A. was held in the city of Saskatoon. It was called by myself as premier of Saskatchewan. It was attended by John Bracken, who at one time led the party on the opposition side of the house here; he was there representing Manitoba. It was attended by Mr. Reid, who at that time was premier of Alberta. We discussed this whole question which had developed as a result of the fact that the provinces now had the natural resources and were responsible in connection with them. We said, they have simply handed over ta us a responsibility which all other provinces admittedly always had. They have handed it over ta us after having taken from us the earnings from these lands that had been dis- posed of, the earnings from disposal of the timber resources, and the earnings from the mining rights. They said here, take it, and go ahead and run it in the best way you can. The proposition was first mentioned by the first government of Mr. King. It was finally carried out by the Bennett government, and we had the resources. We said at this conference that in view of the fact that these lands and the resources of one kind or another had been disposed of, the federal government should do something more about it before turning them over piece- meal ta us. Sa we proposed a plan similar ta the one that was inaugurated in 1935 by the government of Mr. Bennett ta deal with what we call P.F.R.A. All I wish ta say at this moment is that that did nat originate in Ottawa. It originated out on the prairies where the problems were, owing ta the fact HOUSE OF COMMONS Conservation that the resources had been turned over to the provinces. So we said that, having de- prived us of the earnings prior to the time they were turned over, the federal govern- ment ought to do something more about it. I came down here to do something about it. That is practically the reason I am here. I have been here for 20 years, and I remember Mr. Bennett sitting right across from me when we were discussing this question in 1936 and 1937. He said to me, "How long do you think it is going to take to do that job?" The act as we found it only provided for five years at $1 million a year. I said that it was going to take at least 20 years. The 20 years will be up next year, and the job is not completed yet. But what I am saying to hon. members at the moment is that it was not the federal government that started these activities. It was the three pro- vincial governments on the prairies. They asked to have the job done. It has been said by some hon. members that we should be talking about all four western provinces and not three. I would say that maybe we ought to be talking about all of the three before we talk about the fourth. P.F.R.A. does not cover all of the three prairie provinces. About one-sixth of what is under P.F.R.A. is in Manitoba, about two-sixths are in Alberta and the other three-sixths are in Saskatchewan. In all the remainder of those three provinces not under P.F.R.A. the provincial governments are responsible for all drainage, irrigation and water conservation that is done there, in the same way that provincial governments are in other provinces across Canada. It has been said that we ought to take in, British Columbia. Some suggestion has been made that there is no provision in the esti- mates this year for taking care of any work going on there. I have here on my desk a statement of expenditure on the Lillooet pro- ject in British Columbia. The construction and exploration cost was $1,164,000. I ar- ranged that project on one occasion when I was in British Columbia. On the representa- tions made by the people of the area and the province we agreed to spend $100,000 on the project, and it was going to have to be finished by somebody else. Well, it cost us $1,164,000, and it cost somebody else a lot, too. All I am suggesting is that the federal gov- ernment has to be careful when it makes arrangements on matters of that kind. There must be plans, yes; there must be policies, yes. There is not a province in Canada that [Mr. Gardiner.] can have more earnings from its natural resources than British Columbia, and a very small part of those earnings will be from farm lands. There is not another province that has possibilities of greater earnings; and under the constitution the province has always been responsible for the development and reaps the returns. The provinces just over the mountains have not always been respon- sible, but they are now. We had said to the former government of the province of British Columbia that we did not think we should go along with this matter much further without some very defi- nite arrangements being made in connection with financing. Then the new government came into office and they asked us the same kind of question. When we said there was no outlined plan upon which we could pro- ceed the statement made to us-and it is in the correspondence which will be tabled here -was to the effect that the government of British Columbia could not afford to do this job, that if they did it in one or two cases they would have to do it over the whole province. I must say that I had to say to them that if we did it in one or two cases we would have to do it over the whole prov- ince. So we thought some very definite plans should be made before there was any further expenditure of nioney on projects of that kind. What I started out to say was that I have here the figures of the expenditures under a definite plan in connection with this matter. Under that definite plan we have spent $89 million in the four western provinces in order to do the very kind of work that it is pre- sumed should be done under the resolution. Therefore I say to bon. members that we are not opposing the doing of that kind of work. We all agree with everything that has been said in the house this afternoon with regard te the necessity of having it done. We simply say that under our constitution there are ways of doing it properly and there are ways of trying to do it improperly and only getting into difficulties. Therefore we suggest that if we stay with the constitution as it is and go on and do the job as we have been doing it, eventually it will be done properly. But if we attempt to go off on some tangent and do something else simply because of a resolution being moved in the house we will have great diffi- culties. Mr. Knowles: Six o'clock. FEBRUARY 16, 1955 Mr. Gardiner: My friend says it is six o'clock. I wish I had time to deal with soil surveys, but if hon. members will agree I should like to have published in Hansard two tables. The first one deals with the head- quarters of the organization for soil control and surveys and then gives the provincial headquarters. I would ask hon. members to permit that table to be put on Hansard, and also the second table which shows the acreage surveyed in 1953, together with a paragraph of explanation with each. If hon. members agree I should be very pleased to have it go on the record so it will be there tomorrow for everyone to use. Mr. MacInnis: What is the source of the statistics? Mr. Gardiner: The source is the Department of Agriculture and the statistics branch here. Mr. MacInnis: Fine. Mr. Gardiner: If it can be put on the record, it will save taking any more time. Mr. Speaker: Is it agreed? Some hon. Members: Agreed. Mr. Gardiner: The information is as fol- lows: Soil survey work in Canada is conducted by the experimental farms service in co-operation with the provinces, roughly on the basis of costs being shared equally. In addition to co-operating in field survey activities the experimental farms serv- ice acts as a co-ordinating agency. Headquarters for soil survey work by the experimental farms is with the field husbandry division on the central farm, Ottawa; provincial headquarters are as follows: Newfoundland, dominion experimental station, St. John's; Prince Edward Island, dominion experi- mental station, Charlottetown; Nova Scotia, agri- cultural college, Truro; New Brunswick, university of N.B., Fredericton; Quebec, agricultural college, Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere, Macdonald college, Que.; Ontario, Ontario agricultural college, Guelph; Manitoba, university of Manitoba, Winnipeg; Saskatchewan, university of Saskatchewan, Saska- toon; Alberta, university of Alberta, Edmonton; British Columbia, university of B.C., Vancouver, provincial department of agriculture, Kelowna. The basic program for soil surveys In Canada Is a systematic reconnaissance survey of ail the present and potential agricultural areas. However, special surveys are often conducted in areas where there is immediate need for soils information for specific purposes. The scope of soil surveys in 1953 is indicated by the fact that in addition to the carrying on of the systematic reconnaissance soil surveys in nearly ail the provinces, special soil sur- veys included examination of the soils in the Fort Chimo district of northern Quebec, Inspection of lands in various parts of Newfoundland for the royal commission on agriculture and the provincial department of agriculture, mapping and classifica- tion of soils in proposed irrigation projects in Business of the House western Canada and exploratory traverses into several parts of our northern forest belt. The number of acres surveyed in 1953 and the total area covered to the end of 1953 by systematic reconnaissance methods is shown in the following table: Acres surveyed in 1953 Re Detailed nai Province surveys su Newfoundland ' - Prince Edward Island 2 ...... - Nova Scotia .... - 1,0 New Brunswick 70 2 Quebec ........ 1,010 9 Ontario a ...... 1,700 1,2 Manitoba ...... 320 1 Saskatchewan . 4,050 1 Alberta 8 ...... 231,000 1,2 British Columbia .... 2,000 4 Acres mapped by systematic econ- reconnaissance ssance surveysto rveys end of 1953 - 470,000 24,000 50,000 37,000 90,000 73,000 05,000 76,000 1,398,000 7,313,000 7,232,000 11,483,000 18,505,000 17,819,000 67,823,000 46,561,000 19,000 9,537,000 240,150 5,474,000 188,141,000 *' ISoil inspections carried out at 51 fishing out- posts. 2No field surveys carried out in 1953. aPreliminary surveys made of about 3,700,000 acres in these provinces in 1953. 4In addition about 60 million acres have been examined in a preliminary manner. I shall conclude by saying that we think we have a plan. We think we have been operating a plan right along. I now move the adjournment of the debate. On motion of Mr. Gardiner the debate was adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDER 28-DEBATE ON EXTERNAL AFFAIRS Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, if I may have permission to revert to motions I should like to move: That in relation to the adjourned debate on the motion of the Minister of Finance that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the bouse to resolve itself into committee of supply, and on the amend- ment thereto, moved February 15, the provisions of standing order 28 be suspended for Thursday, February 17, 1955. He said: The purpose of the motion will be obvious. It is so that we may continue tomorrow the debate we had yesterday on the motion for Mr. Speaker to leave the chair for the house to go into committee of supply. It has been agreed, sir, that we shall try to have a vote tomorrow night not later than nine o'clock, and of course earlier if it meets the wishes of hon. members. This will permit the airing of other grievances 1230 HOUSE 0F Business oS the House when the vote on the amendment is disposed of, and we would hope we could complete that before ten o'clock or at a slightly later hour if it should prove necessary. COMMONS Mr. Harris: No, Mr. Speaker, we have not been able to arrange for a specific date. We hope to have it settled, though, by Friday night for some time next week. Mr. Law: Before the house adjourns, could Motion agreed to. the house leader say whether it will be possible to have a debate on external affairs At six o'clock the bouse adjourned, with- this week? out question put, pursuant to standing order. HOUSE 0F COMMONS Thursday, February 17, 1955 The bouse met at 2.30 p.m. HOUSE 0F COMMONS WELCOME TO LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION ON RIS RETUJRN FOLLOWING ILLNESS Righi Hon. L. S. Si. Laurent (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, tbe applause in whicb we have ail joined will express to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) more eloquently than anytbing I can say how happy we are to see hlm back with us today and bow gratified we are to see witb our own eyes that this period of rest bas restored hlm completely to bis usual good healtb and bis accustomed robust vigour. On the first sitting day of this session of parliament I had the privilege of expressing, on bebaif of ail members of the bouse, our genuine feeling of sorrow that tbe bon. gentleman was prevented by illness from being witb us at that time. Similarly today I tbink I express the feelings of ail members of the bouse when I say that this is a happy occasion, and that we ail rejoice that he was persuaded to take this necessary rest after the serious illness whicb overtook hlm. some weeks ago. We ail realize tbe onerous nature of the responsibilities wbicb fali upon the Leader of tbe Opposition under our parliamentary system. We ail know of the bon. gentleman's strong sense of duty. We ail realize that it must bave been distressing to hlm to be obliged to be away fromn this bouse during that period. However, we ail feel that be was wise in accepting tbe advice of bis medical advisers. I can assure hlm that our respect for bim bas been increased by the way he carried out what was recommended as best to enable hlm to recover bis usual good health and vigour in order to be able to discbarge the duties of that bigh office. It is not too frequently tbat we bave the opportunity of expressing views tbat are genuineiy unanimous in ail quarters of the bouse, but this is one of those occasions. I can assure the hon, gentleman that we were gratified from time to time by the gOod news we beard of bis progress toward complete recovery, and perbaps on no occasion more so than wben the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Rowe) informed us on that first sitting day that he had seen the hon. gentleman the previous day and could give us the assurance that the progress he was making was highly satisfactory. That was something that rejoiced us. We are ail now happy to see that the good wishes we asked Your Honour to convey to the hon, gentleman on that day have been fully realized, and to know that that period will probably 'be only a disagreeable memory. There may perhaps be some compensation in the fact that the hon. gentleman's illness gave us wbo feel honoured by *his personal friendship the opportunity to express pubicly our esteem for him and our admiration for the way in which he responds to his sense of duty to the public service. Once again I can say, witb the deep con- viction that I arn expressîng the genuine feeling of every member of the house no matter where be sits, that we extend 'to the hon, gentleman our very best wishes and our hope, based upon what we see with our own eyes today, that he has fully recovered bis bealth. Mr. M. J. CaIdwelI (Rose±own-Biggar): Mr. Speaker, altbough the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) bas spoken for ail members of the bouse, may I be pardoned for just adding a word because I did not do s0 wben the bon. gentleman's absence through illness was first referred to. I want to say that we are ex- tremely glad to see him here. No doubt we shall hear that he is as well as he looks. Some people migbt tbink the House of Commons has been a more comfortable place during his absence. 1 arn inclined to tbink that it will be a much more lively place now that he is back again. On bebaîf of those associated wi'tb me and, I know, ail other members of the house, I certainly join ini saying how glad we are to see him back. The Prime Minister expressed our sentiments so well that 1 tbink there is nothing more for me to say. Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the leader of this group, wbo happens to be indisposed today, I wisb to add to the remarks of the Prime Minister and the leader of the C.C.F. the sentiments of the group which. sits in this corner on the occasion of the return to this bouse of the Leader of the Opposition. HOUSE OF COMMONS House of Commons I think all members of parliament and individuals regard their responsibilities with some seriousness, but I have often thought the leaders of the various parties in the house have added responsibilities that sometimes must weigh quite heavily upon them. While very often we do not think alike, and we talk differently, and sometimes arguments in the house become pretty hot and heavy, yet when it is all boiled down I know that each and every one of us has a very high regard for his fellow members. On this occasion it gives us pleasure indeed to welcome back to the house the leader of the official opposition. Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, in many ways this is the most momentous occasion I have ex- perienced since I entered this house. The words of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and those uttered in support of what he said by the bon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hanseil) have touched me more than I can say. As the Prime Minister re- marked, the occasions when unanimity can be expressed in the house are, under our demo- cratic system, not so frequent. If I can assume that there is that measure of unanimity that has been indicated, certainly this is one of the happiest days of my life. I go so far as to say that I confidently feel that the senti- ments that have been expressed in this way come from the hearts of members on both sides of the house. From the time I was so unexpectedly taken out of circulation I have received considera- tion, kindness, messages of encouragement and those things that help to while away the rather lengthy hours in hospital not only from the members of my own party but from members in every part of the house. The letters I received will always be deeply im- pressed on my mind, because it was surprising to find the warmth of expression that came from so many where perhaps it might be least expected. It was not only from members of the house that I received encouragement of this kind, but from people all over Canada. I received convincing evidence that those of us in the house who are performing public service to the best of our ability, no matter to what party we belong, are in the minds of the people of Canada, and that perhaps we are not so critically regarded as sometimes may be thought. I received so many letters that I will always cherish, but I can hardly refrain from mentioning the fact that nearly every letter I received mentioned that not only the wishes but the prayers of those writing were with me. I think one of the most deeply moving letters I received was from a boy of 11 whom [Mr. Hanseil.] I have never met, but now that I have re- turned I intend to meet him. He wrote to me and said, "Dear Mr. Drew: I am writing to you because I also had meningitis. While I was in hospital my mother and father prayed for me and I know what prayers mean. I just want you to know that I am praying for you because I know how lonely it is in hospital." I need not tell you that when my wife read that letter to me in the hospital there were tears in our eyes. But that, I thought, was encouraging in more than a personal way because it did indicate exactly the extent to which so many people are con- cerned about the activities that we carry on here. In expressing my appreciation to the mem- bers of the house it would be less than fitting if I did not express my very great apprecia- tion to a friend of many long years, the Hon. Earl Rowe, who has carried on in my absence. Sometimes I do not obey orders very well. I am afraid my wife would be the first witness to that. But on this occasion I have done so, and actually until my return here he was the only member I saw because my instructions were to remove myself from political activities and the hurly-burly of the affairs that go on here. He performed the task-and I have naturally followed his per- formance in the daily press-with great ability, and with the devotion that for so many years he has shown to the public life of this country. I know he would be the first to say that he would not wish to be singled out, because I recognize that, with him, I owe a very great debt of gratitude to the members of my party for the way in which they have carried on and assumed the burdens that my illness placed upon them. To all of them I am naturally deeply grateful, but to every one of you I wish to express my profound thanks for the kindness and courtesy you have shown. This is the first time during the numerous years I have served in municipal councils, a provincial legislature and here at Ottawa that I have been away for more than a few days, and I come back with a greater appreciation than ever before of what the House of Commons means and of what our associations in the House of Commons mean to every one of us. May I say that the remarks made by the Prime Minister at the opening of the session and conveyed to me through you, Mr. Speaker, signalized that understanding that exists between all of us that under our system it is possible for us to respect the different FEBRUARY 17. 1955 opinions we may hold about public aff airs and retain warm personal friendships at the same time. There may be times when, jokingly or otherwise, some will say they would be glad to see me perhaps not quite so active as I have been, and remarks of that kind may be made quite naturally in the heat of debate on both sides of the house; but what the Prime Minister and other mem- bers have said today and what you have all conveyed in your many messages of sympathy and understanding is an expression of the great privilege we all have of serving in a parliament where there is freedom to dis- agree without any suggestion that we are imputing improper motives to those who hold different opinions from our own. I cannot help but recall one letter in particular that I received from one of the ministers sitting opposite who, in wishing me good luck, said: "Do get back as soon as you can so you can lambaste us as vigorously as ever." Well, in case any of you might think the kindness that has been extended has muzzled me, I say this is one occasion on which I shall, without reservation, accept the advice that has been given from the other side. May I, in expressing appreciation not only for the kindness and the advice, say with deep sincerity how grateful I am to the mem- bers of the press gallery for the consideration they have shown during the period that I have been away. It might not have been unnatural to have assumed very gloomy pros- pects for the outcome of my illness, but instead of that there bas been kindness, consideration and a genuine expression of friendly good will which has helped very much in the very gratifying recovery that I have had from the illness from which I suffered. Perhaps just before I close these remarks I might say that I have had very convincing evidence of the excellence of our medical services here in Canada, and of the importance of these new and benign drugs that now mean so much to the health of all our people. Again, Mr. Speaker, to you who extended on behalf of the members of the bouse the very generous resolution adopted here some time ago, and also to you personally as well as your wife for the flowers you were good enough to send to my wife and myself, and to every member in this house, may I simply say from the bottom of my heart, thank you every one. Questions COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES CONCURRENCE IN FIRST REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE Mr. W. A. Tucker (Rosihern) presented the first report of the special committee on estimates, and moved that the report be concurred in. Motion agreed to. CANADA ELECTIONS ACT AMENDMENT TO REDUCE VOTING AGE Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 126, to amend the Canada Elections Act (age of voters). Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. QUESTIONS INCOME TAX-PAYMENTS INTO UNION STRIKE FUNDS Mr. Knowles: 1. Have requests been received that trade union members be allowed to Include payments into union strike funds in their trade union dues and thus be granted deductibility for such payments for incorne tax purposes? 2. If so, from whom? 3. Has consideration been given to such requests? If so, what is the result of such consideration? 4. Has consideration been given to allowing bona fide trade union members the right to deduct pay- ments into strike funds as charitable donations for income tax purposes? If so, what is the result of such consideration? Mr. Benidickson: 1. No. 2, 3, and 4. Answered by No. 1. SOCIAL SECURITY PAYMENTS, UNITED STATES Mr. Knowles: 1. Has the federal government information as to rates of pension paid in the United States by the social security administration (a) to a retired worker 65 years of age or over; (b) to a retired worker and his wife both 65 years of age or over? 2. If so. what are such rates of.pension in rela- tion to the average monthly income of the worker during his working years? Mr. Martin: The hon. gentleman, in these questions, asks about matters not having to do with this government but with the govern- ment of another country. While I would be glad to co-operate in any way in giving the hon. gentleman the information sought, I do submit it is not proper to ask these questions in this way. Any questions having to do with the operations of a particular department of the government of Canada are proper, but these questions have nothing to do with this government or this country. Mr. Speaker: Answered. HOUSE OF COMMONS Questions CAMP GAGETOWN-HEATING Mr. Purdy: 1. Are the heating specifications for Camp Gage- town so designed that without alterations only Minto coal can be used? 2. If not, what other kinds of coal can be used to advantage? Mr. Blanchette: 1. No. 2. Any eastern Canadian coal or U.S. bituminous coal. AIR TRAVEL, WINNIPEG-COPENHAGEN Mr. Trainor: Are negotiations being carried on at the present time with Scandinavian Airlines for reciprocal arrangements which would allow them to carry passengers between Winnipeg and Copenhagen? Mr. Langlois (Gaspe): No. JET PILOT TRAINING COST Mr. Nicholson: What is the estimated cost of training a pilot for jet aircraft in the Royal Canadian Air Force? Mr. Blanchette: It is estimated that it costs about $65,000 to train a pilot qualified to fly jet aircraft. DUTY ON HARDWOOD IMPORTS Mr. Hodgson: How much duty was collected on hardwood lumber and hardwood flooring imported from the United States in each of the years, 1952, 1953 and 1954? Mr. Dickey: Duty collected on hardwood lumber imported into Canada from the United States: 1952, $4,856; 1953, $16,362; 1954, $6,629. Duty collected on hardwood flooring im- ported into Canada from the United States: 1952, $202,661; 1953, $274,448; 1954, $309,400. INSECTICIDES Mr. Harrison: What control does the Department of National Health and Welfare have in protecting the public from possible dangers to health in the use of new insecticides? Mr. Robertson: The Department of National Health and Welfare has control over the use of new insecticides under the Food and Drugs Act which specifies that food shall not be adulterated. In addition, the department acts in a technical advisory capacity to the Depart- ment of Agriculture with respect to adminis- tration of the health section of the Pest Control Products Act, assisting the adminis- trators of the act in ensuring that insecticides registered under the act shail carry adequate [Mr. Speaker.] precautionary labelling. Insecticides are re- viewed by the national health pesticide com- mittee composed of members of the depart- ments of national health and welfare and of agriculture set up for the purpose of co- ordinating the departmental work on in- secticides. Data submitted by the manufac- turer in support of claims made as to the safety with which products can be used is reviewed by specialist members of the com- mittee and spot checking of validity of data is carried out in the government's laboratories. In its three years of operation, the committee has dealt with over 200 insecticidal products. EGGS PURCHASED AND sOLD Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo): 1. How many cases of eggs were purchased by the agricultural prices support board in the year 1954? 2. What prices were paid for these eggs and what was the total cost including storage? 3. Were any of these eggs sold to private produce dealers? If so, what prices and what was the total amount realized from these sales? Mr. McCubbin: 1. As at January 31, 1955, 107,022 cases of 30 dozen each of 1954 spring storage eggs, and 57,310 cases of 30 dozen each of 1954 December unoiled eggs. 2. 38 cents per dozen grade A large and 36 cents per dozen grade A medium for all 1954 eggs at storage points plus 5 cents per dozen for charges associated with storage in the case of spring storage eggs. Total cost, before any sales returns deducted, was $2,029,349.14. 3. 1954 spring storage eggs are being con- verted to melange for agricultural prices support board account. When the 1955 support program came into effect 1954 December eggs were offered and sold to trade on basis 37 cents per dozen grade A large and 33 cents per dozen grade A medium. Accounts not yet completed. QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS MEAT, POULTRY AND CHEESE EXPORTS Mr. Studer: 1. How many pounds of (a) beef and veal, in- cluding fresh, canned and other forms; (b) pork, including fresh pork, bacons, hamas, cured, smoked and canned; (c) mutton and lamb; (d) poultry, dressed and undressed; (e) cheese, have been exported from Canada each year from and includ- ing 1950? 2. To what countries and of what dollar value in each case? Mr. Dickey: Return tabled. FEBRUARY 17, 1955 EGG IMPORTS Mr. Pearkes: 1. Have any eggs, fresh, frozen or dried, been imported into Canada since January 1, 1950? 2. If so, what quantities have been imported from each of the countries concerned? 3. What was the dollar value of these Imports? Mr. Dickey: Return tabled. MOTOR VEHICLE PURCHASES Mr. Shaw: 1. What procedure is followed by each depart- ment of government and/or government agency or branch, when purchasing motor vehicles for its own use? 2. Are all such vehicles serviced by the selling agency? 3. If so, what is the method that ls followed with respect to such servicing? PUBLIC SERVICE-ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS Mr. Diefenbaker: How many administrative officers in the civil service, by departments, have been made perma- nent, year by year, since the first day of January, 1952, by passing civil service examinations for clerks grades 1 and 2A? IMMIGRATION GEORGE SYLVESTRE SIMMONDS-REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DECISION On the orders of the day: Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In view of the suggestion made a couple of days ago by superior court Justice T. Rheaume of Montreal that the government, as he put it, should grant a favourable solution in the case of George Sylvestre Simmonds, will the government reconsider its position and permit this young man to stay in Canada? Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizen- ship and Immigration): I shall be very pleased to reconsider this matter. As to what decision I shall reach after reconsideration, of course I cannot be expected to announce it until I reach it. DISABLED PERSONS INQUIRY AS TO ACTION TAKEN BY PROVINCES On the orders of the day: Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South): Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question Inquiries of the Ministry of the Minister of National Health and Wel- fare. Can the minister tell the house how many provinces have signed the Disabled Persons Act agreement, and are there any provinces which have not passed enabling legislation? Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare): I thank the hon. mem- ber for having given me notice of his ques- tion. I am now in a position to reply. Agreements have been signed and completed with New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Saskat- chewan, Alberta and Prince Edward Island. Allowances are now actually being paid under the disability program by New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Agreements have been signed with the provinces of Ontario and Manitoba. These are now in our hands and are under con- sideration. We hope to have the agreements completed at an early date. Signed agree- ments have not yet been received from British Columbia, Newfoundland and Quebec. NATIONAL DEFENCE SURVEYS AND MAPPINGS OF COASTS OF CANADA On the orders of the day: Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops): I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence. Is it true, as is stated in a recent issue of the New York Daily Mirror, that United States military engineers are making secret surveys and mappings of Canada's coasts in connection with the joint defence effort; and, if this is so, why is Canada not undertaking the work herself? Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence): Mr. Speaker, I did not see the article to which the hon. member has re- ferred. In the carrying out of joint defence projects, the arrangements as to who shall do any particular part of any joint project is by agreement. I presume that if in this case the Americans are doing surveying in certain quarters for certain purposes they would have our prior consent. [Later:] Mr. Fulton: I should like to ask a supple- mentary question. Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member for Kamloops wish to ask a supplementary ques- tion? HOUSE OF COMMONS Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Fulton: Yes. I would like to ask the Minister of National Defence why it is con- sidered necessary that these surveys and map- pings should not be carried out by Canada, along her own coasts, rather than by the government of another country. Mr. Campney: As I said earlier, I have not seen the article, and I am not aware of the facts to which the hon. member refers. I will have to take what he has said as notice. REQUEST FOR REPORT ON TESTS OF BELGIAN RIFLE On the orders of the day: Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimalt-Saanich): Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence. In view of this week's debate at Westminster, can the minister give the house a report as to the tests carried out in Canada on the Belgian FN rifle? Hon. R. 0. Campney (Minister of National Defence): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. mem- ber for having given me notice of his question. While we have not reached a final decision on the adoption of the FN rifle, the Canadian army, as hon. members probably know, has been carrying out a series of extensive field trials which have given very encouraging results. We expect these tests will be com- pleted in about two months. In the meantime, production drawings have been converted from the metric to the inch system, and production details have been brought into line with North American prac- tices. In other words we are taking such steps as we con, without making a major financial commitment, to prepare for the production of the rifle at an early date, if it is adopted. EXTERNAL AFFAIRS REPORTED VISIT TO NORTH AMERIcA BY MARSHAL ZHUKOV On the orders of the day: Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview): I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. In view of the reported desire of Marshal Zhukov to visit the North American con- tinent, is the government considering extend- ing an invitation to him? Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister): The government has not yet taken that into active consideration. REPORTED DECISION BY GREAT BRITAIN TO PRODUCE HYDROGEN BOMB On the orders of the day: Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Alberti): Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister, arising out of an [Mr. Speaker.] announcement made by Her Majesty's gov- ernment in the United Kingdom today to the effect that the United Kingdom willnow pro- duce and develop the hydrogen bomb, as a de- terrent against war. Was that one of the steps discussed at the commonwealth prime minis- ters' conference, and is the Prime Minister in a position to say what contribution Canada will make, if any, to that new development, which constitutes a change in defence tech- nique? Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister): Canada has made no commitment whatsoever in respect of the matter to which the hon. member refers. The hon. member knows that the discussions at the meetings of the commonwealth prime ministers were in camera. I have not seen the announcement made in the House of Commons at Westmin- ster, and I would not feel at liberty at this time to say anything about a matter of that kind, as to whether or not it was discussed at the conference. (Translation): TELEVISION REQUEST FOR RELAY STATION AT THREE RIVERS On the orders of the day: Mr. J. A. Richard (St. Maurice-Lafleche): Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of National Revenue with regard to a request made by the people of the St. Maurice district for the building of a television relay station in their region. Would the minister be so kind as to tell me (a) whether he bas received any representa- tions on this subject, and (b) what the C.B.C. intends to do in this connection? (Text): Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was good enough to give me notice of his question. I have had it translated so I con understand it. The first part deals with whether or not representations have been received relative to the installation by the C.B.C. of a T.V. relay station in the Three Rivers area. The answer is, of course, that we have had representations of that type made to us. With reference to whether or not the C.B.C. is prepared to do anything about it, I might say that the present licensing policy of the C.B.C. would permit a licence for a private applicant in that particular area. These relay stations are what are more commonly known in the trade as booster stations. They are not yet available, and these lower priced transmitters are not being built; but if a plan were developed requiring FEBRUARY 17, 1955 them in volume, no doubt manufacturers could develop more economically. I might say that we had a similar request from a business organization in Yarmouth, N.S., and that the answer we made then was along similar lines to what I have already said. But we would point out that in some places companies are being organized to establish good reception points and link them by wire to television receivers. This, however, is a private endeavour, and the C.B.C. has not participated in it. However, this matter is under constant study, and if or when we change policy with respect to it I shall make that known to the house. PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE SELKIRK WHEAT-ALLEGED DISQUALIFICATION FOR PAYMENT On the orders of the day: Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain): Mr. Speaker, has the minister's attention been drawn to the situation where small acreages of Selkirk wheat have disqualified farmers from payment under the Prairie Farm Assist- ance Act? Can the minister state whether in all cases Selkirk wheat will not be a determining factor in deciding eligibility under that act? Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture): On two or three occasions at this session I have announced to the house that, prior to the seeding period of 1954, the government had distributed Selkirk wheat to quite a number of farmers in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. They distributed six bushels to farmers who seeded it on from two to three acres, and have grown crops from it. None of the crops grown as a result of that distribution has been allowed to influence in any way the decisions with regard to payments under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act in those areas. In other words they are not allowed to prevent payment in the area because of that particular produc- tion. But I would not like to say there was no Selkirk wheat grown anywhere under any conditions that will not have to be con- sidered when a decision on payments is being reached. POULTRY PROPOSED EQUALIZATION OF TARIFF ARRANGE- MENTS BETWEEN CANADA AND UNITED STATES On the orders of the day: Mr. James A. McBain (Elgin): I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Are any special representations being made to the government with respect to equalizing the tariff arrangement that 50433-79 Inquities of the Ministry exists at the present time between Canada and the United States with respect to the import and export of dressed turkey and poultry products? Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce): The Minister of Finance has asked me to answer the question. I know of no representations that have been made, but I shall be glad to investigate the matter and advise hon. members. POTATOES ACTION BY GOVERNMENT WITH RESPECT TO BITTER POTATOEs On the orders of the day: Mr. Charles Yuill (Jasper-Edson): I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Because of last year's wet season and the unusual quantity of bitter potatoes grown, and since such potatoes may result in toxic poisoning, what action if any has the Department of National Health and Welfare taken to warn the gen- eral public? Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare): The bon. gentleman gave me notice of his question the day before yesterday. In reply I may say that potatoes that are bitter are green in colour and may contain solanine. This solanine is an alkaloid and is normally present in potatoes in very small amounts. Unusual growing conditions may increase the amount of solanine to a dangerous level. Poisoning from the con- sumption of these potatoes has been reported, and this is being investigated. If there are known to be any green potatoes or potatoes from which people have suffered illness, the matter should be reported either to the local food and drug inspector, or to the head office in Ottawa. Action will then be taken to have the dangerous material removed from the market and destroyed. ATOMIC ENERGY REPORTED DELAY IN CANADA'S PEACETIME POWER PROGRAM On the orders of the day: Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): Mr. Speaker, may I direct a ques- tion to the Minister of Trade and Commerce? In view of the definite steps being taken by the United Kingdom to set up atomie power plants, will the minister comment on press reports which suggest that squabbles in the United States are having the effect of de- laying action on Canada's extremely impor- tant peacetime atomic power program? HOUSE OF COMMONS Inquiries of the Ministry Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce): I can say definitely that no squabble in the United States is delaying the Canadian program. The Canadian program is being pressed forward actively, but Canada is in a little different position from the United Kingdom in that the cost of coal in this country is considerably less than in the United Kingdom, and we feel that we should not attempt to develop atomic power that will not be competitive in cost with power pro- duced from coal. I expect the time is not far distant when we shall be able to announce a program to the House of Commons, but I am not ready to do it today. NATURAL GAS FINANCING OF WEST-EAST PIPE LINE On the orders of the day: Mr. Carl 0. Nickle (Calgary South): I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can he state when we may expect the government's decision on the choice be- tween, one, the subsidization of a west-east natural gas pipe line or, two, redesigning of the pipe-line capital structure, route and markets to provide an economic project not requiring subsidization? Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister): I am not in a position to give any definite answer to the hon. gentleman's ques- tion. When a decision has been reached it will be announced. GRAIN FINAL PAYMENT FOR 1953 WHEAT CROP On the orders of the day: Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia): I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister now say when the inventory in the wheat board account will be transferred so that the final payment for the 1953 wheat crop can be made? Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce): I am unable to give the date at this time. CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION ALLEGED REFUSAL TO CO-OPERATE WITH POLICE AND CITIZENS On the orders of the day: Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace): I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Is the minister investigating the refusal earlier this week of Canadian Broadcasting Corporation [Mr. Knowles.] television authorities in Montreal to co- operate with police and citizens during the disappearance, leading to the death, of a two- year-old child? Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue): That is a matter I will have to bring before the management of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. PUBLIC BUILDINGS KIPLING, sAsK.-INQUIRY AS TO ACCEPTANCE OF TENDER On the orders of the day: Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain): I should like to direct a question to the Min- ister of Public Works. Can the minister state whether tenders have been accepted for a new public building in Kipling, and if so, when is construction expected to begin? Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. member should wait until the estimates of the department are before the house. Mr. McCullough (Moose Mouniain): There is some urgency in this, and it was promised on April 9 of last year. ALLEGED SLOW PROGRESS IN CONSTRUCTION OF WINNIPEG POST OFFICE On the orders of the day: Mr. O. C. Trainor (Winnipeg South): I should like to direct a question to the Min- ister of Public Works. Would the minister care to offer an explanation of the limping progress on the construction of the Winnipeg post office? Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works): Perhaps the construction company, which I understand is a responsible one, the Foundation Company of Canada, is in a better position to answer the question than I am. To the best of my knowledge the work is going ahead and all possible steps are being taken to expedite the work. SUPPLY The house resumed, from Tuesday, Feb- ruary 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. Harris for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Fulton. IMMIGRATION Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizen. ship and Immigration): Before I begin my re- marks I should like to be sure, sir, that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) would not like to take advantage of this occasion to start lambasting the government right away, because if he would I should be only too happy to yield. Mr. Drew: I shahl have ample opportunity at a later occasion to take advantage of the offer. Mr. Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, since this will probably be the last non-controversial tbing 1 shaîl say in the next little whîle, per- haps, as the first speaker in the debate since the Leader of the Opposition returned to the bouse I might echo the feeling of pleasure that ahI of us have in seeîng him back here, and echo also-perhaps there may be a little more controversy about this-the view ex- pressed by the hion. member for Rosetown- Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) that the house will be a livelier place now that the Leader of the Opposition is back here. If I may use a phrase which was once used in this bouse, and say it in a kindly way, I hope I shall not be misunderstood if I say that I think we now ahl understand better the fable that, in the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. Mr. Fulton: That fell with a thud. Samne hon. Members: Explain. Mr. Hees: The minister had better stick to being a straight man. Mr. Pickersgill: When the hion. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) moved the vote of want of confidence in the governiment to which I am now replying hie stated-I am not reading bis exact words, but I think I am paraphrasing them exactly-that parliament year in and year out has had no chance to debate immigration; and hie placed the blame for that circumstance on my predecessor, the present Minister of Finance. He stated, ra- ther inaccurately, that over the years the present Minister of Finance had the respon- sibility for arranging the debates in this house. As hion. members know, of course, that statement is not correct except for the first session of this parliament. Until that time the present Minister of Finance had no more responsibility for arranging the debates than any other member of the government. It seems to me it is perfectly obvious whose fault it is that the estimates of the Depart- ment of Citizenship and Immigration came at the end of the session, virtually every session. An han. Member: On purpose. Mr. Pickersgill: If there is any doubt about that, there cannot be any doubt that it would have been just as easy for the opposition, bad they wanted to do so, to bring on a debate such as the one we are having now 50433-79J Immigration at any time in any previous session. Every session there have to be fromn ten to a dozen motions to go into supply, and when such motions are made it is open to any hion. member to move the kind of motion the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) now has before the house. If there had been any real desire on the part of the opposition to have an early debate on immigration last year or the year before or the year before that it would have 'been perfectly easy for them to have had it on a supply motion. Not only that, but last year 16 days or about 68 hours were consumed in the debate on the address. That was the first time I was present in the house when that debate took place. Practically every conceivable sub- ject was discussed, and it would have been quite easy to have had a discussion on immi- gration at that time. So I tbink ail this time that bas been taken in suggesting that there has been no opportu- nity in previous sessions to discuss immigra- tion is a real waste of the time of parliament. I suggest that the real reason the Department of Citizenship and Immigration came up late in previous sessions was that members of the opposition knew very well that under my predecessor that departýment was well admin- istered and there was no particular reason to bring on a debate. I know that there is a very simple and obvious retort to that. I think perhaps the reason this subject has been brougbt up early in the present session is that the oppo- sition feel that having a comparative novice as minister in place of a very experienced minister there may be more opportunity to make political capital this year than there was in previous sessions. The motion moved by the bon. member reads: in the opinion of this house, the Immigration Policy of the goverament is not clear, consistent or co-ordinated; is flot in conformity with the needs or the responsibilitles of Canada; and in its administration1 denies simple justice to Canadianis and non-Canadians alike. There are three parts to that motion, and for obvious reasons I am going to deal with them. in reverse order. I am going to, deal first with the charge, and it is a charge, that the administration of the departmnent denies simple justice to Canadians and non- Canadians alike. The hon. member for Kam- loops in making his case for this proposition raised two points, and only two points, in support of it. He said there was a so-called mess in the department revealed at the bar meeting in Winnipeg. He said further that the department had ignored the decision of FEBRUARY 17, 1955 1239 HOUSE OF COMMONS Immigration the Supreme Court of Canada in the Leong Ba Chai case and that that was evidence of the denial of justice to Canadians and non- Canadians alike. I should like first to deal with the incident that arose in Winnipeg. I may say that a number of hon. members on the other side expressed some surprise that I did not speak early in the debate. The principal reason I did not speak was that I had expected the bon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen- baker) to speak on this subject. So far as I know the hon. member for Prince Albert was the only member of this house who was actually present at the bar meeting in Win- nipeg, at least be is the only member of whose presence I am aware. Mr. Churchill: I was there too. Mr. Pickersgill: The hon. member for Prince Albert made his presence felt by certain utterances which found their way, correctly or incorrectly, into the press and one of which I have right here with me now. The hon. member for Prince Albert made a speech at Teulon, Manitoba, a place that both he and I had occasiQn to visit during the latter part of last year. On September 3 he was quoted by the Canadian Press, or reported-I want to be accurate about this- as having demanded a royal commission to investigate the activities of Canada's immi- gration department. The report says that his demand followed charges by the Cana- dian Bar Association subcommittee of shock- ing procedural practices in the department's overseas offices. It seems to me that the hon. member, if he had personal knowledge of those shocking practices, would want to give them to the house and would also want to give the per- son who had to answer to this bouse an opportunity of replying to what be had to say. But the bon. gentleman has preferred not to do that. It was indicated to me that he did not intend to speak, at any rate until after I had something to say. I am not really surprised by this. As a matter of fact, if I may say so without dis- respect, I think it is rather characteristic of the bon. member for Prince Albert. I do not think there is an bon. member in this house who is quicker to hitch a lift on any political bandwagon that comes along than is the hon. member for Prince Albert. Of course it just so happens that over the years it has been too bad for him that so many of those con- veyances that looked like bandwagons turned out to be political hearses. If I may try to depict imaginatively what must have occurred or what seems to have iMr. Pickersgill.] occurred to the bon. member for Prince Albert at Winnipeg, I would imagine that on that occasion he did not think be had found a bandwagon, but one of those three-wheeled war chariots that Queen Boadicea and ber troops used to take into battle in the days when the Romans first came to Britain. An hon. Member: Two-wheeled. Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace): They had knives on the wheels. Mr. Pickersgill: The only trouble with this particular war chariot, whether three or two- wheeled-this particular war chariot was supposed to have three wheels-is that the bon. member for Prince Albert found that one of the wheels was not there, and he also began to suspect that there were no spokes in the other two wheels. So with character- istic chivalry- Mr. Fulion: It sounds like your policy. Mr. Pickersgill: So with characteristic chiv- alry the bon. member for Prince Albert handed this broken down chariot over to the hon. member for Kamloops and the bon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming). If I may change my metaphor a little before I mix it, like the Duke of Plazatoro, he pre- ferred to lead his army from behind. I hope some of my colleagues and some of my friends are keeping their eyes on the bon. member for Prince Albert, for I would not be surprised that as night falls and the battle is practically over the hon. member will rush into the fray and try to dispatch any of his opponents who by that time happen to be unarmed. If, in this debate, the bon. member for Prince Albert has shown more discretion than valour, it seems to me that the bon. member for Kamloops has shown more valour than discretion. But that is not uncharacter- istic either. The bon. member for Kamloops demanded the resignation of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) because of his alleged failure to clean up the mess in the depart- ment over which he formerly presided. This demand as made is reported here in Hansard at page 1166. I do not think I shall bother to read it. Mr. Murphy (Lambion West): Spell it out. Mr. Pickersgill: I do not think I shail bother to read it unless the hon. gentleman wants me to do so. If he does, inasmuch as I have unlimited time and will have no hesitation about using it, I am quite pre- pared to do so. Mr. Fulton: That is about the only weapon you have. FEBRUARY 17, 1955 Mr. Pickersgill: Let us wait and see. The reasons given, of course, for demanding this resignation were that there were these so- called shocking revelations in Winnipeg. When I read-at the time I came back from Newfoundland-about what was going on in Winnipeg, I must say quite frankly that I was a little bit surprised. The first thing I did when I arrived back in Ottawa was to get in touch with my hon. friend the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey). I dis- covered that he had not been in Winnipeg at all. I do not intend to say anything more about his position in the matter than this. He has in the most honourable way possible dissociated himself from this whole business with which he was not-in so far as there were any charges or anything of that sort-ever concerned. Beyond that I intend to let the hon. gentleman speak for himself as, to the knowledge of every member of the house, he is perfectly capable of doing. This so-called report that was not accept- able to the Canadian Bar Association and that was sent back for further study I des- cribed in a press conference broadcast as being a perfectly innocuous document; and that is what it is. In order that hon. members who have not had the opportunity that I have had to read it may see how absolutely innocuous it is, I propose to read every word of it into the record. The copy I have here-and I am informed this is a copy of the document that was actually presented-is headed: Canadian Bar Association Comm4tee on civil liberties Subcommittee on immigration A. J. Cowan, Esq., O.B.E., M.C., Q.C., Chairman of the civil liberties committee, Canadian Bar Association. Dear Sir: I have the honour to submit the 1953-54 report on the subcommittee- I am sure this must mean "report of". -on immigration. 2. The terms of reference of the subcommittee as established at the 1952 meeting of the associa- tion are as follows:- And this is in quotation marks. "That a subcommittee on immigration be estab- lished to review the administration of immigration laws and regulations with particular reference to the curtailments of the rights of Canadians by Immigration authorities and to report to the com- mittee on civil liberties at the next annual meet- ing, the members of the subcommittee to be appointed by the chairman." 3. The terms of reference of the subcommittee were further extended for a year at the 1953 meeting of the association and its membership continued to consist of John H. McDonald. of Ottawa, chairman; John H. Dickey. M.P. of Halifax; John R. Taylor, of Vancouver. 4. Four meetings of the full committee were held in Ottawa and eight other meetings of two mem- bers of the committee were held in Ottawa and Immigration Montreal. A comprehensive brief was recelved from the British Columbia section of the Canadian Bar Association. The recommendations made In this report have been considered and are incorpo- rated herein. In addition a great deal of valuable research work was undertaken by John R. Taylor, a member of the committee. Mr. Taylor bas reviewed over two hundred specific cases and bas written four comprehensive reports on administra- tive procedures. These reports have been in- valuable to the subcommittee and will form the basis for further study and representations. Copies of these reports are being filed with the chairman of the committee on civil liberties. However. the committee and particularly Mr. Taylor, the author, believe that until such time as the new Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has had an oppor- tunity of reviewing the detailed material contained in these reports, they should not be generally distributed. 5. In its 1953 report, the committee recommended certain administrative reforms within the Depart- ment of Citizenship and Immigration itself and the creation of an immigration appeal board based on a judicial and legal concept. 6. A copy of the 1953 report (P. 162 Vol. 36, C.B.A. proceedings)- I have that in my hand, but I am not going to waste the time of the house in reading it unless someone asks me to do so, because it is the same kind of thing. -was forwarded to the minister of citizenship and immigration and on June 30, 1954, the committee attended upon the minister and further recom, mended: (a) Possible codification of regulations Issued by your department. (b) Publications of intradepartmental directives -particularly Instructions to field officers as to the application of interpretation of the act. (c) The implementation of proper and legal appeal procedures as contemplated in the act and as recommended in this subcommittee's pre- liminary report last year. (d) The possibility of making departmental files available to applicants and their attorneys- possibly as handled by the patent office. (Excluding confidential material prepared and written by de- partmental officials but including all statements made by the appellant or any other person pertain- ing to the case). (e) The recognition of the role of barristers and solicitors in immigration law. (f) The establishment of a procedure setting forth reasons for rejection in each case, in such a way as to give the rejected party or the applicant concerned an opportunity of overcoming the department's objections. (g) The committee's recommendations made in the 1953 report be implemented. 7. On July 1, 1954, the then minister of citizen- ship and immigration, the Hon. Walter Harris, became Minister of Finance and the Hon. J. W. Pickersgill became Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. However, the latter bas been absent from Ottawa throughout the summer- I plead guilty to that charge, Mr. Speaker; I was in Newfoundland. -and indicated that he would request his pre- decessor, who bas since July 1, 1954, been acting minister of citizenship and immigration, to continue to deal with this matter and the acting minister agreed te se do. 8. Subsequently, at Mr. Harris' request, conversa- tions were held with the deputy minister of citizenship and Immigration. He Indicated that the new Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the HOUSE OF COMMONS Immigration Hon. J. W. Pickersgill would appreciate the oppor- tunity of reviewing the several recommendations of the subcommittee. The deputy minister also indicated that he would attend the thirty-sixth annual meeting of the association in Winnipeg and wouId be available to answer questions regard- ing immigration procedure which might be raised. 9. Your subcommittee expresses regret that no action has been taken by the Department of Citizen- ship and Immigration to implement any of the recommendations contained in its 1953 report. We recommend that the subcommittee be continued for a further year, that it be instructed to continue to examine the administration of immigration laws and regulations in accordance with its terms of reference, and to press for action by the depart- ment to bring into effect administrative and procedural reforms which will be in accordance with recommendations contained in previous re- ports of your subcommittee, recommendations in this report, and such further recommendations as may in the future appear to be appropriate. Respectfully submitted, John H. McDonald, Chairman. 53 Queen Street, Ottawa, 27th August, 1954. These are the "shocking revelations". If there is any member of this house who can find any kind of revelation in this document whatsoever, I should like him to make him- self known. It is true that there are certain recommendations in it and that most of those recommendations have not been carried out. I do not think they could be carried out by any responsible person administering the act. But there is nothing in that document which, by any stretch of the imagination, can be called a revelation. I know that something else happened at Winnipeg. I am quite well aware of that fact and I am not going to shirk dealing with it. The hon. member for Kamloops appar- ently agrees with me that this report is innocuous, because he really did not base his case on the report at all. He based his case on a newspaper report of a speech which was supposed to have been made by Mr. John H. McDonald, and on the unpub- lished summary of some cases which had been investigated, I presume, by Mr. Taylor. Now, Mr. McDonald is a politician. He is in fact a Liberal politician. An hon. Member: A bad one, too. Mr. Pickersgill: And I am one of those Liberals who, contrary to the views that seem to be held on the other side of the house, think even Liberals can make mistakes, and sometimes do. Moreover, I am a politician and a novice at politics, but I do know that it is an occupational hazard of politicians to make speeches, and ill-considered speeches at times. I do not think any member of the house with comparable experience knows that better than the hon. member for Kamloops. I do not think there is anything much more [Mr. Pickersgill.] to be said about Mr. McDonald's speech. At any rate, the contents, so far as I saw them reported in the newspapers, did not amount to much more than that. As to the summary prepared by Mr. Taylor- Mr. Fulton: May I ask the minister a ques- tion? Mr. Pickersgill: Yes. Mr. Fulton: Surely I am correct in assum- ing that Mr. McDonald has never modified or retracted anything he is reported to ha've said in that press conference? Mr. Pickersgill: I really cannot say, sir. I have not attempted to find out. I come now to the summary of Mr. Taylor's cases, if in- deed it was a summary of Mr. Taylor's cases, to which the hon. member for Kamloops re- ferred. He did not identify his document and he did not quote from it either, I admit, but he said he had seen it. I have seen a document which I am informed was prepared by Mr. Taylor and which I assume is the same one. At any rate, I have read a sum- mary of these cases which are supposed to reveal the shocking practices in the depart- ment. I would not care at all if it were published anywhere at any time, because I am sure most hon. members on both sides of the house, if they read it, would have the same impression I had. That was the im- pression that Mr. Taylor had been acting as an advocate before the department for a number of clients, that he had not been uni- formly successful in his advocacy, and he did not like it. All of us have that kind of experience at times, and if any hon. member wants to bring this document to the committee on estimates or anywhere else and discuss it in detail I am perfectly prepared to discuss it at any time I am given a few hours in which to re- fresh my memory as to the individual cases, because obviously I could not possibly carry the details in my mind. Mr. Fulton: I do not like to interrupt, but I think perhaps on a question of privilege I should point out that I did not confine my criticism nor the cases I drew to the attention of the house to anything that may have been contained in a document alleged to have been prepared by Mr. Taylor. I think in fairness to Mr. Taylor it should be stated that my case does not depend for its justification on any- thing Mr. Taylor may have said. If it coin- cides with what Mr. Taylor may have said I am happy, but it was not based upon an alleged document prepared by Mr. Taylor. Mr. Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I listened pretty carefully the other day to what was 1242 said by the hon. member for Kamloops. I reread, I admit rather hastily, his speech this morning; and I am unable to find, out- side of the Ba Chai case, any other cases referred to except those contained in this summary. If it was not Mr. Taylor's sum- mary to which the hon. member referred he will have other opportunities to refer to these cases again, but that is the only one I was able to find. Mr. Fulton: I think they may be the same or very similar. Mr. Pickersgill: I think they probably are similar, almost to the point of identity. An hon. Member: A strange coincidence. Mr. Pickersgill: But the hon. member for Kamloops does make a very much more se- rious charge when he charges that the depart- ment ignored a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Leong Ba Chai case. The position of the department and the minister in this case is set out just as briefly as I can set it out in a letter which I sent to Mr. Foon Sien, the president, I believe, of the Chinese benevolent association in Van- couver. As the letter was intended for publi- cation if he wished to publish it, I think the simplest way I can inform the house of the position of the department and myself in this matter is to read the letter. It was written on the 30th December and reads: Dear Mr. Foon Sien: I duly received your letter of December 7. con- cerning the case of Leong Ba Chai. The applica- tion of Leong Hung Hing on behalf of Leong Ba Chai had been given consideration shortly after it had been filed on March 6, 1951. The settlement arrangements were found to be satisfactory. The application was refused, however, on the informa- tion given by the applicant that Leong Ba Chai was the child of a concubine. Application was made before the supreme court of British Columbia on March 5, 1952, for a mandamus directed to the Paciflc district super- intendent. The Supreme Court of Canada heard this case on December 8 and 9, and rendered its judgment on December 18, 1953. The Supreme Court of Canada came to the con- clusion that article 1065 of the civil code of China provided for legitimation by acknowledgment by the natural father; that where it was established that a child had been legitimated in China while his father had his domicile there, the law of Can- ada will recognize such child as legitinate within the meaning of order in council P.C. 2115; that, consequently, mandamus will lie directing the immigration officer concerned to determine whether the child otherwise complies with the provisions of the Immigration Act. The immigration branch therefore proceeded with the application, and dealt with the case as though Leong Ba Chai, stated to be the son of a concubine, were a "child" within the meaning of P.C. 2115. Leong Rung Hing, the applicant, was examined In Vancouver in January, 1954, at which interview his solicitor, Mr. Anderson, was present. After considering the report of this interview. the immigration superintendent at Hong Kong was Immigration requested to proceed with the case of Leong Ba Chai as an applicant for a visa and to interview him as soon as possible. Leong Ba Chai was examined in Hong Kong on April 22 and April 29. The reports were received in Ottawa early in May and in the course of this month the X-rays were studied by the immigration medical officers in Ottawa. The radiological examination could not be completed until further X-ray plates were received and it was not until July 21 that a final report was obtained. On or about that date the immigration branch was furnished with letters written in Chinese that had been exchanged between Leong Hung Hing and his son. This correspondence, some 20 letters in all, had to be translated and studied in Ottawa. Thereafter, Leong Ba Chai was interviewed further and investigations were conducted in Hong Kong. The minutes of all the interviews and of the investigations were under study in Ottawa with a view to preparing a complete and final report on this case when the news of the applicant's death reached Ottawa on November 30. Since the applicant has died, it is obvious that Leong Ba Chai cannot now be admitted as the child of a Canadian citizen who is in a position to receive and care for his dependent. Mr. Fulton: That is one of the most inhuman things I have ever heard of. Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo): May I ask a question? Mr. Pickersgill: Yes. Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo): Did the supreme court and the appeal court of British Colum- bia give precisely the same decision as the Supreme Court of Canada gave? Mr. Pickersgill: I am unable to answer that question. I have not examined any judgment except the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada which, it seemed to me, was the only judgment that was relevant to the ad- ministration of the department. Of course in that respect I am in a somewhat better position than the hon. member for Kamloops confessed himself to be on Tuesday, when I asked him the direct question whether he had read the judgment and he admitted that he had not. Mr. Fulton: No, I did not. I have read the judgment. I said I did not have it here with me. Mr. Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman like me to read the passage? Mr. Fulton: Yes. Mr. Pickersgill: This is what was said at page 1167 of Hansard for February 15. Mr. Pickersgill: Ras the hon. member the court's decision there? Mr. Fulton: No, I have not Rot the court'u decision, but I have discussed it with counsel and I have a summary of it here. I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon. Any assumption I have made that the hon, gentle- man did not read it or any imputation to that effect I withdraw unreservedly, sir. 1243FEBRUARY 17, 1955 HOUSE OF COMMONS Immigration In his speech the hon. member raised what I regard as far and away the most important question that has been raised in this debate. As I want to be completely fair about this, because I think it is quite important that all of us understand it, I am going to ask the house to allow me to read what the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) said. It seems to me this is the nub of the whole matter. If we are going to have any under- standing of this very serious charge that the administration of this department denies simple justice to Canadians and non- Canadians alike, we must know what is the nature of the injustice. This is what the hon. gentleman indicated himself, and I believe he may even feel I am quoting too much, but I want to get it fully on the record so it is fresh in the minds of all hon. members when I make my reply. I admit this is difficult material, and as the bouse knows I have a disadvantage in not having the learning of the hon. gentleman. Mr. Sinclair: Which hon. gentleman? Mr. Pickersgill: The hon. member for Kamloops; I am not a member of the bar. Mr. Sinclair: That is no handicap. I thought it was another handicap about which you were talking. Mr. Pickersgill: The hon. member for Kamloops said at page 1164 of Hansard for February 15, 1955, in the second column, the last paragraph: This party- I presume he means the hon. gentlemen immediately opposite the government. -is strongly of the view that you cannot base your practice, in a matter as important as this affecting the welfare of hundreds of thousands of Canadians individually as well as of the country generally, on the principle that there is no matter of right but only of discretion. The reason that we say that is that immigration does affect Cana- dian citizens. Well, of course it affects Canadian citizens. Canadian citizens have rights in spite of what this government may feel to the contrary. Under the Immigration Act and regulations there are laid down classes of admissible immigrants. It is provided that Canadian citizens can apply for the admission of relatives within those classes. It is therefore impossible to argue, or at least un- realistic to argue, that where a Canadian citizen applies for the admission of his relative within one of the admissible classes, no matter what may be the racial origin of that Canadian citizen-we are all the same as citizens- I certainly agree with that sentiment. -that Canadian citizen has no rights. He bas rights. He has a right above all to know, if his relative is refused admission, why that should be. I have not finished quoting this passage, but I want to make this interjection. I know [Mr. Pickersgill.] that may seem a most reasonable position to take; and when I argue, as I am going to argue, that it is not a proper position to take, then I am asking hon. members to accept a view which their first instinct might not lead them to accept. It is very important, therefore, that we get these things as straight as we possibly can. I continue quoting from the top of page 1165: He bas a right to have his objections heard if he thinks that his rights have been overruled or disregarded by the departmental decision. Then I interjected and asked the hon. mem- ber this question: Will the bon. member permit a question? Will he cite the section of the Immigration Act on which he bases the argument he has just made? The hon. member then went on: I thought I might get that sort of question from the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, because he apparently does not believe that Cana- dian citizens have rights in general. Of course that is not quite an accurate statement of my position. I know quite well that Canadian citizens have rights in general and rights in particular, and it was the rights in particular about which I was concerned. It was a question whether Cana- dian citizens had any rights in this particular matter and, if so, what they were. I am not a lawyer, and I do not know where else you would find these rights but in the rele- vant statute; I may be wrong. He believes that it is necessary to lay down the rights of Canadian citizens by some statute before they have any rights. In general, sir, when we are talking about legal rights, and that is all we are talking about here, not moral rights, under our system of government I suppose that is true. There are, as I am sure the hon. member would tell me if I did not interject it, cer- tain common law rights. But apart from that, it seems to me we look to the statutes for these specific, particular rights. Perhaps that is one of the reasons we are here. We proceed on the basis that a Canadian citizen has rights, one of them being access to the courts. Unless they are taken away from him by statute those rights exist and are capable of enforcement in the courts. I do not know that that is of particular significance or relevant. Now I go on with what the hon. member for Kamloops had to say: Therefore, when you say in the first place that immigration to Canada shall be permitted, and you then make a regulation saying that certain classes are admissible and provide that Canadian citizens can apply for the admission of relatives within that class, how can the minister argue that there is no right on the part of the Canadian citizen when he makes an application? That is the FEBRUARY 17, 1955 implication of the minister's argument. It la a position which we entirely refute and refuse to accept. Now, sir, what is the right of these Cana- dian citizens? What did the supreme court say it was in the Leong Ba Chai case? I feel that the hon. member will agree with me that the law now is what the supreme court says it is, though we may of course change it here if we want te change it. Mr. Diefenbaker: Or evade it. Mr. Pickersgill: I belleve if the hon. gentle- man would read this judgment again, as I am sure he bas already, be would find there is a very simple remedy if it is evaded. I am not going te read the whole of this because I do not think I should try the house by doing so. I feel those passages I am going te read will set out the law. First of all, the supreme court makes its decision on this point. I understand that the hon. member for Kamloops the other day took exception te my describing the mother of this person as a concubine. Instead, I will say she was the second wife while the first wife was living. At any rate the court had decided that if the alleged father had Chinese domicile at the time the child was born, under Canadian law be would be regarded as legitimate. Here is the relevant part of the judgment after that: It naturally follows that the applicant, being the legitimate son, under 21 years of age, of a Chinese citizen,- Now, it does not say of the particular per- son concerned; it says of a Chinese citizen'. -legally admitted to and resident in Canada, does not fall within the ban of the regulation, but may be admitted to the country, if he otherwise complies with the provisions of the Immigration Act. In other words he is a person who is in an admissible class, and therefore a Canadian citizen certainly bas this right as long as the law remains in its present state. He can apply for the entry of his child. But after the ap- plication is made, that person must satisfy all the other requirements that parliament bas seen fit te lay down for the admission of an immigrant te Canada before be can be admitted. Then it goes on te say: It is claimed by the appellants that a writ of mandamus does not lie, and that no order may be issued directing the immigration officer to consider the application for admission of Ba Chai into Canada as an immigrant. With this, I disagree. And this is the learned judge speaking. What is asked la not the admission- Immigration I would ask those hon. members who are interested to pay particular attention to these next two sentences: What is asked Is not the admission of Ba Chai into Canada, but the consideration of his applica- tion which must be examined in the light of the Immigration Act. This bas been illegally denied. As soon as this decision was made the de- partment proceeded to deal with the appli- cation. I have already dealt with that matter in the letter I read te the house. Then the bon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) raised another point. The second te last sentence of the judgment deals with that point, as te whether proceedings could be taken against an immigration officer if he did not carry out his duty. The learned judge said: If he refuses to act and discharge that duty, he is amenable to the ordinary process of the courts. Se if the immigration officer did not carry out his duty, the decision of the supreme court bas said that he can be haled into court for his failure te do se. So there is certainly a remedy there. The position, therefore, as this judgment says, is that if a person belongs te an admis- sible class, as it is described under the Immigration Act or the regulations-one of those classes where it is laid down that a Canadian citizen or a Canadian resident may apply for the admission of that person-it is the duty of the department te process that application and reach a conclusion with respect te it. But nowhere in that judgment is there any suggestion that the judgment of any court should be substituted for the judg- ment of the responsible minister in the case. Mr. Fulton: That is true. Mr. Pickersgill: That is a position with which I think the bon. member for Kamloops readily agrees. Mr. Fulton: I do not agree with the posi- tion, but I agree with the minister's inter- pretation of the judgment. However, I do not agree with the position of the department. Mr. Pickersgill: That helps me, because I was going on into a field in which I felt more uncertainty than the field which I am now examining. In the passage I just read the hon. member for Kamloops almost but not quite > said that the prospective immigrants themselves had certain rights. Mr. Fulton: No, I did not say that. Mr. Pickersgill: It may be that he did not say that, exactly; but he said something close te it. Now, the correct position- 50433-80 HOUSE OF COMMONS Immigration Mr. Fulton: Read the passage where I said that. Mr. Pickersgill: If the hon. member does not wish to say it now, then that creates an area of agreement between us which I shall be glad to have. Mr. Fulton: I think the minister should substantiate his point. He has said that I said certain things, and I have asked him to show me where I said them. Mr. Pickersgill: I think I said that he almost, but not quite, said it. I think that was precisely the language I used, and I assure the hon. member that if I used any other phrase I shall apologize to him publicly. Mr. Fulton: More straw men. Mr. Pickersgill: As a matter of fact, the reason I ventured to say this was perhaps a somewhat frivolous one, unbecoming to a minister. The hon. member for Kamloops, unlike myself, is a Rhodes scholar. Mr. Sinclair: What's wrong with that? Mr. Pickersgill: Well, personally, sir, I do not think that is the greatest of the demerits of the hon. member for Kamloops. But I think the hon. member for Kamloops had better beware when he, a Rhodes scholar, suggests such things as rights that are not conferred by statute, general and unlimited rights. He had better keep a sharp eye on the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Black- more), or he will be accused of being a socialist, a centralizer or, even worse, an international banker. Mr. Fulton: I doubt if the minister has ever heard of Magna Carta. Certainly if he has he pays no attention to it. Mr. Knowles: He used to teach history. Mr. Pearkes: He did not produce any Rhodes scholars, though. Mr. Pickersgill: And if the hon. member for Kamloops would like to edify the house by explaining the connection between Magna Carta and any possible legal rights an alien might have when entering Canada, I would be most interested to hear that piece of very original historical research. Mr. Fulton: I can assure the minister that the hon. member for Prince Albert will be instructing the minister in due course on those points-points on which obviously he needs considerable instruction. Mr. Pickersgill: I shall await that with interest. It seems to me the correct legal position in this matter-as a matter of fact, the correct position stated in very simple and non-legal language-has been stated by one [Mr. Pickersgill.] who, like me, was not a lawyer. This posi- tion was set out by Mr. Mackenzie King on May 1, 1947, in these words: With regard te the selection of immigrants, much bas been said about discrimination. I wish te make it quite clear that Canada is perfectly within her rights in selecting the persons whom we regard as desirable future citizens. It is not a "fundamental human right" of an alien te enter Canada. It is a privilege. It is a matter of domestie policy. Immigration is subject te the control of the parliament of Canada. This does not mean, however, that we should not seek te remove from our legislation discrimination which appears te be objectionable. The proper legal position was well stated in the house on June 26 of last year by my predecessor, and I should like to read into the record what he said; because at that time the same point had been raised as is raised in this debate by the same hon. member opposite. I imagine the house will be rather more impressed by the opinion of my pre- decessor, with the experience he has had, than it would be by my opinion. I find this at page 6832 of Hansard for June 26, 1954: Mr. Harris: Yes. As the hon. member knows, we discussed this at some length-perhaps not this particular detail, but the over-all theory of immi- gration-when we were revising the Immigration Act two years ago. And ail but one member of that committee- and I think this was endorsed by the house-held the view that immigration could not possibly become a matter of law, and we did not want te get into the system which obtains in some other countries whereby we would try te define in a law those persons who could be admitted te Canada, se that one could approach the courts in this country and have a judge decide in an action at law whether an applicant came within the terms of the law. We went into that matter at some length- The events to which he referred took place before I was a member of the house. I continue: We went into that matter at some length, and indeed the minister brought it te the attention of the committee, pointing out that the discretion vested in the minister was se extensive that, as the Leader of the Opposition said today,- That was on June 26 last. -the power was se great that "even the minister might not wish te exercise it". Nevertheless the committee did decide that the theory of immigration in Canada must be that the minister would be responsible te parliament te explain the policy in detail, and his administration of it; and if the administration of the act and of the policy did not meet with the approval of bon. members, then the minister would be subjected te such criticism as members felt they should make. It was felt that we could not have these things going through our courts with decisions being made on the law. Starting from that, it seems te me it would not be possible, nor would it be desirable, for that matter, tc disclose te the applicants information which is on the file in this department, and which would lead the minister and those under him te come te a conclusion in a particular case. I did not understand my hon. friend's concluding words, 1246 whea he %aid that hon. members do not have access to these documents. I have neyer hesitated ta, offer a file to any member who aslced for it- This is the former minister of citizensbip and immigration, and I arn anly too happy to endorse his words. I have neyer hesitated to offer a file ta any mrnber who asked for it. always knowlng that, under bis responsibility as a member of parîla- ment, such member would consider it confidential. Yet at the same time 1 know the hon. member bas in mind cases where, to the applicants, it would seem that if they knew the prablem In the mind of the officiai tbey could meet such speciallzed objection by producing new evidence. I shall not attempt to make a joke of a serlous matter, but I could say that we have people who came ta aur office and say, "'I arn so and so; what do I have to tell you ia order to get into Canada?"~ Sorne bon. members may have read the article by Blair Fraser wbicb appeared in a recent issue of Maclean's magazine about the immigration office at Hong Kong; and this is no joke, as that article clearly shows. I continue: That is something we do flot want ta encourage. Sa that I think we ought ta leave It the way it is. I grant you that quite probably members of parliament in particular should be given ail the information avallable to enable them ta criticize a minister of the government. But 1 do nat think that we can have an applicant golng outside the department and suing in the courts in an attempt ta prove his rigbt ta enter Canada. That is, an allen or a non-Canadian. As I. say, the committee declded that sbauld not be done. Bath bouses af parliament decided that sbould flot be done, and it is the law that it should not be done. Mr. Fulton: Wbile the minister is dealing with that point, would he care ta deal with tbe question of the rigbt of the Canadian citizen wbo bas applied for tbe admission of a relative to go ta court ta establisb tbe admis- sibility af tbe relative, and theref are the necessity of obtaining information as to why he was denied admission? Mr. Pickersgill: As I apprehend the law, I tbink it is perfectly clear tbat it is the rigbt of tbe Canadian citizen ta apply and ta have that application decided by the minister in the final analysis, or by somneane under the min- ister's control; and it is no more than that. Tbat is exactly wbat tbe suprerne court sald it was in the plainest and most unrnistakably clear language. If the bon. gentleman wants the act amended, be is a member of parlia- ment just as I arn and he can intraduce a bill ta arnend it. If be can canvince a major- ity af bon. members that it should be arnended in that way, well, it will be amended. But I suspect that if the han. gentleman were sitting on the treasury benches he wauld neyer introduce sucb an arnendment. 50433-80J Immigration There are one or two other reasons which T want to give the house today, based on my own very limited experience in the depart- ment, in addition to these very compelling reasons which were given by the Minister of Finance when he was minister of citizenship and immigration last year. I realize the feeling people have that we ought to tell the Canadian citizen why sorne relative of his is flot admissible under the act. That seems a rnost reasonable request to make. 1 arn going to suggest that in addition to the reasons given by the minister there are a number of other reasons why this should not be done. The information we get from an applicant for admission to Canada, the information we ask from. anybody who applies to corne to Canada, is extensive. We have to ask it because the act requires it, and because par- liarnent decided this information should be asked for. The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough), who does not appear to be in her seat at the moment, although she was here a little while ago, was quite concerned that we did not ask enough ques- tions of one particular immigrant. The number of questions' we have to ask, prying into the private lives of these people, elicits information which I do not believe should ever be given to anybody else, no matter how close a relative hie may be. It seerns to me it is a serious enough disability for these people to be refused admission to Canada without giving other people, certainly solici- tors, advocates and other people who may use the information in a different way, infor- mation about the private lives of people who we have decided are not in oui' opinion likely to be good Canadian citizens. Hon. rnembers know the kind of informa- tion that results in exclusion. For example, there is the question as to whether a person bas ever been in an insane asylum, the question of whether there has been any criminal conviction, the question of whether hie has bad certain diseases. Mr. Hamniltan (Notre Darne de Grace): What about Banks? Mr. Pickersgill: Any time the hon. gentle- man wants to make a speech about Mr. Banks and I have the right to reply, I shall be deligbted to reply. But bis rernark is flot very relevant to this general argument, this difficult argument that I arn atternpting ta make at the moment. There is of course, as every hon. rnember knows, another kind of inquiry that has ta be made. Because of the state of the world it is considered desirable by the governrnent, and it seems to be approved by parliament, that we should inquire wbetber those pro- spective immigrants are likely to be a danger FEBRUARY 17. 1955 1247* Immigration to the security of the state. The only way information of any value can be obtained in most cases is from sources which are not within the control of the Canadian govern- ment. The information is made available to the Canadian government only because we undertake to keep it confidential. It would not be made available if we did not keep it confidential. That is not true in all these cases. In many cases it is a criminal con- viction, previous insanity or some other defect in the person's record that is the reason for the refusal. But of course if we isolated all the other reasons and gave all of them, then we would be labelling the remainder as security cases and doing indirectly what we have undertaken not to do directly. The other reason, which is of some importance, is this. Last year there were over 150,000 immigrants landed in this coun- try. I cannot say, and I do not think anyone can say because you cannot tell when an application really becomes an application, how many persons approached our offices with a view to becoming immigrants, but it must have been three, four or five times that number. Parliament is willing to vote only a certain amount of money for the administration of the Immigration Act. After all, the purpose of our Immigration Act is to get good immi- grants into Canada and not to enter into complicated consideration of marginal cases. It would be utterly impossible to administer the Immigration Act with any funds that I can envisage parliament voting for the pur- pose if every case concerning a relative of someone in Canada was taken before the courts or before some kind of tribunal. That is a practical reason, but I admit that it is not quite of the same order of importance as the others I have mentioned. However, it is a limiting factor. On the other hand, some of us have got into the habit of regarding these applications as be- ing something like trials in court. The hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy), while he did not go so far as to say they were trials, did say-I have looked over his words carefully but I do not think I shall read the passage, as I do not think he will quarrel with what I am going to say-or suggest, as reported at page 1170 of Hansard, that these people were being convicted without being heard, and if they could bring evidence a different judgment might be rendered. I think that we ought to try to clear our minds of this wrong analogy with the courts. These people are not on trial at all in the sense that someone is on trial in a court. They are people who have applied for entry into this country, which we have a perfect [Mr. Pickersgill.] right to deny to anyone who is not a Cana- dian. I think a far better analogy, one which would make this whole process seem much more sensible and reasonable as it really is, would be an application for a position of trust, an application for membership in a club, an application for credit from a finan- cial institution or, as the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Maltais) said in his speech on Tuesday, an application for admission to a family. That is precisely what it is. These Canadian citizens are asking to have relatives of theirs, some members of their families, admitted into the larger Canadian family. We have to decide in some way or other whether they are suitable persons to admit. Parliament has decided that that must be done admin- istratively and not by tribunals. If it is to be done administratively the final decision must rest with someone who is answerable to parliament here in parliament. The hon. member for Kamloops admitted that immigration should be selective. He used that word, and I do not think there are many in his party who would quarrel with it. I think the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) came pretty close to saying that we should open the doors to anybody who wanted to come in, although at the same time he did not seem to be very much in favour of allowing anybody in. I do not want to be unfair to the hon. gentleman, and I would not really suggest that seriously as a sum- mary of his speech, which did rather confuse me. The hon. member for Kamloops admitted that immigration should be selective. I am one of those old-fashioned people like the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdon- nell), who like to look up the definition of words in a dictionary before he uses them. The hon. member in another context wanted to read me the definition of a word I had used in this house. I would have been only too happy to have had that done. I must say that I do not understand there is any real difference between the words selection and discrimination. They both mean the same thing. Mr. Croll: They sound different. Mr. Pickersgill: As the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) says, they sound differ- ent. That is quite correct; they do sound different. Mr. Mackenzie King used to look in the dictionary and he was also a little old- fashioned. He used words accurately in his statement of May, 1947, when he said: This does not mean, however, that we should not seek to remove from our legislation what may appear to be objectionable discrimination. 1248 HOUSE OF COMMONS One of the features of aur legisiatian ta which atrong objection has been taken an the ground of discrimination is the Chinese Immigration act This act seemns ta place persons from One rar- ticular country In an inferior category. The gov- ernment has already initiated action for the repeal of that statute. Chinese residenta of Canada who are not already Canadian citizens may now be naturaiized. Once naturalized, they are per- mitted ta bring their wtves and unmarried children under 18 ta Join themn In this country. That age limit was later raised by this government ta 21 years, and in exceptional cases of menit from 21 ta 25 years. I think the house might like ta know what bas been the result of.that policy. I had some statis- tics prepared the other day covering the period from. May 1, 1947, because I antici- pated the kind of observations wbich were made by the hon. member for Vancouver- Kingsway the ather evening. I feit, as I generally do, pretty sympathetic ta anything that was said by the hon. member for Vancau- ver-Kingsway. But 1 doubt if even he realizes how much bas been accomplisbed under the new polîcy that was instituted in 1947. There have been 16,600 new files estab- lisbed in the departmnent since May 1, 1947. That does not mean there were anly 16,600 appications, because some af those files related ta more than one persan. Appraxi- mately 15,000 applied ta one or more persans. They have been checked, and at the present time the number of rejections is 1,217. 1 couid give a further breakdown but 1 do not think it would add particularly ta the argu- ment at this time. I shail be giad ta give that in the estimates committee wbere I hope ta be very soan, if anyone is interested. The total number of persans of the Chinese race admitted ta Canada since May 1, 1947 is 11,404. It will be seen that there bas been a considerable number, having regard ta the number of persans of Chinese origin already in thîs country. I think hon. members sbouid be reminded that since this palicy was insti- tuted an May 1, 1947, the government on the mainland of China has been suppianted by another government, and that during part of that peniod troops under the control of that other government were actualiy engaged in combat with Canadian troaps in Korea. During that period the present de facto gov- ernmnent of China has participated in this cold war. It must be evident ta anyone that to have continued a policy as generous as this one has been in circumstances like that was a mast exceptianal thing ta do. I think the Canadian people are ta be commended far their willingness ta see a policy af that sort continued during times like those when it might have been very easy to use the argu- ment that for security reasons it should be abandoned. Immigration But we cannot abandon those security con- siderations and it would be wrong to do sa. There is no doubt whatsoever that under this arrangement we have, we open the possibility of infiltrating, under the guise of relatives, people who are not relatives at ail but who are being insinuated into this country flot because any Chinese person in this country is disloyal to Canada but because he may be blackmailed. By people who know much more about these things than I do, 1 am advised that this is a real risk. As hon. members know, we take virtually no immigrants from beyond the iron curtain in Europe. In other words, our policy so f ar as Chinese are concerned, if it is dis- criminatory, is discriminatory in a sense con- trary to that which the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Maclnnis) sug- gested the other day. It is discriminatory in f avour of Chinese rather than against them. But be that as it may, security is a really serious probiem, particulariy in view of the difficuities of getting information and even vital statistics. It is a very difficuit probiem ta carry out any kind of security checks on which reliance can be placed. That is the principal reason why it is necessary in these cases sometimes ta take a long time and ta go back and check and recheck when the circumstances seem ta be extremeiy sus- piciaus indeed, as they sametimes do in some of these cases. I think I have said really ail I want to say about that particular aspect of the sub- ject, except that I want ta express ta the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway ap- preciation of his persanal vote of confidence in the minister. While we were being de- nounced by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) the other day because we had ail this discretion and because we should not be trusted with it, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway later li the evening, as reported at page 1193 of Hansard, said this: I believe that a certain diacretionary Power should bc given the minister to deal with cases such as I have mentioned.- He was there referring to grandchildren of Chinese and ather similar cases of menit. -when he thinks the weight of evidence Presented ta him. Indicates that certain persans should be allowed to enter the country. I uuite appreciate that thia ia a great deai of Power ta put in the hands of a min-ister. but I arn sure no minister of immigration would misuse a power of that kind. Mr. Fulton: We do not share bis trust. Mr. Pickersgill: I thank the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. Mr. Fulton: Perhaps I shauld say "flot willingly". FEBRUARY. 17. 1955 1249 HOUSE OF COMMONS Immigration Mr. Pickersgill: So far as discrimination is concerned, I am more concerned to see that there is no discrimination as between one person and another who is in this country, who has been admitted to this country, than I am about a certain limited discrimination among those whom we admit. While I am on this subject, and having referred to what was said by the hon. mem- ber for Vancouver-Kingsway, I appeal to hon. members on both sides of the house; I ask them if it has been their experience that the former minister or, for that matter, the present minister although he has not had much experience, has not on all occa- sions been willing to look at any kind of evidence that might make it possible for him to reach a more informed decision in these cases. The other day the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) said that I was a new minister and, like a new broom, he expected me to sweep the house clean. May I say that I do not believe in superfluous effort. The house that I entered on July 1 had already been swept and was quite clean, and there was no need to sweep it clean. When I suggested that, the hon. member jumped right to the opposite extreme and said, "Of course, the minister thinks everything is perfect". Of course the minister does not think anything of the kind. I am perfectly certain that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) made some mistakes when he was minister of citizenship and immigration. Mr. Fulton: We certainly share that view. Mr. Pickersgill: I am also certain that I have already made mistakes. But I do not believe that my bon. friend made any mistakes that were not honest mistakes of judgment. I do not believe any member of the house would say otherwise. What is more, Mr. Speaker, I have now been the minister of this department for seven months and I must say for the officials-and no one has criticized the officials, or anyone who has appeared to criticize them has said he was not doing so-that I have never encountered more conscientious, hard-working people who try harder to reach a proper judgment in these cases, with a leaning always to humanity but bearing in mind that their first duty in administering the Immigration Act is to get people who will be good Cana- dians and good citizens. I can say that my highest hope as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration will be to do as well as my predecessor has done. I know that I cannot do better. [Mr. Fulton.] There is one way in which one may perhaps test his administration in a rough but objective way. During the period when the Minister of Finance was minister of citizen- ship and immigration, he was responsible for permitting three-quarters of a million human beings to land in this country as immigrants. During that same time be found it necessary to deport fewer than 1,500 persons from among those landed immigrants. I do not think there are many members on either side of the house who think there are many people still in Canada who ought to have been deported. There may be a few. I know the bon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fair- clough) thinks there is one- An hon. Member: She is not alone. Mr. Pickersgill: -because she says so quite publicly. I think most Canadians feel as the bon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) said, and I agree with most of what he said. As be said, I think most of the immigrants who have come to Canada-the vast majority of them- are good people who are going to be good Canadian citizens. I believe most Canadians think so too. Before going on- An hon. Member: When are you going to stop? Mr. Pickersgill: If the hon. gentleman is convinced that be should vote for us and not for the bon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), I am quite prepared to stop. But if be is not so convinced, I am going to go on trying to convince him. Mr. Brooks: You are losing votes all the time. Mr. Knowles: I guess we are in for an all-day rain. Mr. Pickersgill: It is hard to satisfy some people in this house. I sat silent from 2.30 in the afternoon until ten o'clock at night the other day and was accused of failing in my duty in not enunciating the policy of the government. Mr. Murphy (Lambion West): You are doing a lot of squirming. Mr. Pickersgill: Well, sir, bon. gentlemen asked for it and they are going to get it. Mr. Murphy (Lambion West): We have not had it yet. Mr. Pickersgill: I realize that this may never happen again in my parliamentary career, but for once I have unlimited time and I am going to make the same kind of use of it that is from time to time made by bon. members on the front benches opposite, but I hope to better effect. Mr. Murphy (Lambion West): That is your own opinion. Mr. Pickersgill: Nothing I am stating is anyone else's opinion. All my opinions are my own. An hon. Member: Thank the Lord for that. An hon. Member: Does not the rest of the cabinet even agree with you? Mr. Murphy (Lambion West): That is cabinet solidarity, is it? Mr. Pickersgill: Oh, I am going to deal with that too. I am not going to dodge any of these things. Mr. Herridge: Is the minister not enunciat- ing government policy? Mr. Pickersgill: Most assuredly. I have the responsibility in this field for the enunciation of policy. It is not my exclusive function to make the policy but once it is made I speak for the government in this field as long as I remain in the government. An hon. Member: That may not be long. Mr. Churchill: Do I understand from the minister's remarks that his opinions con- stitute the policy of the government? Mr. Pickersgill: No, sir. I am sure the hon. member is far too intelligent and well in- structed not to be able to make a clear dis- tinction between an opinion and a policy. I express opinions on many subjects, some- times indiscreetly, which are none of my business at all, and being the kind of person I am, I am afraid I am apt to go on doing that. As I started to say before I was inter- rupted by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), before going on to deal with the second part of the want of confidence motion I want to deal very briefy- Mr. Murphy (Lamb±on Wesi): Good. Mr. Pickersgill: -with certain other points regarding the administration of the depart- ment. I was rather surprised to hear the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) suggest, and to find the suggestion echoed in rather mild fashion by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) who talked very good sense most of the time in his speech, that immigrants were treated like cattle or in too military a fashion. I think that is an approximation to the phrase used by the hon. member for Red Deer. I do not think I need to say very much about that because it seemed to me that the hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Hosking) put the matter pretty well in his reply. But I_ do want to say that I went to Halifax myself Immigration and had the good fortune to be there at a time when an Italian ship arrived. I saw the way that immigrants were treated there. Both the hon. members for Halifax were with me at the time, and I was very proud indeed- to be told by the purser of that ship, after the landing of these people had been completed, that among all the places where he had called there was no place where people were treated with the same kind of consideration that they were here in Canada. Of course some hon. members. opposite may think I am biased in this matter, al- though I personally have almost nothing ta do with these things. They are done by the officials of the department and they and the officials of other departments are very like other Canadians. There are a few of them who are objectionable but the great majority of them are very considerate of their fellow men, no matter where they come from. Now, sir, I am not going to read this, if hon. mem- bers are getting frightened- Mr. Cardiff: Read it. Mr. Pickersgill: -but somebody did send me the day before yesterday a copy of the February 11 issue of the Canada Weekly Review which is published in London by a gentleman named Thomson who, I believe, is not notoriously a supporter of the govern- ment. I would commend to any hon. mem- bers who might be interested in an article entitled, "Welcome Waiting in Montreal at Busy Immigration Department Headquarters". It is not uncomplimentary. I do not think the hon. member for Red Deer really meant it as censure of the depart- ment but he did raise some question-and I think the matter was raised by one or two other hon. members-that sometimes there was misrepresentation of conditions in Can- ada by officials of the immigration depart- ment abroad. Of course, you know, it is very hard not to have some charges of this sort because this is, as the hon. member for Winni- peg South Centre will agree, a matter of opinion up to a point. It is not quite suscep- tible to purely objective treatment. Even our officials vary in their views as to what conditions are like in Canada and what is going to happen to an immigrant when he comes here. I may say that one of the first complaints that came to me after I became the minister was that some official of the immi- gration department in London or somewhere in the United Kingdom had said that condi- tions in Newfoundland were unsuitable for immigrants. I have been trying to find that official ever since but so far I have not found him. Mr. Knowles: After all, you are exhibit No. 1. FEBRUARY 17, 1-055 1251 HOUSE OF COMMONS Immigration Mr. Pickersgill: There may be something in what the hon. gentleman says. Mr. Hodgson: More truth than fiction. Mr. Pickersgill: The hon. member for Ox- ford (Mr. Nesbitt) referred to a ship called the Beaverbrae and something that he had heard had happened on the Beaverbrae a number of years ago. An hon. Member: He was not too sure. Mr. Pickersgill: I am not too sure there may not have been something in what he said. At any rate, I will be only too happy to have the whole thing investigated. I do not think anything comparable with that is going on at the present time. If there is, I would cer- tainly like to know about it and if I find it I will be the first to admit it. It may well be that the subject is worth investigating, and if the hon. member can give me any particu- lars to help to investigate it more completely I will be very glad to do it. I should also like to say a word or two about the questions of relief and health serv- ices which were raised by the hon. member for Oxford and the hon. member for Middle- sex East (Mr. White). There is no doubt that it is a difficult problem. Of course, as all hon. members know, it is the policy of the depart- ment to provide for unemployed immigrants and their families for the first year they are in Canada, so that the problem does not arise at all during the first year. Then we have agreements for health care with seven of the ten provinces which can extend to as long as two years. But there is in the act this very controver- sial provision that a person who becomes a public charge can be deported. I know there is a good deal of feeling on both sides of the house about the wisdom of having that pro- vision in the act. I cannot take it out, but parliament can. I am not absolutely con- vinced that it would be a wise thing to take it out, although I am not terribly proud of hav- ing it there. Hon. members know that one of the reasons why it is there is that it was represented to us that if it were not there then in certain provinces and certain localities the entry of immigrants would be actively discouraged, and that on balance it is apt to make the flow of immigration greater than otherwise. But I must say that of all the things that are in the act it is the thing that I am least happy about, and I confess that quite frankly. Mr. Nesbi±: Would the minister permit a question? Mr. Pickersgill: Certainly. Mr. Nesbitt: I do not know whether the minister has discussed this matter with the [Mr. Knowles.] Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg), but with re- spect to people who become unemployed a short time after they have arrived in Canada is there any provision for assistance through the Department of Labour in the nature of unemployment insurance? Mr. Pickersgill: No, sir, assistance is given directly by my department for the first year. It is true, I believe, that the Department of Labour had a hostel at Ajax and it has one at St. Paul l'Ermite, but that is an activity that was associated with those large- scale movements with which the Department of Labour was concerned at one time. This activity is diminishing and virtually the whole job is done now by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. Of course, no person who becomes unemployed in the first year is ever regarded as being a public charge and deported. It is when that condi- tion arises later on that action is taken. I am not going to name names or con- stituencies but I would say, sir, that the only members who have written to me to suggest that any person should be deported because of becoming a public charge were certain hon. members of the official opposi- tion. I think perhaps before the opposition expresses too strong views on this subject they should have a caucus on it. But there again, sir, I am not minding my own business. I come now to part 2 of the hon. member's motion. If the hon. member wishes to withdraw part 2 and part 1 of his motion, I am quite prepared to sit down right now. Mr. Knowles: Getting tired? Mr. Pickersgill: I take it he is not. Part 2 of his motion is to the effect that the immi- gration policy is not in conformity with the needs or responsibilities of Canada. Now, what are the needs of Canada? The hon. member for Kamloops said that the needs of the country for more people are undis- puted. Well, if they are undisputed it would appear that we on this side recognize it just as much as anyone on the other side does. The hon. member for Kamloops and the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) both said immigration did not adversely affect the prospects for employment. The hon. member for Eglinton paid the department the compliment of reading a lot of depart- mental literature into the record to show where he had obtained the idea. I am glad there are some people in the country, and in the house, who do share the views held by the department and by the government that immigration, within the absorptive capa- city of our economy, does not adversely affect employment but does tend to stimulate employment. FEERUARY 17, 1955 At the saine tirne we do recognize it is desirable, Sa f ar as is hurnanly possible, ta tirne the immigration so that the higbest de- gree of influx coincides with the higbest degree of opportunity seasonally for employ- ment, not with the lowest. Most hon. mem- bers who cornmented on this aspect agreed with it. The only conclusion I could reach after rereading the speech of the hon. member for Kamnloops was that this part of bis motion was based on one phrase, and not entirely an original pbrase. It was the one phrase in bis speech which got headines in one of the newspapers. He talked about the govern- rnent's planning for a little Canada, and said it was ta be strongly condernned. I suppose that means, I do not want ta, be unfair, that we have flot brought in enougb immigrants; that there should have been more. What are the facts? Now, the new post-war immigration policy was inaugurated on May 1, 1947, as I bave rerninded hon. members several times taday. At tbat date the popula- tion of Canada was about 12 million. Seven years later the population of this country is 15 million, a 25 per cent increase. It is true there is an elernent in those figures that I ougbt ta mention. During that period, at midnight an March 31, 1949, we admitted about a third of a million additionai new citizens at one stroke. But even making al- lowance for the addition of the Newfound- landers, it is a very rapid rate of growtb indeed. I question very mucb wbether it cauld have been mucb faster. There may have been periads when it could have been a bit faster, but there have been other periods wben it migbt have been better if, in some categories, it had been slowed down a llttle sooner. You cannot gauge these tbings ac- curately. On the wbole, I doubt if there could have been a very much more rapid increase than that. The hon. rnember for Kamloops said we were neglecting British immigration. I do not suppose he expected anyone in the bouse ta take that seriously. I imagine that was one of the tbings ail of us sometirnes permit ourselves ta, say for cansumption elsewhere than in this bouse. As the bon. member knows, and as I am sure every bon. member knows, there is no country averseas frarn wbich it is easier ta came ta, Canada than the United Kingdom. We have fewer formalities, speedier pracedures and many more officers and officiais there than any- wbere else. We do carry on there what we are unable ta, do in very many cauntries, and that is an active pramotional campaign. Apparently the campaign is so active that Immigration sornetirnes the ban. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) flnds people who feel we are encouraging too many people ta corne ta Canada by telling thern it is too attractive a country. I believe the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Maltais) indicated that flot only were we doing everytbing we could ta encourage immigration from the United Kingdom, but that we were getting, on the whole, good resuits. Then the hon. member for Eglinton carne and put on his fiercest buildog expression, and bie barked at the house. When I first came- Mr. Murphy (Lambton West): He did not bray. Mr. Pickersgill: When I first carne ta the house, I used ta be a littie frightened by the hon. gentlemnan's bark. But when I found that practically ail bis bark was a commenda- tion of the immigration policy and of the resuits achieved, 1 feit ail I could do was express appreciation of most of what he said. Mr. Dufresne: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do flot believe the hon, gentle- man bas a right ta say that a member of this bouse is barking. I believe tbat expression should be withdrawn. Mr. Pickerglill: If I said anything offensive ta anyane, I witbdraw it unreservedly. I want ta, go on, sir, ta, tbe third part of tbe motion, which is really tbe first part. Irepeat my off er ta, the hon. member for Karnloops; if he wants ta, witbdraw part 1 of his motion, 1 wiil sit down. Mr. Fulton: I have no intention of with- drawing anything. It is even weigbtier than 1 bad realized. Mr. Pickersgill: Apparently the reason wby the immigration policy of the govern- ment is flot clear, consistent or co-ordinated is that on January 28, 1 believe it was, in a newspaper-and I did not check these dates -I arn supposed ta have said one tbing at a meeting in Ottawa West, and my right bon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is supposed ta have said sornething tbat differed in some way from what I said. His staternent was made at Winnipeg. Weil, now, there is quite a dJ.fference between me and the Minister of Agriculture. Mr. Fulton: But you are both long-winded. Mr. Pickersgill: The Minister of Agricul- ture bas been a politician for 40 years, and in ail that time he bas always expressed hlm- self in a bold and forthright fashion. I, sir, HOUSE OF COMMONS Immigration spent 16 years in the shelter of the civil service, and my natural mode of expression is timid and careful. The fear I expressed the other day at that meeting in Ottawa West was not the fear that our absorptive capacity was declining, because I do not think it is. Rather, the fear I expressed was that it was going to be more difficult to find suitable immigrants to come to Canada than it had been. And that, of course, is true. The economic conditions have improved so greatly in western Europe in the last two years that the economic inducement of people to migrate is very much less than it was. In consequence of this I recognize, and I think the house must recognize, that it is going to be a good deal more difficult to get the people we would most like to get, because we think they would fit best into the kind of society we have, and the kind we want to continue to have. If that is differing from the Minister of Agriculture, who wants more people to come, then I do not understand differences at all. The Minister of Agriculture may have a more optimistic attitude than I have as to how many people could come in a certain year. Indeed, I think it would be very unlikely that any two members on the treasury bench would agree exactly on a subject of that sort-which, after all, is only a matter of opinion. But we both agree that Canada can absorb immigrants; and we both agree we want to increase the population of this country through the right kind of immigration. And I do not think any small differences between us amount to a row of pins. Now, if you want a really clear and forth- right detailed blueprint for immigration to this country, here it is! I took the trouble to get a copy of the resolution adopted by the national convention of the Progressive Conservative party on September 30 and October 1 and 2 of 1948. Here is their reso- lution on immigration. Here is their clear, consistent, co-ordinated policy! A national policy for the development of Canada's natural resources and industrial capacity merits and makes necessary the introduction of a long range immigration policy calculated to bring into Canada selected immigrants whose qualifications are such as to effectively permit them to be assimilated into our democratic way of life. Let me add that I did not split the infini- tive, sir. It continues: Such immigration should be conducted in close co-operation between the dominion and the prov- inces. An hon. Member: What is wrong with that? Mr. Pickersgill: I did not suggest at any time there was anything wrong with it. In fact, the only words I used were words of [Mr. Pickersgill.] commendation. But when one compares that with the detailed and forthright language used by Mr. Mackenzie King on May 1, 1947, most of which I repeated in a speech I made at Dauphin, Manitoba-and which I would be glad to send to any hon. member who would like to have it, either for reading, or for reference purposes- Some hon. Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Pickersgill: I am not going to read this speech to the house although, Mr. Speaker, I am very much tempted to do so. I am proud of it. However, I think I will read the concluding paragraphs because they do attempt to summarize in very general terms what is said in more detail elsewhere in the speech. This was what I said: There is a mistaken impression in some quarters that the right to migrate from one country to another is one of the rights recognized in the uni- versal declaration of human rights drawn up by the United Nations. It is not. As the law stands in Canada today and as it has always stood, the only persons who have an unqualified right to be in this country are Canadian citizens and, of course, the Sovereign. Immigrants who have been in Canada long enough to acquire Canadian domicile, but who have not yet become citizens, have very considerable legal rights and, under the existing law, immigra- tion officers have no right to prevent them from returning to Canada so long as they retain their Canadian domicile. But parliament has always reserved to the gov- ernment the right to select the persons who may be admitted to this country as immigrants with the intention of becoming members of our national household. Parliament tas laid down certain principles to govern the selection of immigrants, and the government itself has laid down more detailed regulations based on those principles. Broadly speaking, these principles boil down to this. We try to select as immigrants those who will have to change their ways least in order to adapt themselves to Canadian life and to con- tribute to the development of the Canadian nation. That is why entry to Canada is virtually free to citizens of the United Kingdom, the United States and France so long as they have good health and good characters. Mr. Fulton: Was that all one paragraph? Mr. Pickersgill: That is why a deliberate preference is shown for immigrants from countries with political and social institutions similar to our own. That is why a deliberate preference is given to the relatives of Canadian citizens and other persons already resi- dent in Canada. And that is why a deliberate preference is given to people possessing qualifica- tions or occupations which give them an oppor- tunity for employment or establishment. In all these cases, the immigrant. other things being equal, is likely to find his feet faster and to adapt himself to our ways better than other immi- grants without these qualifications. Ali this is not to say that we set up, or pretend to set up, immigrants from some countries or of some races as being superior to others in an absolute or intrinsic sense. All we are saying is that we have already built a certain kind of nation here in the northern half of North America and FEBRUARY 17, 1955 that we want to preserve the kind of nation we have built and that we want to admit, as partners in the development of our nation, those new- comers we consider are most likely to help us most to maintain and develop the kind of nation we want Canada to remain. Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert): Mr. Speaker, as an endurance marathon the house has indeed had an example this afternoon of the number of words that could be placed side by side in a period of two hours and leave the house without any knowledge what- soever of the immigration policy of this country. Indeed, as I listened to the hon. member and recalled that at one time he was the custodian of many of the ideas of a former prime minister, I could not help but conclude that I might paraphrase the policy of another day: immigration if neces- sary, but not necessarily immigration. It was an unusual speech. It brought the house once more back to the days when the ability to draw on classical allusions and quote from forgotten history was common. The house has lost that talent in recent years. The minister revealed his erudition when he recalled the days of Boadicea. I could not but conclude that his ideas of immigration were indeed secured from those days when Boadicea lived in England and did not wish immigrants from Europe to overrun that country. It was an interesting speech. If ever the words of the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) were established by a minister of the crown, they were this afternoon by the minister. He said that a mess was left to the present minister by his predecessor. The minister established beyond any doubt today that the only difference between what he inherited and what now exists is a few more ingredients which he himself has added while he has been in office. As I listened to the enunciation of the absolutism in that department I realized some of the reasons that the department of immi- gration and the department of Indian affairs should be joined together in these two 'I" departments. The minister gave us to under- stand that as far as immigration is con- cerned, and -certainly as far as Indian affairs are concerned, whatever he decides to do is indeed proper and fitting, and ought not to be challenged in the courts of our country. Mr. Pickersgill: I said it should be chal- lenged in parliament. Mr. Diefenbaker: I do not want to quote anyone who is prejudiced. The minister says that the immigration laws of this country are being administered in a way that is equitable, in a manner that recognizes the fact that we are dealing not with digits but Immigration with human beings. I quote as the first wit- ness not one who is prejudiced but one of the most distinguished jurists in our country, a man who I believe was the successor of the Prime Minister as one of the senior officials of the Canadian Bar Association, one of the men who represented this country in San Francisco in 1945. I refer to Chief Justice Farris of British Columbia, a man who at one time, while in politics, was a supporter of this government, a man whose brother, one of the most distinguished of the Canadian bar, is a senator of our country. This is what he said on January 19, 1955: Immigration officials are "fooling the public". As I listened to my hon. friend I came to the conclusion that that attitude of mind extended to those in the most senior posi- tions in the department of immigration. Chief Justice Farris said: Department is circumventing the Immigration Act. The minister says: "Trust me. We will not do anything wrong if we have absolute power. Just trust us; we know." I watched the Prime Minister as my bon. friend revealed his attitude toward the legal profession when he said: We dare not let solicitors know the reason that we refuse admission to immi- grants from other lands because they might use the information improperly. Never in my experience in the house has there been a greater calumny levelled against the members of the legal profession. Does my hon. friend not know that even if undesirable individuals find their way into the legal profession, that any information they have secured as solici- tors cannot be used? Yet his explanation as to the reason that solicitors should not be made aware in any way of the hidden Star Chamber reasons which deny prospective immigrants the right to come to this country is that he is afraid the lawyers might take advantage of it. That was the attitude taken in the reign of Charles I by the then head of the Star Chamber when he once said: "We administer justice; we need no lawyers, and whatever we do is right." That was said in 1642, and Your Honour will recall that the person on behalf of whom that statement was made lost a head, and a good one, in consequence of the Star Chamber activities. I read you another judgment. On Novem- ber 19, 1954, a recent appointee to the supreme court of Ontario, Mr. Justice Stewart, said, as reported in the Toronto Star: If immigration department regulations require Czechoslovakia-born Vojen Cech, now in Canada as a visitor, to return to Venezuela to apply for entry into this country as an immigrant, It is utter nonsense. HOUSE OF COMMONS Immigration Yesterday in the city of Montreal a former member of this house, Mr. Justice Rheaume, made this statement when George Sylvestre Simmonds, a Jamaican student at the Uni- versity of Toronto, who married a Canadian girl, was about to be deported and made an application by way of habeas corpus to stay in Canada. There was nothing he could do. He then went on to say this: The department had failed to establish a justi- fiable cause for the deportation, but the order had to be complied with because all the legal formalities had been followed. That was yesterday. The judge said that there was no justification for sending this Jamaican home. He was a good citizen. The judge then uttered these words which my hon. friend might engrave on the doorway into his office: "I cannot remain indifferent to sentiments of hospitality"- Yes, the letter of the law killeth. My hon. friend says, trust us. He places himself on a pedestal and says that the decisions that he in his omnipotence makes shall be unchal- lenged. That statement was made by him today. I do not say that mistakes will not be made. My hon. friend points out that several hundred thousand people have come into Canada since 1945. Mr. Pickersgill: Over a million. Mr. Diefenbaker: Over a million, yes, but two come in and one goes out. Over a million. Yes, mistakes will be made. There is bound to be some bungling and there are bound to be injustices in individual cases. I would not hold a minister of the government respon- sible for those things because they happen so long as men are subject to the ordinary vicissitudes and emotions of life. In so far as the administration of this de- partment is concerned, this is the first time that I know, when bungling has become the cornerstone of policy, when what is done by the supreme authority of this department is to be placed above the courts of our land. One judge after another has had to conclude that, indeed, if the department uses a reason- able degree of care, however tyrannical the decision may be, that decision is not chal- lengeable in the courts. That is why this motion was brought before parliament. My hon. friend says that we did not raise this motion last year. The reason it was not raised from time to time when we went into supply was that we did not expect that what had been done in 1935, and in 1952, putting off immigration to the last, had become a way of action to be continued in 1954. What is being done today in the immigra- tion department has been described by the [Mr. Diefenbaker.] Edmonton Journal as a national scandal. It refers to the arbitrary and secretive manner in which cases are handled, to say nothing of the outright favouritism displayed on some occasions. When there is no recourse to the courts the power of discrimination becomes intensified. Delays have been inexcusable. I have case after case here of people being pushed around, of arrogance and abuse of authority. These are the things that the courts of this country have objected to. This afternoon we welcomed the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) to this house. In June, 1954, during the last days of the session he asked for a royal commission to investigate what has been recognized by papers across our country, without regard to party, as a mess. He repeated that request in September when he returned from abroad. The need for it was proved today by the minister in his speech. In the presence of my leader I say that what has taken place can no longer be permitted to continue with- out intensive examination through a royal commission, to the end that the actions of the last year, the last two years and the last three years shall not become a continued and perpetual portion of the administration of that department. My hon. friend has said to the hon. mem- ber for Kamloops "What has Magna Carta to do with it?" I was surprised to hear that statement from my hon. friend with his vast erudition in history. What has Magna Carta to do with it? Long years ago in 1215 Magna Carta made a declaration, and it has been of the essence of the British peoples ever since: to no man will we deny, to no man will we delay, justice. Is there anyone in this house who will tell me that when the minister is despotic and highhanded, when he rides roughshod over the statute, when he substitutes the caprice of a minister for the will of parlia- ment, the courts of this country should not have the right to say: You shall not do that. My hon. friend says that the courts do not understand, and I am going to refer to that a little later because that is the attitude of the departmental senior official. The min- ister says: You have an appeal» An appeal to Caesar, to the minister himself. An appeal from the hired man to the hired man's boss. What a travesty on justice it is that a minister under the power granted by parlia- ment makes regulations, the officials inter- pret the regulations on a day-to-day basis without uniformity, they decide the rights of the individual in secret and refuse to let the individual know their reasons for making a decision. I thought that all this had been swept aside generations ago. When the de- partment lost a case in the courts what did FEBRUARY 17, 1955 it do? It delayed doing anything. The min- ister says that when a decision is made the individual has a recourse, but that recourse is in mandamus, which places upon him the onus to establish a right which the minister denies exists in the individual. There have been postponements and in- finite delays. People desirous of coming to our country have waited, and the answer given is that they cannot corne yet, that they may be able to come some time in the future. Hope may spring eternal in the hu- man breast but that does not apply to those who have made application to corne to Can- ada under our present immigration laws. Does the house know what the deputy minister said with regard to appeals to the courts? Winnipeg is a place known to both the minister and me. We both know the Fort Garry hotel in Winnipeg. It was in Winnipeg, but not in the Fort Garry hotel, that the Canadian Bar Association had its meeting. I am not saying anything against Colonel Fortier because he is merely carry- ing out the regulations of two ministers, but he did give an answer there. Somebody suggested that the individual should be given recourse to the courts. My hon. friend will agree that to deny to the individual the right of his day in court invariably builds up power in those who are above challenge, and permits them to treat the rights of the individual as non- existent. At the meeting of the Canadian Bar Association in Winnipeg, the following resolution was passed regarding these powers: 1. Due notice of the proceedings before any board to any person directly concerned therein. 2. Notice of the facts which the administrative body considers relevant to the complaint or pro- ceeding. 3. The right to anyone adversely affected thereby to contest the allegations which would include in appropriate cases the right to cross-examine. 4. The right to have counsel before administrative agencies. 5. An obligation upon administrative tribunals to set forth the facts which they find and the reasons for their decision. That was the resolution of the law society of Ontario of which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) is a member. What did the deputy minister say when it was suggested that the individual should have a right of recourse to the courts? This is what he said: One danger in giving the rejected applicant recourse to the courts is that a court may reach a final decision. The beauty of the department's present system is that the civil service can review and review and review and the applicant always has the hope that some day he mav be admitted. That is a masterpiece of an explanation against having cases taken to the court, namely because about cases in the courts Immigration there is a finality that does not exist in these administrative bodies and that as to those people who want to come, although they have been turned down, the cases may be reviewed and some day, somewhere, the individuals may be admitted to Canada. Then he also said this: Sometimes the department might make a slip and deal with a lawyer's client. If we allowed applicants to know why they were rejected it would be a wrong thing for the protection of the country. Somebody asked Mr. Fortier this question: Why would it be wrong to tell the individual why he was turned down? And he gave in effect the same answer that the minister gave today: "I am afraid I cannot say why". Mr. Speaker, this is the institution that my hon. friend defends today. I hold no brief for any member of the committee on civil liberties that dealt with the subject of immigration. That committee was composed of three lawyers: Mr. McDonald who is even at the present time, according to his recent state- ment, head of the Liberal organization in this part of Ontario; Mr. Dickey-and I use that form because his name appears here in that way-the senior member for Halifax, for whom I have the highest regard; and Mr. Taylor, with whom I am unacquainted. This committee was set up for the purpose of investigating the situation that existed in the department of immigration. The committee met. They had a series of meetings and I intend to refer to thern if I have time to do so. They made certain recommendations. My hon. friend read those recommendations and I am not going to repeat them. Then appa- rently things started to move. I was greatly surprised at my hon. friend today speaking in such disparaging terms of Mr. McDonald. He gave us to understand that Mr. McDonald was a man who would make a spectacularly unjustifiable speech in order to attain prorninence in the press. My hon. friend is in a position to judge him; I am not. But that was his considered opinion. Mr. Pickersgill: Those were not exactly my words. Mr. Diefenbaker: Oh, no. I have under- stated it, as my hon. friend said. I under- stated my hon. friend's words. Mr. Pickersgill: I said he was a Liberal politician. Mr. Diefenbaker: As a matter of fact, my hon. friend told us that he was a student of words and of the dictionary, having been trained under Mr. King to get the finest shades of meaning of words as they appeared in the dictionary. HOUSE OF COMMONS Immigration Mr. Rowe: That is why he said what he said this afternoon. Mr. Diefenbaker: Here is what Mr. Mc- Donald said. Mr. McDonald came back to Ottawa. Still "stunned" by the "surprising" reaction to the report, Mr. McDonald returned to Ottawa only today to find himself accused in some quarters of "political treacherv". Possibly my hon. friend would be able to fill in the facts about the person who held such a view of Mr. McDonald's public activities. For two years the bar association subcommittee on civil liberties, of which Mr. McDonald was chairman, had been investigating the operations of the immigration department. Then he goes on to say this. He says he held a press conference. Then he really opened up. He told what he knew of the department. In speaking of him, my hon. friend was rather disparaging when he spoke over the radio on a press conference. He said that Mr. McDonald did not have much ex- perience in immigration, except as a lawyer. Anyway, Mr. McDonald said that he stood behind everything he had said not only in the report in which he was joined by the senior member for Halifax but also in the press conference and the various statements made by him. In other words, the stand that Mr. McDonald took was this: "I am unrepentant and what I said is unrevised but true". Mr. Dickey, the senior member for Halifax, resigned from the committee. The minister explained that he did so but he went on to say-and I say this with the greatest respect for the senior member for Halifax-that while Mr. Dickey had resigned as a member of the committee, he had not refuted the statements contained in the report. What was the report? That report has been placed before you, Mr. Speaker. It was a report in which was revealed the fact that a committee on civil liberties had brought matters to the attention of the then minister, the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris), on several occasions. My hon. friend referred to the report attached to the report given by this committee and it states as follows: Four meetings of the full committee were held in Ottawa- That means that all three members were present. -and eight other meetings of two members of the committee were held in Ottawa and Montreal. It goes on to say that they brought these things to the attention of the minister: In its 1953 report, the committee recommended certain administrative reforms within the Depart- ment of Citizenship and Immigration itself and the creation of an immigration appeal board based on a judicial and legal concept. [Mr. Diefenbaker.] Surely that was a reasonable request. These lawyers were endeavouring to bring about a removal of the tyrannical conduct of the department. They did not regard political considerations as of any importance. They rose above that consideration. I ask you, could you have a more impartial jury to look into the activities of the immigration depart- ment than Mr. McDonald and the senior mem- ber for Halifax (Mr. Dickey)? Incidentally, Mr. McDonald says he is going to run next time in Carleton constituency. There is a question mark at the end of that statement in the report, but I think that was an error. This was the report which they forwarded in 1954. They asked for possible codification of regulations issued by the department and the publication of interdepartmental directives to field officers. They did that to the end that there would be uniformity so that there would be no discrimination for or against anyone in the making of decisions, and so that there would be an approach to unity among the various officials. They asked for the implementation of proper and legal appeal procedures as recom- mended in last year's report of the subcom- mittee. They asked for the establishment of a procedure setting forth reasons for rejec- tions in each case in such a way as to give the rejected party or the applicant concerned an opportunity of overcoming the depart- ment's objections. Finally, they asked that the committee's recommendations made in the 1953 report be implemented. In their report the three members of the subcommittee said: Your subcommittee expresses regret that no action has been taken by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to implement any of the recommendations contained in its 1953 report. We recommend that the subcommittee be continued for a further year, that it be instructed to continue to examine the administration of im- migration Iaws and regulations in accordance with its terms of reference . . . Now, sir, why were these recommenda- tions not accepted? My hon. friend brushed them aside and said that there was not much in them. I have read the material part but there are some other very interesting parts dealing with why reasons should be given. The report says: Few Canadians realize that the minister need not: (a) notify his own department as to why he adopted a certain course . . . Mr. Dickey: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I think the hon. member should identify the document from which he is now reading. Mr. Diefenbaker: Oh, I did. This is a report of the subcommittee on civil liberties dealing with immigration, the committee members being John H. McDonald, Ottawa, John Hl. Dickey, M.P., Halifax, Nova Scotia, and John R. Taylor, Vancouver. The report is dated August 10, 1954. Mr. Dickey: On a question of privilege- An hon. Member: Sit down. Mr. Dickey: The document from which the hon. member is reading is flot the document that he has identified. Mr. Diefenbaker: The document I arn reading from is an official document that was filed with the Canadian Bar Association and attached to the report. It is dated August 10, 1954, and it is that document from which I arn reading. Mr. Dickey: On a question of privilege, the hon. member has now clarified the situation. He is reading from a document attached to the report and not; from the report. Mr. Diefenbaker: I have pointed out that this was attached to the report and that the narnes of the three cornmittee members are to be found at the very beginning of the report. Mr. Pickersgill: I also rise on a question of privilege. Mr. Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. friend. Mr. Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I have risen on a question of privilege. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite): Order. I think it would be impossible to decide whether or not there is a question of privilege until the Chair can hear it. Mr. Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I read the full report that was actually presented at Winnipeg and that passage was not in the document at ail. Mr. Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it was not in the document my hon. friend rend. I will proceed to read what this appendix says, and 1 do not want to repeat. Few Canadians realize that the minister need flot . . . : Yes; 1932. Mr. Pickersgill: He surely does not expect us to take responsibility for what was done in 1932. Mr. Cameron MCuoch (Pctou) 1293FEBRUARY 18, 1955 HOUSE OF COMMONS Private Bills-Divorce I heard the evidence which he gave, and I think it should be brought to the attention of this house so that some authority outside of the house may take action. The gentleman's name is George C. Hider, and he was giving evidence as an investi- gator on behalf of the petitioner. As re- ported on page 11 of the transcript he said that he was an investigator living in Dorval. He stated also that he was formerly a police- man. After being employed by the petitioner he had occasion to go to check a room in a hotel. I do not intend to go into the evi- dence in the case. He knocked at the door, and in response to an inquiry from within he said he was a policeman. Immediately he gave that evidence the chairman of the committee quite properly asked him about it. He admitted that he was formerly a policeman, that he carried a badge as an investigator and was employed by a firm known as Maxham Associates of Montreal. The chairman questioned him about hav- ing called himself a policeman, and he ad- mitted readily that that evidence was correct. None of us in this bouse takes credit from having to handle as many divorce cases as we do, but we hope that when these cases have been heard in the other place the evidence given is at least true. I do not wish to prejudice the case of the petitioner, because I think the divorce was properly granted in the other place. This witness admitted before the committee of the Senate that he had impersonated an officer. We now have the same evidence before this bouse. I bring this to your attention, because I think some action should be taken outside of this house. Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): Mr. Speaker, I wish to join with the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Goode) in the remarks he has made, and to say that to my knowledge there are similar circumstances in con'nection with a number of other cases which are on the order paper for our consideration today. In a vein similar to that in which I spoke a few days ago I want to congratulate Senator Kinley for standing up to this man and objecting to the course he was following. For example, I find that Senator Kinley said to him: But that badge does not give you any right to go into the room, does it? The investigator in question tried to jus- tify what he had done. Later on, after about a page of evidence, I find that Senator Kin- ley spoke to him again. The investigator having said that he obtained the authority from his employer, the investigating agency, [Mr. Goode.] this was the question asked by Senator Kinley and the answer of the investigator: Q. I do not think he bas any authority to give you that right.-A. I don't know, my lord, but if we did not say that sometimes they would not open the door. It is an easy matter of getting in, and you don't have to see the manager or the bellhop or somebody like that to get in. I may say, Mr. Speaker, that the point raised by the hon. member for Burnaby- Richmond can be found in reading the evidence in a number of the cases which are before us today. In one instance one of the senators got an investigator to admit that there is a difference in status between an investigator and a detective. Time and again these men simply reiterate that they have gotten in by saying "I am a detective". Senator Kinley pointed out on one occasion that they more or less scare the persons in- side a room by flashing a badge. The fact of the matter is that, as the senators have brought out, deception is being practised in connection with these matters. I do not think that is a proper basis on which to ask parliament to pass judgment in connection with matters of this kind. I con- gratulate the hon. member for Burnaby- Richmond on raising this matter. I con- gratulate Senator Kinley on trying to bring it out in the evidence. With my hon. friend across the way, I hope that something will be done about it. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the bouse to adopt the motion? Some hon. Members: Carried. Mr. Knowles: On division. Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time. Mr. Deputy Speaker: There are still a num- ber of divorce bills on the order paper. Mr. Knowles: Will you call the next one by itself, Mr. Speaker? RETA MURIEL HADDEN MOFFIT Mr. W. G. Weir (for Mr. Hunier) moved the second reading of Bill No. 94, for the relief of Reta Muriel Hadden Moffit. Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure the house, for the reason that I do not think we should spend the time of parliament on this business, that it is not my intention to ask that any of the other bills before us today be considered by itself. I felt, however, that this one should be singled out along with the one we have already spoken about briefly, because there is some similarity in them. FEBRUARY 18, 1955 A moment ago the hon. member for Burna- by-Richmond gave the name of the investi- gator who admitted what he was doing in the other case. In this instance we find another name, that of Charles Charron, who is a member of the same firm. The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond nods his head to that statement. Charles Charron is a member of the same firm and he follows the same tac- tics. On page -12 of the evidence in this case we find that Mr. Charron was before the committee in the other place and that he said this: The man came and opened the door and I showed him my badge and I said, 'I am a detective" . . . Elsewhere in the evidence it was admitted before the committee that his status was only that of an investigator. He does not have a legal right to impersonate a police officer and carry on on that basis. There is far too much deception and far too much falsehood under- lying the evidence upon which we are asked to pass judgment on these cases in parlia- ment, and I think it is clear that we should get out of this business altogether. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion? Mr. Knowles: On division. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Carried on division. Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time. SECOND READINGS-SENATE BILLS Mr. Deputy Speaker: There now remain on the order paper a number of divorce bills, items No. 37 to No. 65 inclusive. Shall these bills be considered in one motion? Some hon. Members: Agreed. Mr. Knowles: That will make another 29. Bill No. 95, for the relief of Meta Avard Wheatley Griffin.-Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 96, for the relief of Emma Melite Latvaityte Vairogs.-Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 97, for the relief of Marie Jeanne D'Arc Marcelle Bernier Lemieux.-Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 98, for the relief of Lois Audrey Jemima Patch Howell.-Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 99, for the relief of Dorothy Izenberg Lenetsky.-Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 100, for the relief of George Reilly Hunter.-Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 101, for the relief of Donald William Downie.-Mr. Hunter. 50433-83 1301 Private BiUs-Divorce Bill No. 102, for the relief of Rita Barlatti Devlin.-Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 103, for the relief of Ruby Kitts Shea.-Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 104, for the relief of Margaret Pearl MeNamara Rowlatt.-Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 105, for the relief of Mabel King- horn Marshall.-Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 106, for the relief of Shirley Norah Farrar Mizener.-Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 107, for the relief of Jane Schubert Clark Bernard.-Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 108, for the relief of Irene Joan Fabian Jefford.-Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 109, for the relief of Lois Silby Walker Torunski.-Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 110, for the relief of Lillian Dorothy Menzies Drennan.-Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 111, for the relief of Henry Edwin Lasnier.-Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 112, for the relief of Elsa Kremer Ellmaurer.-Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 113, for the relief of Christine Bennie Kelly Mooney.-Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 114, for the relief of Shirley Patricia King Craddock.-Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 115, for the relief of Nomi Meijero- wicz Goldenstein.-Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 116, for the relief of Edith Dora Hyndman Ross.-Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 117, for the relief of Irene Annetta Thomas Bromby.-Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 118, for the relief of Arthur Edmund Oliver.-Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 119, for the relief of Joseph Zawiski.-Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 120, for the relief of Mary Jagiello Kaczynski.-Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 121, for the relief of Eleanor Honor Connolly Sutcliffe.-Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 122, for the relief of Marie Laurenza Suzanne Bolduc Hawkins.-Mr. Hunter. Bill No. 123, for the relief of Daniel Joseph MacLean.-Mr. Hunter. FOOD AND DRUGS ACT AMENDMENT RESPECTING BRANDING AND WRAPPING Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops) moved the second reading of Bill No. 8, to amend the Food and Drugs Act (misbranding). He said: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if it would be appropriate for me to observe as I move second reading of this bill that here we are dealing, if not with another form of adultera- tion, most certainly with another form of Food and Drugs Act deception. The object of this bill is to make it impossible for those persons or concerns who package meat to deceive the public by wrap- ping their meat in cellophane or other similar wrappings with red stripes. I should perhaps read the section of the bill. It is short; in fact it is the whole bill. It will place the matter before the house in its full context. The section reads as follows: 1. Section 24 of the Food and Drugs Act, chap- ter 38 of the statutes of 1952-53, is amended by adding thereto the following subsection: "(3) For greater certainty, but without restrict- ing the generality of any of the foregoing, such regulations shall provide that it shall be an offence against this act to sell or offer for sale meat or any meat products wrapped in cellophane or other wrapping which bears any stripes, printing or other marks of a red or red-tinged colour". The context of this bill with relation to the Food and Drugs Act as a whole is this. Section 24 of the act, incidentally, was enacted during the session of 1952-53 but was proclaimed and came into force between the adjournment of last session, that is 1954, and the calling of this session. Section 24 of that bill gives to the governor in council powers as follows: The governor in council may make regulations for carrying the purposes and provisions of this act into effect, and, in particular, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing, may make regulations . . . (b) respecting . . . (i) the labelling and packaging and the offering, exposing and advertising for sale of food, drugs, cosmetics and devices, . . . to prevent the consumer or purchaser thereof from being deceived or misled as to its quantity, character, value, composition, merit or safety or to prevent injury to the health of the consumer or purchaser. It would seem to me that there is ample power now in the hands of the governor general to make regulations covering the sub- ject matter of the bill now before the bouse, but the fact is that up to the present time that bas not been done. It has been the ex- perience of many shoppers-I would say probably 95 per cent of those who buy bacon and similar products in the stores, particularly bacon-that it appears on the meat counters wrapped in cellophane packages which con- tain a large number of red horizontal stripes, the effect of which is that when you look at the whole package it appears that you are buying bacon or other meat products with a great deal of lean meat in it. I am quite sure that other members of this house have been in the position I have been in, when occasion- ally-it seems to be mostly on Saturday afternoons-the head of the household takes over the shopping. I beg your pardon; I should not call him the head of the household; rather shall I say the male member of the household. [Mr. Fulton.] Mr. Martin: That is a rather ambiguous way of saying that someone else is the head of the household. Mr. Knowles: Equal pay for equal work. Mr. Fulton: I am not going to get off on side issues here. However, when it comes to the matter of keeping the household run- ning every man knows who really is respon- sible for that end of it. Anyway, it is the general experience of those who buy bacon in packaged form that they are misled as to the quantity of lean meat in the bacon by this type of packaging. It used to be the case, so I am told by my wife, that many women, expecting as it were to be misled if they relied upon the outward appearance of the package, used to unwrap it and have a look at the contents before they actually bought it. It appears that those who package these meats found that was happen- ing, because now I am told that in many cases when you go to the meat counter and pick up one of these meat packages it is wrapped and bound in addition with sticky paper, so it is impossible for you to open the package without actually destroying the wrapping. Of course once you have done that you are pretty well morally bound ta purchase the article, because it cannot be restored to the shelf. The situation is that this practice of wrap- ping meat products, whether it be bacon, ham or any other type of meat, though I believe it is mainly bacon, does have the effect of misleading customers and making it impos- sible for the customer to ascertain the qual- ity of the article that is being purchased. If the customer relies upon the outward appear- ance of it, then he or she is certainly misled as to its actual quality or nature. After introducing the bill for first read- ing, I received quite a substantial volume of correspondence from housewives and others who have indicated their support for the project. There have also been drawn to my attention a number of articles in the press in which local officers of consumers' associa- tions and similar women's organizations have expressed themselves as in agreement with the principle of what the bill is trying to do. I understand that as a result a statement was recently made by an officer of the De- partment of National Health and Welfare, which is the department responsible for the administration of this act, to the effect that the department have had this matter under consideration and that they had recently, as the result of conferences with the processors and packagers of meat products, brought about a situation in which it is expected that these types of packaging will disappear. I understand that an order in council has not 1302 HOUSE OF COMMONS been passed, but that it has rather been by agreement between the department and the industry concerned. I am not going into any more detail be- cause I understand that the minister will be outlining to the house the action his depart- ment bas taken and the results they hope for. I will only say that I am very glad indeed this action has been taken. I say in no unduly critical sense that I think it is long overdue, because this is not a new complaint. I recog- nize that it may be a difficult problem, but the power to deal with it bas been in the Food and Drugs Act for a number of years. I have referred to the present Food and Drugs Act, which is chapter 38 of the statutes of 1952-53. The former food and drugs act, which appears as chapter 123 of the revised statutes of 1952, gave the governor in council similar power to make regulations to deal with this situation. That power was found in section 3 of the former act. Section 8 of the old act deals specifically with the offence of misbranding and states: Food or drug shall be deemed to be misbranded within the meaning of this act if ... (d) It is so coloured or coated, powdered or polished that damage is concealed, or it is made to appear better or of greater value than it really is. Alternatively, under subsection (h) of the old section 8 an article was misbranded if it was packaged in a form which would have a misleading effect. Therefore in my sub- mission there has been power in the governor in council for a number of years to deal with this situation by making a regulation which would constitute it the offence of misbranding to package meat or meat products in cello- phane or other wrapping which bears any stripes, printing or other marks of a red or red-tinged colour. It is my view that it is incumbent upon the governor in council to protect the public from this form of misleading packaging by the purveyors, processors or packagers of food products. I find, incidentally, that there is a very similar power in the Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act, which again provides a general regulation giving power to the governor in council. Section 32 is as follows: The governor in council may, with respect to any live stock or live stock product produced within or imported into Canada, make regula- tions. .. (b) respecting inspection, grading, packing, labelling, branding and marking and the manner thereof; (c) prescribing types, sizes and specifications of packages, packing material and methods of packing. In these two subsections and in other parts of the act there are, I submit, and have been since 1939, powers in the governor in council 50433-83J Food and Drugs Act to deal with this type of practice. However, since it is specifically covered under the Food and Drugs Act, and since the jurisdiction of the federal government under that act is not open to any question whatsoever, it seems ta me more appropriate to deal with it under that act, and it is for that reason I have drawn my bill as it is. While this bill-I should not call it "my bill" because it is now the property of the house-deals only with the packaging in this misleading form of meat or meat products, I do not wish in any way to be taken as indicating that this is the whole of the prob- lem. I think that in too many cases there are attempts by processors and packagers of food to mislead the public; but this, I think, is one of the most glaring cases. Perhaps, if you like, it is one of the easier types to deal with; therefore parliament should insist that effective action be taken. I would hope that effective action in this case will be a salutary warning that effective action will be taken without delay in other cases of similar offences or misleading prac- tices. Referring particularly to the products of our farms and fields, surely Canada can and does produce food of the highest order and our consumers are singularly privileged, or should be, with respect to the standard and quality of the foods offered to them for sale and consumption. This practice is to my mind profoundly irritating and most definitely against the public interest from every point of view; commercially from the point of view of the farmers who initially produce this food; economically from the point of view of the interests of the trade which de- pends in the long run upon the good will of its customers, and most certainly from the moral point of view. People going into a store are entitled to rely upon the general standard of those who offer goods for sale for eventual consumption, and are entitled to believe they are getting goods of the quality indicated by- the outward appearance of the package they- buy. Practices of this sort are among the most despicable that could be indulged in, practices which have the effect of misleading the consumer who is up against sufficient problems himself or herself without having to worry about whether the article he or she is buying is actually of the standard which it would outwardly appear to be. I want to say this. I know that probably the majority of our food processors and pack- ers are reputable firms. They will suffer, of course, from the unfortunate and misleading; actions of others who seek to make what; amounts to a dishonest dollar. There are. many, even of the larger firms, who have, resorted to this type of packaging. I feel it: FEBRUARY 18, 1955 1303 HOUSE OF COMMONS Food and Drugs Act does not matter whether they be big or small; those who indulge in this type of practice are all open to equal condemnation. As I have indicated, I understand the min- ister will say what action his department is taking. I hope it will be indicated that the action will be effective. I would therefore sug- gest, without having authority to in any way bind anyone else in the house, that if after the minister has spoken it is felt he has estab- lished a good case, then debate on the bill might be adjourned. This procedure would have the effect that the bill would stand on the order paper and would be there if in the course of a few months it would appear that the action taken by the department was not having the desired result. The bill would be there and it could be proceeded with on some other occasion in this hour between five and six. Speaking for myself, I would certainly undertake that for the space of a few months, at any rate, I would be happy to see the matter adjourned. I confess I would rather handle it in that way than withdraw the bill. I should like to make it clear that I am not suggesting that now I have spoken, no one else should do so, but it seems to me it might be handled that way. Perhaps after the minister has spoken, and those others who want to speak have done so, the debate might be adjourned. Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare): I believe I should take part in the debate now, in view of what my bon. friend has said, so the public will be given the assurance which I believe they are entitled to receive. I shall take the position, of course, as my hon. friend has anticipated, that the law as it stands at present is ade- quate to deal with this particular problem; accordingly the proposed amendment is not necessary. Indeed, I do not think it is as affective as the provisions of the law now are. My hon. friend complained, of course, that :he law has not been enforced. I take it that is the sum and substance of what he has said. I should say to the hon. member that I feel the action he has taken will serve a purpose in that it will afford the house generally an opportunity of expressing its views on this matter. I shall readily admit at once that it is a practice which cannot, under any cir- cumstances, be condoned. The Food and Drugs Act, as a federal enactment, was specifically drafted so as to bring it within federal jurisdiction as crim- inal law, as being an act to protect the public against fraud and injury to health. The pro- visions thereof, therefore, must either relate directly to fraud or health or be necessarily [Mr. Fulton.] incidental thereto. I am afraid that if we were to accept this bill, altogether apart from the question of whether or not the existing law is adequate, we would be creating great danger to the constitutionality of the Food and Drugs Act itself. My hon. friend shakes his head, but may I tell him that is our concern in the matter. Section 5 (1) of the existing act provides: No person shall label, package, treat, process, sell or advertise any food in a manner that is false, misleading or deceptive or is likely to create an erroneous impression regarding its character, value, quantity, composition, merit or safety. That section, by itself, certainly is adequate to deal with the practice complained of. The only exception to section 5 is contained in section 6, which deals with standards and really has nothing to do with the particular issue. Section 5 (1) which I have just read is complemented by section 24 (1) (b), to which my bon. friend directed the attention of the house, and that section authorizes the governor in council to make regulations re- specting the following: (i) the labelling and packaging and the offering, exposing and advertising for sale of food . . . (ii) the size, dimensions, fili and other specifica- tions of packages of food . . . (iii) the sale or the condition of sale of any food . . . to prevent the consumer or purchaser thereof from being deceived or misled as to its quantity, character, value, composition, merit or safety . . . This regulation is identified, of course, with section 5 (1) by section 5 (2) which provides: An article of food that is not labelled or packaged as required by the regulations or is labelled or packaged contrary to the regulations, shall be deemed to be labelled or packaged contrary to subsection (1). If wrappers such as are the subject of my hon. friend's bill are deceptive, then their use is in violation of section 5 (1). I have referred to the section which gives the governor in council the power to make regulations, under which a specific regulation could of course be made to deal with the point raised in the hon. member's proposal. I think it is important to keep in mind en- forcement in the event of court action. If, of course, striped wrappers are not deceptive, then the validity of a regulation under the authority I have mentioned would, in my view, be open to challenge as not coming within the area of deception which is the basis for regulations under that authority. If such wrappers are deceptive, then a specific regulation could, of course, be made prohibit- ing their use. But this would involve, in my judgment, an undesirable departure from the general pattern of the regulations, in that it would deal specifically with the packaging of a particular food rather than with foods in general, which is the pattern of the present regulations and the pattern of the present act. We would be singling out one particular food. We want to cover not one food but all foods in order to make sure that deceptive practices are not carried on with regard to foods generally. Now, apart from the fact that such a regu- lation would be unnecessary as being already covered by section 5, I need not point out where such a departure could lead in terms of a variety of special packaging regulations for a host of foods which we have felt could be better dealt with under the broad authority of a single section. We have examined a number of packages of bacon on which pink striped wrappers were used. I have been struck with the fact that the real deception is not so much in the use of the striped wrapper as in the way in which the bacon slices are placed one on top of the other so as to reveal through the cellophane only the portion which the processor wishes the public to see, namely the lean with small streaks of fat, but making it impossible without a visual examination of the contents of the package to see what the remainder of the bacon looks like. In any action taken under section 5 I would think it important to involve this feature of the packaging, as well as the use of the pink striped cellophane wrappers. That is exactly what we would want to do. Assuming the acceptance of the amendment it would still be possible to carry on a practice which would deceive the public-my hon. friend's wife, my wife, and all the rest-as to the real contents of the package. So for these reasons it seems to me the commendable motive of my hon. friend in bringing in his amendment is already taken care of in the present legislation. Therefore any such amendment would be not only unnecessary but undesirable, in that it men- tions specifically a particular class of food. The hon. member has practically admitted the implications of what I have just said. Mr. Fulton: No. Mr. Martin: His chief complaint is with the enforcement of the law. In the administra- tion of the Food and Drugs Act we have sought to bring about a spirit of collaboration and co-operation with the trade. My hon. friend implies that this is desirable, where possible. Last September we called members of the trade to our departmental offices. At that time the director of the Food and Drugs Act, acting on the instructions of the minister, 1305 Food and D'rugs Act pointed out that we thought this was a decep- tive practice that ought to be abandoned. Naturally there were discussions, not only with the trade but with other departments of government. We made it very clear at the time that it was our view this was a decep- tive practice that ought to be abandoned. Having in mind the belief that in the long run we achieve more by co-operation than by compulsion in the first instance, there has been some delay in the acceptance of the department's view. But I may tell my hon. friend that we have issued a directive to the trade telling them that in our judgment this practice is not valid, that it is not legitimate under the act, and must be stopped. The trade, as I say, has been notified of this, and we have been given the assurance from a responsible section of the trade that the practice will be abandoned. If it is not abandoned, of course, we shall resort to another course. I am satisfied, however, that the trade are now aware of the attitude taken by the department, and I am sure this debate will supplement the realization that the prac- tice complained of must be stopped. I should think no good purpose would be served by allowing the bill to stand from day to day because, as I have said, the law is clear. In the event of our failing to take necessary enforcement measures, or in the event of a failure by the trade to heed our directive, my hon. friend would still have his right to raise the matter. In addition to the action taken by Dr. Morrell, the food and drug director, I myself have spoken to a representative group of the trade. I have examined with them the pack- ages concerned, and I have pointed out that in our judgment it was clear that the act was being violated. I also went further and said there were other features about packaging that greatly disturbed us, and that we ex- pected them to take care of the situation. What I have in mind particularly is that in some of these packages, while a portion of the meat is exposed through the cellophane wrap- ping, there is a portion at the bottom of the package that is not exposed; and in that unexposed portion it would be possible to have a great deal of fat meat. This, combined with the illusion created by the stripes in the open section, would of course constitute a flagrant deception and most certainly would be contrary to the Food and Drugs Act. For these reasons I would ask the hon. member to withdraw the bill on the grounds, first, that the law now provides for the very thing he has in mind. Second, I would point out to him that we have taken steps pursuant to the information we were given some time ago by the Canadian Association of Consumers FEBRUARY 18, 1955 1306 HOUSE OF COMMONS Wheat-Final Payment for 1953 and by our own departmental inspectors. Third, I would point out that we have sent out a directive to the trade telling them that we have received these complaints, and that consumers consider present packaging meth- ods as applied to bacon to be deceptive. Men- tion has been made particularly of the red stripes frequently found on the cellophane wrapping used to cover bacon. The govern- ment is strongly of the view that this practice must be discontinued, and we have been assured that it will be. Mr. R. R. Knigh± (Saskatoon): Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether it is the pleasure of the house that at this point I should adjourn the debate. However, while the minister has said that the matter appears to be well in hand, I would point out to him that the government has been pretty slow in taking action. The minister may or may not recall that on September 30, 1949, I raised this matter, and what I said is reported at page 421 of Hansard. My hon. friends who have preceded me in the debate have, with their legal minds, dealt mostly with the law in the matter. I should like to speak of the domestic prob- lem, and the matter as it looks to the eyes of the average person. The question as to whether bacon should be packaged at all is perhaps not at issue here. I think, myself, that in this country we have adopted somewhat expensive methods in handling meats. However, if the housewife wants it that way and is prepared to pay the extra cost, then there is no doubt she is entitled to that service. On motion of Mr. Knight the debate was adjourned. At six o'clock the bouse took recess. AFTER RECESS The house resumed at eight o'clock. SUPPLY The bouse resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Harris for committee of supply. Mr. Hahn: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention- Mr. Argue: Mr. Speaker, who has the floor? Mr. Speaker: Order. Before we began to deal with private and public bills the hon. member for New Westminster will recall that the hon. member for Assiniboia asked me to call it five o'clock, indicating that he wanted the floor. Therefore it is only fair that I should see him nnw. [Mr. Martin.] WHEAT-FINAL PAYMENT FOR 1953 Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to ask that the unprece- dented delay in making the final payment for the 1953 crop be ended, that the inventory wheat which the wheat board now holds be transferred to the subsequent crop year, and the payment made immediately. The 1950-51 pool period ended on October 20, and the final payment was made before the end of that year. In the following year the wheat pool period ended on October 24, and the final payment was again made before the end of the year. In 1953 the payment was not made that year, but on January 30 following the inventory was transferred to the next crop year and the payment made. We are now well into February. The final payment has not been made and no announce- ment bas been made as to the date when the final payment will be made. It leaves the producer in a very unsatisfactory posi- tion when he has no idea when the payment is to be made and the amount of money that is likely to be involved. Anyone who knows conditions in western Canada at the present time must realize that the producer is short of money. This has resulted in merchants having on their books large amounts owed by farmers who in many instances are unable to meet their current expenses. The need for farmers to receive the payment as quickly as possible is great, and I would ask the minister to consider making the transfer immediately so the payment can be made. I point out that in the current crop year marketings of wheat are away down. Market- ings a year ago were 256 million bushels, as compared with 139 million bushels in the same period during the present crop year. Because marketings are down the farmers have received a good deal less money. Farm- ers have received less cash not only because marketings are down but also because interim and final payments have been small or have been delayed. In the previous year, for example, on barley an interim payment of 15 cents a bushel was made, followed by a final payment of 16 cents a bushel on No. 2 feed bar-ley; whereas last year the total of both interim and final payments amounted to just a little over 6 cents a bushel. Because these payments have been a good deal less, farmers have had less money to carry on their operations. The interim pay- ment for wheat for the last crop year has been made. It was just 10 cents a bushel. Previous to that, interim payments had been 20 cents a bushel. The net result is a very drastic drop in cash income in the FEBRUARY 18, 1955 Wheat-Final Payment for 1953 prairie provinces. Dominion bureau of statis- tics figures show that in 1953 farm cash income in Manitoba was $214 million. In 1954 it had fallen to $181 million. The cash income of farmers in Saskatchewan in 1953 was $743 million. In 1954 it had fallen drastically by 38 per cent to $465 million. In 1953 farm cash income in Alberta was $491 million. In 1954 the figure for Alberta was $394 million. These figures show the very drastic reduction in farm income and point up the need for the government to make a final payment just as quickly as possible. It is not only the farmer who suffers when he has no ready cash. It is the merchant, the garage operator, the petroleum dealer, the grocer. Business in western Canada is at a virtual standstill because of falling farm prices, because of a falling off in farm marketings and because the final payment for wheat has been delayed. In these cir- cumstances I ask the minister to consider ways and means of closing the wheat board account for the 1953-54 crop year so the payment can be made as quickly as possible. The argument can be raised that nothing should be done that might jeopardize the financial position of the wheat board, or the financial position of the following pool account. One must bear in mind that since the wheat board is legally but an agent of the government which financially supports it, any loss there might be-and I do not admit for one minute that there would be any loss-would be borne by the government, and it would not in fact jeopardize the wheat board's position at all or the farmer's posi- tion, if the moneys were paid out. Another fact the government should keep in mind is that most producers who owe large sums of money have to pay high inter- est rates. While it is true that the wheat board has large credit obligations, yet it can borrow money at 4 per cent. The farmer must pay 6 per cent, 7 per cent or an even higher rate on the money he borrows. I do not think it is doing a service to agriculture to ask that the farmers should go on having to pay these high interest rates when the final wheat payment can be made immedi- ately, and to that extent at least the farmer can be enabled to discharge some of his obli- gations and save some of the interest pay- ments he now has to make. I would say it is time the government took a new look at its wheat board marketing pol - icy to see that there is placed in the price of wheat finally paid to the farmer a much greater guarantee than exists at the present time. I should like to see the government declare a final payment of at least 20 cents a bushel on wheat. All of that 20 cents a bushel may or may not be in the wheat board funds; but if such a payment were made it would mean that in addition to the initial payment of $1.40 a bushel and the interim payment of 10 cents a bushel, the final pay- ment of 20 cents would bring the total up to $1.70 a bushel to the farmer, basis No. 1 northern, Fort William. That is not a high price. It is a very modest price. If such a payment did result in some money having to be paid into the wheat board account from government funds, such a payment would not only be in the interests of agriculture but would definitely be in the interests of all Canada. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the farm unions are now advocating that a parity price for wheat, or a higher support price for wheat, be paid on account of wheat going into domestic consumption. 'The Cana- dian Federation of Agriculture is asking that $2.05 a bushel, the ceiling under the inter- national wheat agreement, be set as the price for wheat going into domestic consumption, and the farmers' unions are asking that wheat used in Canada should be sold at a parity price. One hears it said, and one even reads it in the Canadian press, that the United States support program has been a failure, bas been a great burden on the United States economy and is something the Canadian government should never adopt in whole or in part. On the other hand, I believe that in general the United States support program has been an outstanding success and has provided great stability for farm income in the United States. Not only bas that support program for agricultural products redounded to the benefit of the United States farmer, but the resultant farm stability has gone a long way toward providing economic stability for the whole United States economy. I suggest there is nothing the government could do that would help more to put men back to work and reduce the number of unemployed than to see that some real stability is provided for the agricultural industry. One of the first things the government should do is set an adequate guaranteed price for wheat. in asking that the government take a look at its wheat policy I believe I have the sup- port of the Canadian Federation of Agricul- ture and the three western farm unions. There is scarcely a group in Canada that has not a far better idea of what its present income is and what its income in the near future is likely to be than the wheat pro- ducer. The wheat producer knows perhaps a few months ahead of harvest time what the initial payment for wheat will be, but he bas no real conception and there is no 1308 HOUSE OF COMMONS Wheat-Final Payment for 1953 way of knowing what the interim payment There was a late spring in Alberta, due will be and when it will be made, or what partly to cold weather and due partly to the final payment will be and when it wiil the fact that there was considerabie snow be made. and rai Consequentiy, in an effort to get As far as the time of payments is con- their wheat into the ground in time and cerned, I would like to see the government have some chance of making a crop the go back to their position of two or three farmers were obliged to employ additional years ago, when it was the practice to help. Then as the year went on there were announce about February in each year the excessive rains, and as a resuit it was neces- interim payment for the current crop year. sary to do more in the way of summer- Then early in the fall, perhaps late October failowing than in the past. This meant the or early November, they would announce the incurring o! greater expenses and increased final payment for the previous crop and the extent of cultivation of the iand. Ail this make the payment as soon thereafter as added up to extra expense; therefore by the possible. If that were done the western tire harvest arrived many farmers had farmer would have some real idea as to when exhausted their credit. I amnot talking now his payments would be made. o! the large farmer who may have been In addition I suggest that the government able to build up quite a substantial reserve should provide greater support for the price during the past three years on account o! of wheat. I ask that not only because I good crops. I am talking o! the new farmer, believe it would be in the interests of the the young farmer who has only been un his farmers, but because I believe it is in the farm a short time and who is fot in the interests of all Canada. I noticed one very fortunate position o! having built up a significant thing in the brief submitted to reserve. I ar thinking especiaily o! the the government by the interprovincial farm farmers wbo settled under the Veterans unions' council. They stated they had dis- Land Act. cussed the matter of adequate prices and stable income for the farmers, and in making This year these farmers faced an extremely their proposals they had the support o! difficult situation. By the time harvest organized labour. arrived that situation had become critical in I believe the minister should tell the house many ways. As I say, credit facilities had that he is now directing that the final pay- iargeiy dried up by harvest time. In many ment for the 1953 crop be made at once, that towns the businessmen went on a strictiy the inventory in the wheat board account be cash basis. The machine men wouid ship out transferred to next year, and that the machinery or repair parts on a c.o.d. basis farmers be issued their cheques immediately. only. A farmer couid not pick up those parts One can look at the wheat board business, at the station uniess he paid cash. The shall we say through the glasses of a busi- dealers were forcei to protect themseives nessman, but once in a while I think the because they bad aiready extended consider- minister and the government should en- able credit to farmers. I am not criticîzing deavour to put themselves in the position of the businessmen, because they couid not help a farmer who has not had a crop or has had themselves; they were forced into this position a very poor one, who has been able to by the whoiesalers and the manufacturers. market only a small quantity of grain and The same thing happened in connection who has accounts owing to merchants in his with ou. Many farmers could not get ail local town. If the minister would attempt to delivered to their !arms unless they paid do that I believe he would realize that it is cash. As a result many farmers found it very necessary that these payments be made extremeiy difficuit to get in their harvest. The to the farmers as soon as possible, and that situation would have been extrerely bad they be as large as possible. bad we not had very good weather rigbt up Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia): Mr. Speaker, to the end o! November. Otherwise much o! there is no question but that the past year has the crop wouid have been left under the been a very difficult one for agriculture in snow. Even though the crop is light the western Canada. Speaking in relation to ground must be covered. A lot o! time is Alberta I would say that the situation there taken up in covering your acreage, even was not due in any way to crop failure. It though there 15 only a iight yield. was due to the fact that the farmer was able to make only small deliveries of grain. On the 1953-54 crop he was allowed to deliver farmers were able ta deiver only 300 bushels only 7 bushels per acre, and only 2 bushels or less. Then at some points they were given per acre for the new year. Even by the end a 2 bushel quota. Tbe resuit was that many of the year at many points they had not been farmers had to finance the whole of their able to deliver 2 bushels per acre. barvesting operations witbout being able to [Mr. Argue.] sell any wheat. Because of this situation a large number of protest meetings were held in Alberta. I might point out that these protest meetings were not political meetings in any way. I saw a notice that there was to be a big meeting at Three Hills, which is on the border of my constituency. I was not invited, but as I had seen the notice in the paper I turned up. As a matter of fact no speakers had been invited. The meeting was called jointly by the businessmen and the farmers to discuss the somewhat critical wheat situation. I would point out that Three Hills is probably one of the best wheat dis- tricts to be found anywhere in the Dominion of Canada. The farmers were having difficulty and the businessmen were having difficulty. As I say, I attended that meeting. The first resolution urged that the govern- ment immediately increase the quota on the delivery of wheat. When they found out I was there they asked me to speak. I pointed out that I thought it would be useless to pass a resolution of that kind because the government could not increase the delivery quotas for wheat unless there was room in the elevators. Owing to the fact that the elevators were plugged, it seemed a non- sensical motion to move. They set that motion aside. The next motion they moved was one urging the government to make an advance against grain in farm storage. Again I was asked to speak, and on that occasion I supported the motion because, in the situation that had developed, it seemed to me that was about the only solution. I mentioned the fact that a resolu- tion of that kind had been before the house, but that no action had been taken. I realize that it is not an easy thing to handle. There are difficulties involved .in a policy of that kind; but it is a policy that has been in operation in the United States for a number of years, with their so-called sealed storage. If the farmers had been able to get an advance against grain held on the farm it would have been of tremendous help during the harvesting operations. There need not be any loss, because all the grain has to be handled through the wheat board. The wheat board would therefore be able to call the loan upon delivery of the wheat. It therefore seems to me that the proposition would be quite. safe. I think the meeting sent the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) the resolution they passed. A number of other meetings were held throughout the constituency and in other parts of the province. In every case I would say those meetings were non-political, be- cause the members of parliament were not 50433-84 Wheat-Final Payment for 1953 invited to them; they were advertised and called as between the farmers and the businessmen. The point the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) raised, asking for final payment on the 1953-54 crop would, of course, be of great help. But there again there are many farmers who will get only a small payment out of the 1953-54 wheat crop but who have a certain amount of wheat on hand; and if they were able to obtain loans on that wheat they would be able to carry on quite successfully. I agree with the hon. member that some action should be taken well in advance of seeding in order to make it possible for the farmers to get money to finance their seeding operations. In this past year I think they had one of the most difficult situations they have ever faced. We have heard a great deal in this house about crop failures; but crop failure had little or nothing to do with the situation with which farmers in Alberta were faced. They had wheat on the farm but they could not sell it, and they still have to meet the expenses incurred in harvesting the wheat. Therefore it is extremely impor- tant to them that some means should be forthcoming of obtaining credit against that wheat. Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Alberi): Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take much time at this moment, except to say that I join with the hon. member for Assiniboia and the hon. member who has just taken his seat in bring- ing to the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce the situation to which they have alluded and which they have not over- stated. The other day I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question with regard to a matter that is more or less bound up with the one now being discussed, namely whether something could not be done by him to assure a more equitable distribution of box cars on those branch lines served by the Canadian Pacific Railway. The minister stated that the wheat board was in Ottawa at that time and he would see to it that if there was any- thing in the nature of discrimination, it would be removed. I want to thank him because I know he acted following the question I asked him. Considerable benefit has since been reaped by reason of the additional numbers of cars that have been available there. After all, that was one of the problems that faced the farmers, particularly in northern Sas- katchewan along the lines of railway to which I made reference. In general I join with these hon. gentle- men in suggesting that something be done in FEBRUARY 18, 1955 1309 1310 HOUSE OF GOMMONS Wheat-Final Payment for 1953 the nature of completion of the wheat account, reference on a number of occasions, but which with the final payment to be made before the Joan scheme was not used to any great ex- spring work starts; or, if not that, something tent? However, I think it would be used this in the nature of an advance to the western year. It sometimes surprises me to see the farmers. It is all very well to point out that extent to whicb farming localities find tbem- in recent years the western farmer has had selves so utterly hobbled by a lack of credit good crops and should therefore be in a posi- today. I make this appeal to the minister, tion to meet the situation in which he finds that he and the wheat board do something to himself today. However, the retail merchants' meet a situation which is emergent, and whicb association of the province of Saskatchewan, may develop into a critical one. represented by its manager, Mr. Walker, has Mr. A. M. Nicholson : Mr. Speaker, since I corne from Manitoba, I wisb ta take the opposite view from that of the bon, gen- tleman wbo bas just taken bis seat. I do so on tbe basis of the resolution itself. I bave na doubt that if we were ta take toa seriously some of the side issues that have been brougbt Up fin the last two speeches, some daubts migbt be cast upon the possibility of cantroversy over this resalution; but if we deal witb the resolution and wbat it cails for I see no reason for dragging in irrelevant side issues and confusing wbat is requested. The request is very simple and clear. For 50433-86 Canadian Wheat Board the purpose of keeping it that way I think 1 should put it on the record again. The resolution reads as follows: That, in the opinion of this bouse, the gaverfi- ment should consider the advisability of empower- ing the Canadian wheat board to conduet a ballot, by mail, of the grain producers holding permit books to ascertain the wishes of such producers as ta the wheat board complying with orders signed by such producers directing the wheat board ta pay membership dues ta farmn organizations framn money due such producers f rom the sale of their grain by the wheat board. The first tbing that cornes to our notice on reading the resolution is that it is perfectly voluntary in its result. As a matter of fact there are two distinct steps that have to be taken. In the first place, a plebiscite is to be carried out to ascertain the wisbes of the permit book bolders. If a mai orîty of such permit book holders express the opinion that they do not wish such machinery to be set up, then of course no further steps would be taken. The second and perhaps more important step is that the farmer concerned-I belleve this is specified by the resolution-must request that bis f arm organization dues be deducted and handed over ta the organiza- tion of his choice. On this basis I can see no reason for the fears expressed by the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Weir) and certainly there are no difficulties in which the wheat board could get involved. The wheat board is nat being asked to take sides in favour of one organization or another, or ta advise the f armers whether they should ask that their dues be deducted or not. Tbey are asked ta do just one simple thing, ta ascer- tain the wishes of the producers themselves. I see no reason why we should deny that simple request at this time. I was not quite sure whetber the hon. mem- ber who bas just taken bis seat was reluctaýnt ta support this resolution or wbether he was opposed to it. In any event he did flot ex- press bis support. His reason was that there was what he termed a controversy existing between the two farm organizations in Mani- toba. I have no doubt that the bon. member bas been in fairly close touch with the farm movement in Manitoba in the past and per- haps he still is, but to, say that a controversy exists at this time between the two f armn organizations in Manitoba is I tbink ta exag- gerate the picture quite substantially. It is quite true that there are some differ- ences of opinion in connection with the amal- gamation of tbe two organizations, but I think we sbould be careful flot to exaggerate tbe picture because the members of the one HOUSE OF COMMONS Canadian Wheat Board organization, that is the Manitoba federation of agriculture and co-operation, are to a great extent also members of the Manitoba farmers union. That may sound strange as against what the hon. member for Portage- Neepawa has said, but it is a matter of fact. The Manitoba federation of agriculture and co-operation includes all co-operatives. It so happens that I am a member of a consumer co-operative in my home town. I am not a farmer but by virtue of being a member of that consumer co-operative I am automatic- ally a member of the Manitoba federation of agriculture. One can readily see how they would include the vast majority of farmers in Manitoba. Then there are those farmers who have taken out membership in the Manitoba farmers union. By virtue of that they are already dual members, being also members of the federation of agriculture through their memberships in co-operatives. To say that these farmers are engaged in controversy would be to say that they are arguing with themselves because they are members of both organizations. If there is a difference of opinion among some of the leaders of those two organiza- tions, certainly this is the last place where it should be a surprise to anyone. We have differences of opinion here, not only as be- tween one party and another but as between members of the same party. We have had an example of this in the last five minutes, but that is not something to be exaggerated into a controversy. I have already pointed out that this is a perfectly good proposition. As a matter of fact the Manitoba farmers union and the interprovincial farm union council have already put themselves on record to make it clear that they are not asking the Canadian wheat board to do anything for them and that in fact they are willing to pay the ex- penses involved in having these deductions made and turned over to their organizations. Surely that is a fair proposition. I think they have gone a long way in making that volun- tary offer to relieve the wheat board of the expense involved, which would not be great but which they feel the wheat board might object to paying. What would be the effect if this resolution becarne legislation or if the wheat board were permitted to carry out the suggested plan? It would merely provide an orderly method of sustaining farrn organizations. While mention bas been made in several speeches of the farm unions, I think it should be made clear that the resolution is not restricted nor does it even specify farm union dues. It speaks of dues to farm organizations. In [Mr. Zaplitny.] other words, it is not designed to assist just the one farm organization. Its effect would be to help all farm organizations to which farmers wish to belong to carry out their activities in an organized and orderly manner. Perhaps it would be useful at this time to mention some of the reasons why farm organ- izations exist and some of the values that they bring about. There are many, but I have picked out four which I think will commend themselves to all hon. members of this bouse. All farm organizations with which I have come in contact carry out educational work, and I mean educational in its broadest sense. They bring the farm- ers together into what we call locals or branches of the organization in various dis- tricts and by meeting regularly they carry out programs of an educational nature. Speakers are invited to come to give their views on various matters, not all of thern dealing with agriculture. They encourage the younger people who belong to take an active interest in what goes on around them, and again this is not restricted to agriculture. They want to help young farmers and farm wives to be- come good citizens. In that I believe they are doing an excellent job. For example, the 4-H clubs in Manitoba and the various locals of the farm union have in recent years carried out excellent educational projects which have helped to bring about a general level of understanding and participation, particularly among the younger people of the community. In that alone they are add- ing value to our society. Then there is the question of research work. The various farm organizations have people who are asked to do certain research work for them, most of it being done on a volun- tary basis. I have been often pleasantly surprised to find out how deeply informed in research matters were many men in var- ious branches and how much excellent work had been done in that direction, in most cases without any rernuneration whatsoever. These men are doing this work because they feel it is their duty to be useful to their fellow members. Then there is the question of legislation. Time and again, either the government or members of the opposition propose certain legislation in this bouse or in the provincial legislature dealing with agriculture. I am quite sure that every hon. member would like to know the wishes and views of the farmers he represents on that proposed legislation. What better way to get an in- telligent cross-section of opinion arnong farmers than by submitting the proposed legislation to these farm organizations for 1342 FEBRUARY 21, 1955 their study, discussion and advice? That does not mean that in every case we must accept their views. We use our own good judg- ment about the thing. But in the meantime it is an excellent method by which the effect of that legislation on the producer can be brought out by the persons concerned who are on the ground floor. I think the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) will bear me out in this. He will recall that not so long ago he was kind enough to pay a visit to my home town in connection with an official function he had to perform there. At that time he met with the executive of the local farmers' union. Although unfortu- nately the time was brief, it was not the min- ister's fault. He had to leave at a certain time but he was extremely generous with what time he had. They discussed certain problems. At that time I am sure he was impressed by the fact that here were farmers who were actually doing farming taking an interest not only in their own individual farms or in their own communities but in the agricultural policy of Canada as a whole and who were quite capable of discussing the matter intelligently with one of the ministers of the crown. These things are valuable. They are valu- able not only to the farmers themselves but to the government, whatever the government may be. It helps the govern- ment to have a better understanding of what the man who is doing the actual producing thinks, what he wants, what he considers is possible and desirable. That is another one of the values. Then there is the social value. I remember a period of time in the province of Manitoba -and I am sure other hon. members also remember it-in which there was what I con- sider a deplorable lapse of time in which farmers were poorly organized, I was going to say; but in fact they were practically not organized at all. That period would be roughly between the time when the United Farmers of Manitoba ceased to be active and the time when the other farm organizations started again. There was a lapse of time there in which little was done in the way of farm organization. It is quite noticeable in those areas where farm organizations have again become active-both the Manitoba farmers union and the Manitoba federation of agri- culture-where they have increased their activities, there has been a marked effect on the social life of the farmers themselves. Mention has been made here of the fact that farmers are sparsely settled on the prairies. While we perhaps are not as widely scattered in my part of the province as they would be farther south or in some parts of 50433-86 Canadian Wheat Board Saskatchewan, it is true that it is not easy for the farmers to meet together socially; that is, it is not as easy for them as it is for those in the towns and cities. Here is one way in which they can come together regularly and not only give their attention to matters dealing with agriculture and the serious side of life but can meet in a social way, exchange ideas and have a pleasant evening together. I can assure hon. members that if at any time they were invited to attend a local meeting of the Manitoba farm- ers union or any other farm organization, they would have a pleasant evening. Such a meeting is not all seriousness and economic discussion; it is a social evening in the full sense of the word. That in itself is something that has a marked value in a rural com- munity. It brings people together. They be- come better friends, better neighbours and better citizens in that way by participating generally in something in which they have common desires. Those are some of the things to be taken into consideration. I certainly hope that hon. members of this house will accede to this request which is a reasonable one and a simple one. I want to support what was said by the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castle- den) who preceded me. I hope it will not be regarded just as a matter to be taken under consideration, then shelved and forgot- ten. I hope the government will actively carry on with what is requested in this resolution if it carries in this house and, before too many months have gone by, will provide that machinery through which all the farm organizations may benefit by their individual members voluntarily asking the wheat board to perform this small service for them. Mr. Rene N. Jutras (Provencher): Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word on this resolution, but I want to be brief. First of all, I want to congratulate the hon. mem- ber for Vegreville (Mr. Decore) on the man- ner in which he presented his case for his resolution this afternoon. I am sorry that I have to disappoint him and say that I can- not support his resolution as it stands because I think it is too general in some respects and too specific in others. Mr. Argue: Then amend it and let us pass it. Mr. Jutras: It has been said that the resolution did not deal with the check-off as such. Of course, there are two definite aspects of this resolution. To begin with, the essence of the resolution itself is that it asks for a vote to be taken to ascertain the wish of the grain producers, -to see whether they wish to have their dues to farm organizations deducted. But then, if HOUSE OF COMMONS Canadian Wheat Board the resolution is carried and if that is done, you have to face up to the check-off itself that will follow this resolution. Conse- quently it is rather difficult to envisage the vote without discussing the issue itself that will follow the vote should the vote be favourable. My main objection to the resolution is that the Canadian wheat board is interjected into this vote. I should be pleased to see a vote taken to ascertain the wish of the farmers. Let me say this, however. I do not think the vote should be restricted to the grain pro- ducers. After all, we are dealing here with dues to farm organizations. What I am say- ing now probably applies more to Manitoba than to the other western provinces. For that matter, my constituency may be quite different from other constituences or other parts of western Canada. There is a large part of my constituency in which farm organizations are active, yet there are no grain producers in that entire area. If the vote is taken by the Canadian wheat board on that basis, it would mean that all these people would have no say in the matter. I suppose it can be said: "They do not have to have any say because even if the resolu- tion carries, it is only the grain producers who will be able to deduct their dues. Whether the resolution is carried or not, they will not be able to have their dues deducted because they have no grain permit book and do not deal with the Canadian wheat board." That is one aspect of the resolution by which, when you ask the Canadian wheat board to hold a vote, you eliminate the non-grain producers from expressing their views and from the possibility of having their dues deducted later. As has been mentioned by the hon. mem- ber for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Weir), in a great many instances there is only one permit holder among four. In fact, I know of a case where there are five sons, for instance, in one family, each one having title to his own land, being the owner and operator of his own land, but on account of the fact that they use common machinery, only one permit can be issued to the whole five put together. Mr. Argue: That is a bad practice. Mr. Jutras: That is a general practice. As a matter of fact, everyone is fairly well aware of it, particularly since last year. We all know that last year, because the Cana- dian wheat board tried the unit system of delivery, the matter of who was the owner of the permit became a very live issue. There was a great deal of criticism and con- troversy throughout western Canada because naturally those who owned their lands [Mr. Jutras.] wanted their own permits. Situations such as these have ýcome to our attention. I know that I have had many of them brought to my attention over the last year. However, my main objection is that I hesi- tate very much to have the wheat board taking the vote. Frankly, the only reason the wheat board is asked to do it is that it appears to be more convenient. Over the years I have always taken the stand in the house that we should not burden the Canadian wheat board with any other responsibilities than the one of marketing grain. Because the board is doing a good job in a certain sphere, there is always a tendency to ask it to do more and more. There have been many occasions in the house since I have been a member when people have advocated that the wheat board should do this, that or something else. During the war there was a tendency to try to get the board to act as a price control agency. I remember many occasions when the view was put forward that here was a convenient organization which has a monopoly in the west and it would be very convenient to get them to do this, that and the other thing. As we all know, the board, particularly at the present time, has more than it can handle in trying to dispose of the wheat crop, and to ask it to hold a plebiscite or vote at this stage may expose the organization to some criti- cism. As I have said, I have heard more criticism of the board in the last year than I have heard for a long time, and that disturbs me. To envisage placing the board in a posi- tion where it might run into even more criticism is disturbing to me. It is all very well to say that the board is not asked to take any part in the vote. All of us here have had some experience with elections and voting and, to say the least, I think it is a little naïve to say that the board can hold a vote and not be involved in any way, shape or form in the vote itself. I am not going to try to ascertain the degree of divergence of views existing between the two farm organizations in Manitoba. I think that even the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny) will agree that there is some differ- ence of opinion, and there are very great differences of opinion on the very issue that we are discussing now. I do not know what would happen, but I think it would be fair to assume that the one organization would take one stand and the other would take an opposite stand. Then you would have the Canadian wheat board in the middle. I do not think that would be to the advantage of the grain producers nor, indeed, to the advan- tage of the farm movement and the farm organizations themselves. We all want to see a strong farm organization. 1344 FEBRUARY 21, 1955 Mr. Zaplitny: Would the hon. member per- mit a question as a matter of information? Mr. Jutras: Yes. Mr. Zaplitny: Has the hon. member received representations fron any farm organization in Manitoba opposing this resolution? Mr. Ju±ras: I have not received any repre- sentations from farm organizations opposing the resolution, and I have only had one representation in favour of it. However, this is not a new matter. It has been discussed for the last couple of years and I know, and I am sure the hon. member for Dauphin knows, that there are a great many who are not in favour of the proposal. Surely the hon. member will not deny that. If he does, then he does not know what is going on or the constituency of Dauphin is quite different from the rest of western Canada. Surely he will not deny that there is not complete unanimity on that score. Mr. Argue: About the same as the people of Selkirk. Mr. Jutras: About the same as what? Mr. Argue: The attitude of the people of Dauphin is, I am sure, about the same as the attitude of the people of Selkirk. Mr. Jutras: Oh well- Mr. Garson: You must not hold against them the election of a C.C.F. member. Mr. Argue: Are you suggesting that? Mr. Jutras: I do not propose to re-fight the Selkirk by-election at this stage, but I know, because I went there and took part in the by-election, that this question was not an issue, and it is not because of it that the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce) was elected. If the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) was there, I am sure he will agree with that. I am not going into the other implications of the resolution. Indeed, a great deal would have to be said with respect to the actual application of the deduction of dues because that would require the amend- ment of the Canadian Wheat Board Act. I am sure that many people would have a great deal of compunction about any such amend- ment of the act, and the farmers as a whole would have to be told exactly what would be involved in the amendment of the act. I do not think you could have a vote without considering fully what the result of the vote would be. If there were to be a vote you would have to discuss the whole question fully and put both sides of the argument before the people so that they would be in a position to decide either for or against. I do not intend to deal with this point at great Canadian Wheat Board length, as a matter of fact not at all, except to say that if you do amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act to allow assignment then you will be opening the door. We might as well face it. It could be that the benefit to be derived from this proposal is worth the sacrifice of doing it. That is another question. However, so far all cheques going out from the wheat board have been, so to speak, sacred. No assignment whatsoever has been permitted. The board has had to deliver the money to the farmer and nobody has any prior right to it. When this provision was included in the act people were aware of what they were doing. It was done for a purpose, particularly at that time when there were so many after the farmers' money. Times are a little better now and have been for some time, and the need is not felt now as much as it was in the past. The fact remains, however, that this provision is there, and when you say that you will make an exception for farm dues and allow nothing else you might as well face it that you are opening the door. If you amend the act to permit the wheat board to send money directly to any farm organization, then I know of another organization that will ask for the same privilege and has been asking for it for some time. I refer to the rural municipalities of western Canada. They would very much like to have the money they advance to the farmers for seed grain deducted by the Canadian wheat board from the proceeds of the sale of the farmers' grain. They have discussed this matter and they have asked for it. I am sure if we were- to allow farm union dues to be deducted these people would be right here to ask for the same privilege. It may be that the farmers would prefer to have it done that way, but that is another question. I say that the moment we open the door we have to face up to if that the provision preventing any assign- ment will disappear and we will have to take the consequences of such action. However, that is the second stage, so to speak, and the vote has to take place first. I repeat that I would welcome a vote, but I am sure there must be other ways of ascer- taining the views of the farmers on this matter. We ascertained the views of the farmers on the question of coarse grain, and I am sure other ways could be found of ascertaining their views on this matter. In the province of Manitoba I think that both farm organizations, and the Canadian wheat board particularly, would gain by waiting until the situation settles down a bit, until there is a merging of the two farm organiza- tions and their views can be ascertained. It is true that some farm organizations have HOUSE OF COMMONS Canadian Wheat Board passed resolutions on this subject, but I do not know that the feeling of all members has been fully ascertained. I have not seen any resolution from organizations other than the farmers' union. I believe that would indicate that the farmers are not enthusiastic for this measure. However, as I say, I am quite sure some other organization could be found to hold the vote. If it is quite evident then that the farmers would like to abandon the privilege they enjoy now under the Canadian Wheat Board Act and have their dues deducted, then we could study the possibility of doing so in the light of the circumstances at that time. I am very reluctant to draw the wheat board into this controversy. I do not believe the wheat board should be asked to conduct the vote; it should be some other organiza- tion. Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie): I thought this resolution had been so carefully worded by the hon. member for Vegreville that it had received the approval of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). So far the speeches have run something like six in favour and two opposed, but it would appear now as though there would be some opposition from across the way. I would suggest to the hon. member for Portage- Neepawa (Mr. Weir) that the resolution is so worded that he should not worry even if he does not have a permit book. The resolution reads: That, in the opinion of this house, the govern- ment should consider the advisability of empower- ing the Canadian wheat board to conduct a ballot, by mail, of the grain producers holding permit books to ascertain the wishes of such producers as to the wheat board complying with orders signed by such producers directing the wheat board to pay membership dues to farm organizations from money due such producers from the sale of their grain by the wheat board. This leaves the hon. member for Portage- Neepawa in the clear. If he has not a permit book he would be under no obligation if this resolution should pass. It would give those who have permit books the privilege of hav- ing some money paid to their own organiza- tions from their accounts. The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras) suggested that others who are not wheat producers should be consulted. I gather that he has in mind poultry producers or market gardeners in varlous parts of Canada. I suggest to him that they are not involved. There is no reason why a poultry producer should be consulted as to whether or not wheat producers should be permitted to assign some of their funds to their own organization. If the other farmers want to devise a scheme [Mr. Jutras.] at any time so their dues can be paid by an easier method, they should be given support in this house. The hon. member for Portage-Neepawa made a great deal of the argument that in the long run this sort of device would weaken the farm organizations. This has not been the experience of the trade unions. The same argument was used throughout the years as the trade unions sought to find a device to enable them to collect dues regularly without going to their members week by week or month by month. The trade unions in this country and every country have found that as they have improved their device for getting their dues they have been able to use their time for more constructive educational work. I am sure anyone who bas lived in a f arm community will have a great deal of sym- pathy with the point of view expressed by the hon. member for Acadia, when he de- scribed the problems which arise when you go from farm to farm and find that a farmer is away at an auction sale, or is working on another farm, or he will be away until next week. The system used in Ottawa for collecting funds for charitable organizations by designating a certain night for the canvass is relatively simple. The canvassers can drive on paved streets in an area about the size of a township or a few townships in western Canada. If a canvass were under- taken to cover my constituency, 100 miles east and west and 500 miles north and south, where we have no paved roads at all, where we have not as many miles of grav- elled road as we would like to have, and where we do have a great deal of rain, I think it is rather obvious that it would not be easy. It would be difficult to fix a date a month in advance or a week in advance and decide to cover a municipality or 10 municipalities on a given day or even in a given week. I believe it is obvious that the proposal comes before us with a view to making it possible for farm organizations to get the funds they require by some economical method. This is a device used by other organizations without any argument. No one would suggest now that the trade unions should be asked to revert to a system where- by they would have to canvass their members each week, each month or each year for their dues. I see no reason why the privileges enjoyed by other groups in our economy should not be extended to the farm organizations. As long as I can remember the farmers in Canada as a group have not re- ceived a fair share of the national income. It is unfortunate that the farmers have not been able, during my lifetime, to build up a strong organization. 1348 I am old enough to recall when Henry Ford introduced the $5 a day program into his plant at Detroit. At that time I was living in a Conservative part of Canada, and the farmers in Bruce county could hardly believe a man working in an automobile fac- tory would receive $5 a day. It was thought this would certainly ruin the country in a very short time. It was not very long until Ford workers were going to their work in automobiles, and Ontario farmers thought that was a great calamity. They felt Canada should not be expected to provide auto- mobiles so those making cars should be able to drive to work. I believe everybody would now admit that has been a good thing for Canada, to have workers, not only in auto- mobile factories but in a great many fac- tories, with incomes that enabled them to drive to work. While organization bas made it possible for doctors, lawyers and industrial workers to get a fairer share of the national income each year, the farmers have not been able to get together to build up their own organ- ization so they could obtain a fair share of the national income. The member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden) mentioned that in 1931 about one-third of the people in Canada were classified as farmers, and according to the last figures about 20 per cent were so classified. According to a bulletin of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture of April, 1954, the farmers' share of the national income is down to 8.7 per cent. I feel it is rather obvious that if 20 per cent of the Canadian people were organized they would not be accepting 8.7 per cent of the national income without doing something about it. I believe they could and would do something about it. A bulletin of the federation of agriculture dated January of this year tells about the share of the Canadian dollar which is spent for various commodities. We are told that in the prairie region 23-3 per cent goes for food, 25-1 per cent is spent in the automotive world, 11-6 per cent goes for clothing and footwear, and 4-6 per cent for tobacco and liquor. I think it is obvious that when Cana- dians in western Canada spend only 23-3 per cent for food, there is something wrong with our economy. The farmers should have more dollars available so they could do a more effective public relations job, and take some action with respect to this 4-6 per cent for tobacco and liquor as compared with 23-3 per cent for food. While the automobile is not a luxury for many people, the fact that 25-1 per cent of the dollar is spent in the automotive world while only 23 -3 per cent is spent for food Canadian Wheat Board certainly indicates that the farmers are not getting their fair share of the national income. Looking through my files I found some figures concerning a self-propelled combine we bought to be used on our co-operative farm at Sturgis back in 1946. This was before the prices of combines went up to such fantastic levels. As the result of an error made at the factory the invoice for this combine was sent to us direct, instead of to Canadian Co-operative Implements, Lim- ited, with their head office at Saskatoon. In other words the invoice we received showed the factory price at Brantford, Ontario. The price we paid for the combine was $3,421.35, while the factory price set out in the invoice was $2,308.25 or a difference of $1,113.10. Some hon. members may say that the freight charges from Brantford to Sturgis would be very high. Let me reply that the freight charges were not nearly as high as we thought they would be. Two combines came down in one car for a total freight charge of $250, or $125 each. Take off the freight and there is still a spread of $988.10 between the factory price and the farm price at Sturgis. Co-op Implements have done a pretty effec- tive job in trying to narrow that spread, but it has not been easy for them to compete with the well-established firms such as Massey-Harris, International, John Deere, and other large corporations. I would stress the point that the $3,421.35 we paid gave the men in the farm implement factory an income so that they could support their unions; it gave the implement dealers an income to help maintain an effective organization, and gave the railway employees an income so they could support their unions. The only group that did not manage to get in on this deal were the farmers. I think the proposal before us is very reasonable when it suggests that those who sell wheat should be given the chance to decide whether they would like to sign on the dotted line, instructing the wheat board each year to make payments to the union designated by the farmer. I cannot think of any good reason as to why the house should not support the hon. member for Vegreville in this reasonable resolution. The excuses advanced by the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa and the hon. member who has just taken his seat seem to me very lame indeed; and I am sure they would have difficulty in supporting those excuses before the people of their constituencies. Just before the last election the interpro- vincial farm union council proposed an elec- tion manifesto for western agriculture in FEBRUAIRY 21, 1955 1347 HOUSE OF COMMONS Canadian Wheat Board which a number of reasonable propositions were set out. One of these was the adoption of a voluntary requisition plan for the collec- tion of farm union dues by the wheat board, through an amendment to the Canadian Wheat Board Act. I was asked whether I was for it or against it, and said that I was for it. I am sure all members from the rural constituencies in the three prairie provinces were asked to take their stand on this ques- tion. I hope those who were questioned before the election will not forget their com- mitments, and that they will support the hon. member for Vegreville in the resolution he has now placed before the house. Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice): Mr. Speaker, as a representative of an agri- cultural constituency I think perhaps I might be expected to say a few words at this time. In doing so, I should like first of all to con- gratulate the hon. member for Vegreville upon having introduced the resolution which has had the effect, until the present time- and I hope I shall not be the exception-of inspiring a debate which has been kept on a very high level indeed, and has been dis- tinguished by an atmosphere of reasonable- ness in which the discussion has been carried on with a minimum of bias by members of all parties in the house. This is most desir- able and in some measure almost inevitable in a subject of this nature, because I do not think there is any great amount of disagree- ment on most of the main points to be dis- cussed. It is perhaps a question of emphasis rather than of outright differences of opinion that will determine our judgment. For example I am sure no one would dis- agree with the hon. member for Dauphin in the stress he laid upon the vital importance of farm organizations. I remember with pleasure the incident to which he referred when I was in Dauphin, and I can only hope that the conversations we held at that time were as gratifying to the others who par- ticipated in them as they were to me. Throughout the whole of my public life I have held the view that to the extent that farmers, and indeed all other occupational groups, combine together to take a close and intelligent interest in their own welfare, they make the work of public men easier; because it is then possible to conduct public business in an atmosphere of informed rather than uninformed public opinion. Despite the fact that I represent an agri- cultural constituency, I would have hesitated to take part in the debate had it not been for the fact that up to the present time what has seemed to me to be the most important point in the discussion has been mentioned [Mr. Nicholson.] only by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras). To identify that most important matter we should ask ourselves first of all what it is that we are dealing with in this wheat board set-up. I do not know of any better way of answer- ing that question than by examining the statute under which it operates. If hon. mem- bers will do that they will see that section 25 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act states, in very clear language: (1) The board shall undertake the marketing of wheat produced in the designated area in inter- provincial and export trade and for such purpose shall- And this is the first step they take: (a) buy all wheat produced in the designated area, offered by a producer for sale and delivery to the board- And I shall not go into detail on that. Then, second: (b) pay to producers selling and delivering wheat produced in the designated area to the board, at the time of delivery or at any time thereafter as may be agreed upon, a sum certain per bushel basis in store Fort William-Port Arthur. That is, they shall make cash payments. Then the next thing they do is: (c) issue to a producer, who sells and delivers wheat produced in the designated area to the board, a certificate indicating the number of bushels purchased and delivered and the grade thereof, which certificates entitle the producer named therein to share in the equitable distribution of the surplus, if any, arising from the operations of the board with regard to the wheat produced . . . Thus it seems to me that the basic feature of this matter we are discussing is this. Ordinarily when moneys are held for and are payable to a farmer, they can be attached by garnishment proceedings. Moreover, the farmer can give orders upon them to pay certain creditors he wishes to prefer over others, and is often pressed by creditors to give such orders. In order to avoid having farmers pressed by creditors seeking to get orders from him; in order to avoid having him harassed by garnishee orders issued by the courts of the country, to attach the moneys due to him, and in order to save the wheat board, which has a very difficult time indeed marketing the wheat produced in western Canada under the extraordinarily difficult world conditions today; in order to save this wheat board from accounting and other complications, it was provided in section 28 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act: (1) The governor in council may, by regulation, (a) prescribe the form of certificates to be issued to producers delivering and selling wheat to the board, pursuant to section 25; FEBRUARY 21, 1955 That is the section I read a few moments ago. I continue: (c) prescribe the conditions under which the right to payment under a certificate issued pursuant to this part may be transferred. Subsection 2 of section 28 is the crux of the whole matter. It says: (2) Except as provided by regulation, no certifi- cate issued pursuant to this part or the right to payment thereunder, shall be transferred or assigned, and no person other than the person therein named is entitled to payment thereunder and a statement to that effect shall be printed on each such certificate. Why would they print that on each such certificate? As a notice to the farmer that in this wheat board certificate he had in his possession something which no creditor could attach, and in respect to which he could not even give an order to anybody that would have any legal effect. The wheat board has carried on under these arrangements since its inception, and I believe that even amongst my friends of the opposition there will be general agreement- because I have heard them voice it on many occasions-that the wheat board under these circumstances has done a singularly good job. Among other benefits the farmers have had under wheat board marketings is the fact that they have been singularly free from harass- ment by their creditors in respect of moneys payable to them under those wheat board certificates. My hon. friend can say well, that is all right, but if we have this plebiscite and if the farmers vote in favour of being permitted to sign orders upon the wheat board certificate moneys in favour of farm organizations, then what? That is what the resolution says. Many references have been made to the revocable check-off, and so on and so forth, but that is not what the resolution says and that is not what would be done. Ahl the resolution we are considering says is this: . . . complying with orders signed by such pro- ducers directing the wheat board to pay member- ship dues to farm organizations from money due such producers from the sale of their grain by the wheat board. In other words the proposition here is that we should attack, and I would suggest destroy, the principle of the farmers' immu- nity from court process and pressure from his creditors in respect of these wheat certi- ficates . . . in order to do what? In order to save the farmer the trouble of putting his hand in his pocket and paying $5, or whatever the fee may be, to the farm organi- zation of his choice. I do not think that is a very good exchange. I think it is a very bad one. And in support of my submission that this is a bad exchange I am going to proceed by analogy to the Canadian Wheat Board argument made by the hon. member for Mackenzie who preceded me and who took his seat just a few moments ago. He is arguing in the house today, and those who supported this resolution have argued, that because the trade unions have had the revo- cable check-off therefore the farmers have just as great a right to a check-off of their own, and it should be extended to them. I am going to suggest that the immunity from process that the farmers of western Canada have enjoyed under the section of the act which I read to the house this afternoon is rather unique, and if we destroy that im- munity to the extent of accepting orders in favour of farm organizations, I do not know upon what basis of moral principle we can deny to the municipalities the right to ask a farmer to give them an order covering the seed grain loan which they have advanced, or municipal hail insurance, or even their taxes themselves. Mr. Zapli±ny: Will the minister permit a question? Mr. Garson: Yes. Mr. Zapli±ny: On the question of immunity, will the minister not admit that the Prairie Farm Assistance Act bas now destroyed that so-called immunity which the minister is speaking about? Mr. Garson: No, I would not admit that for a moment. In making this statement I am not in any way decrying or minimizing any of the arguments that have been made by my hon. friends who are favouring this resolution. I am, as they are, heartily in favour of farm organizations. I am in favour of finding the best and easiest way of financing these farm organizations. Indeed, if it were possible to do what they advocate without destroying the farmer's immunity under these wheat board certificates, I think I would be tempted to support their resolu- tion. But I should like them to tell us how, if we permit the farmer to give an order in favour of the Canadian Federation of Agri- culture, the farm union, the local seed grain society, the 4-H club, or any of the farm organizations that are covered by this resolu- tion, in point of principle we can withhold orders from other creditors whose claims would be at least as strong. If we had an interprovincial conference, for example, con- sidering the question of financing the munici- palities and there was a general desire that the farmer should have the privilege of giving an order in favour of the municipalities, could we say that we would reject that although we had granted orders in favour of the farn organization? Then, what about the position of the man who in some cases is HOUSE OF COMMONS Canadian Wheat Board advancing in western Canada, as we know, to the tune of thousands of dollars a year, credit for gasoline with which the crop is put in and taken off? If other people are going to have the privilege of getting an order upon the wheat board certificate funds and he is not, is he not going to take some cognizance of that fact and say, "Under these circumstances, since I am making a contri- bution to create and take off the crop, I do not think I should make that advance unless I am considered somewhere in the picture"? Thus, when we come to analyse this mat- ter what we are considering here in reality is whether we are going to attack and destroy the farmer's immunity for the sake of saving the farm organizations the trouble of asking the farmer to put his hand in his own pocket and pay $5 or $6 of his own money to each such organization. For my part- Mr. Argue: May I ask a question? Mr. Garson: No. I would like to finish the sentence. For my part, being a man of ordinary common sense, I cannot see any- thing but disadvantage to the farmer in this; therefore I am going to oppose the motion. Mr. Argue: When the minister suggested that this would destroy the immunity of the funds in the wheat board, does it follow that be thinks that if the farmers voted on the resolution it would be carried? Mr. Garson: No. I would be very much surprised indeed if the farmers of western Canada ever voted in favour of this plebiscite and I think my hon. friend would be, too. But let us take up my hon. friend's argu- ment. Let us assume that they will vote it down. In that case what are we members of parliament sent down here for? Are we sent down here to assume some responsibility as public men or are we sent down here so that every time an important issue comes up we are going to pass it back to the farmers at a cost of $20,000 or $50,000 or $100,000 to hold a plebiscite so that we can hide behind that plebiscite? For my part, I am prepared to assume my responsibility as a member of parliament. Mr. Irvin Studer (Swift Current-Maple Creek): Mr. Speaker, as a farmer who has been active in farm organizations since I have been in Canada I should like to say a few words in regard to this particular prob- lem. In my experience I have found that the greatest difficulty faced by farm organiza- tions, as perhaps by other organizations, has been the matter of financing. This resolution has as its legitimate objective perpetuating [Mr. Garson.3 their existence by finding a method of financ- ing these organizations. We are living in an organized world. As everyone knows, organization is necessary to existence in that world. If it were not so there would be many fewer organizations than are now in existence. Our lawyers have their bar association. I do not believe you can practise without being a member thereof. Often when I hear legal debates in this house I wish we could par- ticipate without being a member of the bar association. We also have medical associa- tions and labour associations. Our bankers, our implement dealers, our butchers, our bakers, our candlestick makers are all or- ganized. Everyone but the farmers in Canada are organized. This resolution is moved to help our farm organizations continue to exist. Their situation is entirely different from other organizations and, as I mentioned before, that is why this particular resolution is before this House of Commons. Others have referred to the difficulty ex- perienced by farrn organizations in collecting dues as compared with other organizations. Just to illustrate, if a farm organization set out to interview the approximately 10,000 farmers in my constituency in order to col- lect dues they would have to travel a distance equal to one and a half times around the world. The money collected would never begin to pay the travelling expenses alone. I appreciate that there will have to be some organizational work done in connection with the requisitions. It does not mean that the money is going to fall automatically into the hands of the farrn organizations. They will have to go out among the farmers and organize for these requisitions which it will be necessary for the farmers to sign before their dues can be deducted. If we had the sarne control as is exercised by labour and professional organizations, if we could not farm unless we belonged to an organization, things would be different. But we as free people, as far as farmers are concerned at least, have to devise a different method of collecting our farn dues in order to remain in existence. It is needless to refer to the benefits of farn unions. They are a necessity; they are absolutely essential in the scheme of things today. Not only have they brought about what we might call a new method of approaching farrn problems within Canada, they have done much to bring about inter- national unity. I think one of the greatest parts played by our farm organizations to the benefit of the economy of Canada was that part taken during the negotiations for the international wheat agreement. The vice- FEBRUARY 21, 1955 president of our leading farm organization was there to advocate that the importing countries buying our wheat agree to pay on a cost of production basis so the farmers of western Canada could continue to produce that which is essential not only to our country but to all the world. Just in that sphere alone I submit that our farm organ- izations should be permitted to continue to exist. There seems to be considerable feeling that the farm organizations are going to harm the economy of Canada. Nothing could be more untrue, because the objective of our farm organizations is to safeguard Canada. When the farming industry is safeguarded, then ail Canada is safeguarded. The objective of our farm organizations is to make Canada prosperous and to keep it so. Mention has been made of possible political implications of farm unions. I think we can eliminate all fear as to our farm organizations operating politically. We had some experience along these lines in western Canada for a number of years with the United Farmers. I can remember my wife and I driving 15 miles with a team of horses to attend meetings in the middle of winter because we felt this organization was trying to make our country more pros- perous and a better place in which to live. But we all know the history of the United Farmers. They entered politics and they disappeared. Our farm unions and farm organizations must be non-political. We need non-political organizations in Canada. There is not too much political unity west of the great lakes. Perhaps we cannot speak of unity west of the great lakes because of the various political theories and systems or whatever we may call them that we have in western Canada. So we need strong non-political farm unions. At times the people in the eastern part of Canada seem to indicate that they can get along without the people in western Canada. I want to see farm organ- izations which will spread the doctrine of unity in a non-political way so it will be acceptable to all the people of Canada, so we can be brought to that pinnacle where it will be possible to build a great united country. This is just not in existence in the west today in a political way. We have been told that certain things will happen if a certain course is followed, but I do not think that is the point at all. The farmer who produces the grain markets that grain through his own organization. I con- tend that the wheat board is a co-operative, because it distributes at cost what the farmer produces and turns back to him what is available in value for his production and Canadian Wheat Board work. The farmer as a member of that co- operative has certain rights. Mistakes may be made; but even if there are unfavourable, reactionary developments within the wheat board organization I submit it is still the farmer's right to vote as he wishes. It is a fundamental right and a human freedom that he should decide whether he wishes to have these deductions made. I think that is the only point we have to consider. Then if the farmer decides in favour of this we can take the next step. I am not fearful, as some hon. members in this house appear to be, that this will destroy our wheat board, or bring about par- ticipation by others in the payments due to the farmer. I am not too greatly worried about that. I think the farmers will safe- guard themselves. I believe all these things will be taken into consideration before the farmer casts his vote. I think he has suffi- cient perspective and wisdom to safeguard himself. All I wish to ask of the members of this house is that they grant the farmer that fundamental freedom we are all in favour of, the right to cast his vote. I believe everyone who thinks likewise will support this resolution. Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, as the minister responsible for the Canadian wheat board perhaps I should express an opinion on this bill. The bill asks that a plebiscite be taken- Mr. Knowles: It is only a resolution. Mr. Howe (Port Arthur): I should have said a resolution. Mr. Knowles: It makes quite a difference. Mr. Howe (Port Arthur): The resolution asks that the government arrange that the Canadian wheat board- Mr. Winch: No; "consider the advisability of". Mr. Howe (Port Arthur): We have had that point interpreted before, as my colleague re- minds me. It is a resolution really directing the government to arrange that the wheat board take a plebiscite. I am opposed to the principle of the resolu- tion for several reasons, of which I should like to mention two or three. I am not going to weary the house by repeating the argu- ments that have been well stated by other hon. members who have spoken in similar vein. I will say at once that I have as high a regard for the co-operatives and the farm organizations of western Canada as any man in this house. There is every reason why I should have a high opinion of them, because I have worked with thern now for the best HOUSE OF COMMONS Canadian Wheat Board part of 35 or 40 years. When I was in private practice a good part of my income came from organizations of that type. I have a high regard for them, and I believe they have some regard for my opinions in matters relating to their activities. If we arranged for the check-off I feel that it would not really be a favour to the farm organizations. I think the strength of every organization lies in that form of contact with the membership of the organization which comes through collecting their quarterly or annual dues. I have known other organiza- tions which took that view. I know the rail- way organizations have only recently and in part come to the conclusion that they should have a check-off, either voluntary or other- wise. I have heard railroad men say they thought it would weaken their organization if there were not the kind of direct contact between the railway organizations and their members which comes from collecting dues whenever those dues are payable. If this government undertook to arrange a plebiscite I think the implication would be that this government would look for a favour- able outcome of that plebiscite. It has been pointed out by myecolleague the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) that the granting of a lien on the wheat cheque for the purpose indicated would break down all the immunities that are enjoyed by the producer in being free of deductions from his grain cheque. To me that is a tremendously important matter. If the principle of deduction, voluntary or other- wise, from the grain cheque were accepted, surely the collection of dues to farm organi- zations would not have the highest priority. There are many other priorities that would have to be considered. For instance, con- sider the seed grain which the farmer must have as a matter of necessity to put in his crop. Surely that payment would have a high rating for deduction from the grain cheque. Surely supplies the farmer needs to carry on his farming operations would have a place. If you were going to start making deductions from the grain cheque it would be only fair that the farmer should have the right of voluntarily electing that his payments for supplies be made deductible. Then there is the matter of municipal taxes. There is no reason why the farmer, if he can elect to have his dues deducted, should not arrange to have voluntary deduction of his taxes. A very wide door is being opened, and I think there is a great deal of danger entailed in the process. Then there is the matter of loading this responsibility on the wheat board. If there is any board in this country today that bas about all the obligations it is capable of carrying [Mr. Howe (Port Arthur).] out, I think it is the wheat board. They have had a difficult time. They have various prob- lems apart from the selling of wheat. I see no reason why they should be elected first as the organization to test out the opinions of the farmers and then to collect dues for the farm organizations. I have had it said to me many times, "We do not think it will carry, but why not have a plebiscite?" I am opposed to the idea that any difficult problem faced by the govern- ment should be settled by a plebiscite. After all, the electors of this country send us to their parliament to exercise our best judg- ment on their behalf and to make decisions in the light of the information we can obtain regarding their problems. I have heard candi- dates in election campaigns speak about pleb- iscites, particularly members of the Social Credit party. In their election literature that party suggested that they would hold plebis- cites on various problems that were difficult to decide. I have never known of that party holding a plebiscite on any particular prob- lem. In my nearly 20 years in this bouse I know of only one occasion upon which this government conducted a plebiscite as a guide to action to be taken. I am therefore opposed to the principle of the government sponsoring a plebiscite on this particular issue. For the reasons I have stated, and for the reasons that have been advanced by my colleagues who have taken a similar view of this resolution, I shall vote against it. Some hon. Members: Question. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the bouse ready for the question? Some hon. Members: Question. The house divided on the motion (Mr. Decore) which was negatived on the follow- ing division: YEAS Argue Barnett Bell Blackmore Blair Bryce Bryson Byrne Cameron (Nanaimo) Campbell Cardiff Castleden Charlton Churchill Coldwell Dechene Decore Dinsdale Drew Ellis Fairclough. Mrs. Fulton Messrs: Gillis Green Hahn Hansell Herridge Hodgson Holowach Howe (Wellington- Huron) Johnson (Kindersley) Johnston (Bow River) Jones Kickharn Knight Knowles Leboe Low MacLean McCullough (Moose Mountain) McLeod Monteith Murphy (Lambton West) Studer Nicholson Thatcher Nickle Thomas Noseworthy Tucker Patterson Tustin Perron Weaver Philpott Weselak Pommer White (Middlesex East) Quelch Winch Robinson (Bruce) Yuil Shaw Zaplitny-66. Stanton Stewart (Winnieg North) NAYS Messrs: Prairie Farm Assistance Act Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lambion West): In view of the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce on February 3, page 795 of Hansard, in reply to a question by an hon. member as follows: Yes, it is the intention of the government to propose a committee to study atomie energy as well as research generally- -I wonder if I may have permission to with- draw my motion. Mr. Speaker: Has the hon. member leave to withdraw his motion? Some hon. Members: Agreed. Order discharged and motion withdrawn. PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE RESOLUTION SUGGESTING THAT PAYMENTS UNDER ACT BE DOUBLED Mr. A. M. Campbell (The Baillefords) moved: That, in the opinion of this house, the govern- ment should consider the advisability of introduc- ing legislation to double the payments to farmers under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. He said: When it became apparent last fall that there was to be a crop failure in practically all western Canada, I made a trip through my constituency and attended four farm conferences at which we tried to assess the damage and ascertain the position of our farmers. We tried to find out what help they required, if any. In the first place I found, to my surprise, that there was little 1953 grain stored on the farms. Throughout last session I had been under the impression that there was a large amount of 1953 wheat stored on the farm. I found this was not a fact in my constituency, partly because there was a crop failure over a large part of my constituency in 1953, and therefore there was not surplus grain from the 1953 crop upon which our farmers could fall back. In one fairly large district in par- ticular the 1953 grain had been shipped out. The reason was that the milling companies found this particular wheat had a high pro- tein content, and they sent orders into this district which resulted in pretty well emptying the elevators. One of the problems facing the farmers in that district was where they would obtain seed. This was overcome when they received a letter from the Minister of Trade and Com- merce (Mr. Howe) to the effect that the wheat board would make sure there was sufficient seed grain left in the district. The big problem raised by farmer after farmer at these conferences was how they were going to get funds with which to put in a crop and carry on until the next harvest. Applewhaite Ashbourne Balcom Batten Benidickson Bennett (Grey North) Blanchette Boisvert Brooks Brown (Brantford) Brown (Essex West) Buchanan Caron Carter Cavers Cloutier Deschatelets Dickey Dunuls Eyre Fairey Fraser (St. John's East) Gagnon Gardiner Garland Garson Gauthier (Lake St. John) Gauthier (Nickel Belt) Gauthier (Portneuf) Gingras Gingues Girard Goode Gour (Russell) Gregg Habel Hamilton (York West) Harkness Harris Healy Henry Houck Howe (Port Arthur) Huffman James Jutras Kirk (Antigonish- Guysborough) Kirk (Shelburne- Yarmouth-Clare) Lafontaine Langlois (Gasue) Lanointe Leduc (Gatineau) Legare Lennard MacDougall MacEachen MacNaught McCann McCubbin McCulloch (Pictou) McIvor McWilliam Mang Murphy (Westmorland) Pearkes Pearson Pickersgill Pinard Poulin Poulot Power (St. John's West) Purdy Reinke Richard (Ottawa East) Richardson Robertson Robichaud Robinson (Simcoe East) St. Laurent Shipley, Mrs. Simmons Sinclair Stick Stuart (Charlotte) Trainor Valois Villeneuve Weir White (Waterloo South) Winters Wylie-91. RESEARCH PROMOTION AND ACCELERATION OF ACTIVITIES- WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION On the order: Notice of motion: Mr. Murphy (Lambton West)- The following proposed resolution:--That. in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of setting up a special committee representative of all parties, with the power to call witnesses and send for documents and papers for the purpose of examining and reporting upon the advisability of providing in- ducements to promote and accelerate activities In the field of research. 1353FEBRUABY 21. 1955 HOUSE OF COMMONS Prairie Farm Assistance Act Of course this brought up the question of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. Many farmers stressed the fact that the assistance that could be given under this act was not going to be sufficient to meet the needs. Agriculture, Mr. Speaker, is the most im- portant industry in Canada. It is subject not only to market conditions but to the many hazards of nature, such as drought, frost, wind, hail, floods, weeds, disease, insect pests, blights and so on. While other industries are able to a very large extent to buy insur- ance against hazards they may encounter, in most cases the farmer has te meet these hazards of nature without the protection of insurance. True, the grain grower can buy insurance against wind and hail, and since 1939 has had some relief under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. While I believe the benefits of that act should be extended to other parts of Canada, I do not want to discuss that angle here this afternoon. What I want to do is point out the inadequacy of payments made today to farmers under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. This act was put on the statute books in 1939, after eight crop failures. The pur- pose of the act was to provide farmers who had experienced crop failures with funds with which to carry on, and with those funds a farmer had to provide for his family and sow another crop. 1 Those who are responsible-that is, the government of that day-were not overly generous when they set the amount of the payments on which they thought the farmer could get along. At that time farm costs were comparatively low. Horses were the main motive power and were usually raised on the farm. Many farmers were able to grow enough feed for their horses, even though they had dry periods. Mechaniza- tion of the farms was only in its infancy, and farmers were able to use some of these P.F.A.A. payments to provide food and cloth- ing for their families. Many of them could also secure wood for fuel. and it was a com- mon sight to sec strings of wagons going many miles to get their supplies of wood. These conditions have radically changed. The horse has gone. Most farms are com- pletely mechanized. Taxes have increased to two or three times what they were. Costs of production have skyrocketed while pay- ments to farmers under P.F.A.A. have re- mained as they were in 1939. The bureau of statistics gives a clear picture of this changed position. In 1939 the index number for the commodities and services required by farmers stood at 99-4, taking the period 1935 to 1939 as 100. The index num- [Mr. Campbell.] ber rose steadily each year thereafter, reach- ing a peak of 229-8 for the crop year 1952-53. At the present time this index number stands at 225, or 25 per cent more than double. If we related the maximum payment per acre to this index number, the maximum payment today should be $5.62 per acre; but it remains at the 1939 level of $2.50. These figures are definite proof that if the government in 1939 considered that the maxi- mum payment to the farmer should be $2.50 per acre, the very same reasoning today would require that the maximum payment should be $5.62 per acre. It will be remem- bered that there was a limit or a maximum of $500 per farmer. What has it cost the people of Canada to provide this assistance? Since the act was passed in 1939, up to March 31, 1954 the government has paid to farmers $146,105,- 574. The farmers, who are assessed 1 per cent of the value of all grain sold, have them- selves contributed $79,708,145, leaving a cost to the government of $66,397,429. This is not a large sum of money over a period of 15 years. That would mean a yearly average of $4,406,449. Let us compare this assistance given to the farmers under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act with the assistance given the gold min- ing industry. The following table would indi- cate the sums the government paid the gold mining industry between 1948 and 1953: Paid to Gold Mining Year Industry 1948 ............................. $10,500,000 1949 ............................. 12,500,000 1950 ............................. 9,000,000 1951 ............................. 10,700,000 1952 ............................. 10,800,000 1953 ............................. 11,700,000 It will be noted that the amount of money paid to gold mines between 1948 and 1953 inclusive, under the terms of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act, was in excess of $65 million. When the farm union delegation was in Ottawa in January it did not say anything about increasing payments under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. I think probably that pot had not started to boil at the time they came down here. However, it was evident after they got home that they began to learn what some of us had found out earlier in the year; and when I say this I include the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker), because I know he must have made a survey similar to the one I made. He found there was a definite need to increase these payments to farmers, and said so in his speech in the debate in reply to the speech from the throne. After the farm union council returned to their homes they submitted an appendix to their brief of January 19. I should like to FEBRUARY 21, 1955 put this brief on record, as well as some resolutions I have received from a number of municipalities. I know the Minister of Agri- culture (Mr. Gardiner) and other members of the government have been receiving large numbers of these resolutions in the past few weeks. This is the appendix to the brief of the interprovincial farm union council presented to the government on January 19: As an appendix to its recent annual presentation to the federal cabinet, the interprovincial farm union council-representing the farm unions of Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the British Columbia bloc-wishes to add one further recommendation to its other requests; namely, the provision of some emergency financial assistance to western growers in addition to that available under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. Then it goes on to ask that the government take whatever action is necessary to make funds available to enable farmers to con- tinue operating their land. The next para- graph states: We believe that the principle embodied in the Prairie Farm Assistance Act-to give western farmers some measure of government aid in the event of disaster overtaking their crops, and to require farmers to contribute one per cent of the value of their grain deliveries In years when they have crops-is sound. Over the years, P.F.A.A. bas proved its value. But the farm union council would like to point out that while there have been radical changes in farming conditions since the act was passed in 1939, the maximum payment permitted under the act remains unchanged at $500. (Based on a payment of $2.50 per acre on one-half the seeded acreage up to 400 acres). Five hundred dollars was a substantial sum in 1939 to a farm f amily who had lost their crop. Today, measured In termas of purchasing power, it is worth less than half what it was then. In addition, farm operating costs are much higher in 1955 than they were 16 years ago. In 1939, many farms were operated by horses. In the next two paragraphs they discuss the matter along similar lines. I am skipping some: In 1939, the price of No. 1 wheat f.o.b. Fort William, was 79.3 cents per bushel and the farmers' contribution to P.F.A.A. calculated on this basis was four-fifths of a cent on each bushel. In 1952-53, the last year for which final wheat prices are available, the farmer received $1.8l per bushel for No. 1 wheat, basis Fort William, and paid 1-8 cents per bushel as his contribution to P.F.A.A. For the 1953-54 crop the farmer so far has received $1.50 per bushel for No. 1 wheat, basis Fort William, and bas contributed 1.5 cents per bushel to P.F.A.A. On the 1954-55 crop the farmer's contribution to date bas been 1-4 cents per bushel on No. 1 wheat delivered. We realize that farmers' contributions have had to be augmented by the federal government. Because of the better than average crops in the years immediately preceding 1954, farmers' con- tributions have shown a considerable increase, and the payments the government bas been required to make to areas qualifying under the act have been substantially lower. The government therefore should be able to give a greater amount of assistance in this emergency. Prairie Farm Assistance Act We would point out that the government bas, we believe wisely, provided for increased benefits to the unemployed to help them tide over the period in which they are without jobs. While few farmers are idle, the crop failure they have experienced means that they will receive very little monetary return for their work. In fact, in a large percentage of cases, farmers actually lost money since crop receipts did not meet operating costs. For the reasons we have enumerated, we would ask the government to consider action to provide, for this year at least, that payments to farmers who have suffered crop loss, and who qualify under P.F.A.A., be doubled-that is, that their maximum assistance be $1,000 instead of the $500 now set by terms of the act. We feel that such action Is reasonable and just. It would be especially appreciated by the farmers of Manitoba, who, over the years, have contributed more to P.F.A.A. than they have received in benefits. Recognizing that many Manitoba farmers have experienced crop losses for two successive years, and in some cases, for three, due to previous flooding for which they did not qualify under P.F.A.A., adequate financial help this year would be doubly welcome. Increased assistance to farmers who lost their crops would put sorely needed additional purchas- ing power in the hands of farmers who would be enabled to purchase and pay cash for more con- sumer goods as well as to liquidate some of their debts to local merchants. Higher purchasing power in the hands of farmers would help the whole prairie economy, with resulting benefits to the rest of Canada. All of which is respectfully submitted by The interprovincial farm union council, on behalf of the Ontario farmers union, the Manitoba farmers union, the Saskatchewan farmers union, the farmers' union of Alberta, and the B.C. bloc. I have a number of resolutions along the same line. I have one from Leask, Saskat- chewan, where the secretary-treasurer is Mr. H. K. Elder. The resolution reads as follows: Dear Sir: As a portion of your constituency is within this municipality my council requested I forward you a copy of a resolution they approved at a recent council meeting. This resolution reads as follows: "Whereas the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, 1939 was originally purposed to alleviate the burden which the western farmer suffered due to crop failure; and Whereas during the same period the farmers' 1 per cent contribution has almost tripled due to the increased price of wheat; and Whereas as there are now fewer farmsteads than there were at the time of passing of the act, a lesser amount is paid out; Therefore be it resolved that the federal gov- ernment be asked to immediate'y amend the act so that the amounts payable under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act be doubled and to make the same retroactive for the 1954-55 crop year." I hold in my hand a copy of a letter writ- ten to Mr. J. G. Taggart and another which contains the folloWing resolution from the HOUSE OF COMMONS Prairie Farm Assistance Act municipality of Manitou Lake, Mr. M. A. Swenarchuk, secretary-treasurer. The resolu- tion reads as follows: Dear Sir: At a recent meeting of the council, the follow- ing resolution was passed which I was instructed to submit for the consideration of the minister, the Hon. James G. Gardiner: "Whereas the value of the award under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act is not now comparable to that in the year 1939 when the act was first enacted; and Whereas the amount of the contribution by the farmers has almost tripled as a result of the in- crease in the price of grain; Be it resolved that the federal government be asked to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act immediately to provide for the doubling of the award in the case of crop failure and that same be made retroactive to the current crop year." The resolution speaks for itself and no doubt the preamble thereto indicates what is believed to be true. We urge you to give this matter your most favourable consideration. I have another one from the municipality of Great Bend, which is in pretty much the same language and reads as follows: "Whereas the Prairie Farm Assistance Act 1939 was originally purposed to alleviate the burden which the western farmer suffered due to crop failure; and Whereas during the same period the farmer's 1 per cent contribution has almost tripled due to the increased price of wheat; and Whereas as there are now fewer farmsteads than there were at the time of passing of the act, a lesser amount is paid out; Therefore be it resolved that the federal gov- ernment be asked to immediately amend the act so that the amounts payable under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act be doubled and to make the same retroactive for the 1954-55 crop year." At six o'clock the house took recess. AFTER RECESS The house resumed at eight o'clock. Mr. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned for dinner I had just placed on record a number of resolutions passed by different municipalities urging the govern- ment to double the payments to farmers under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. I have more resolutions, but I do not intend to put them on record tonight. Later this month the rural muncipalities association will be having their annual meeting, and I understand this matter is high on their agenda. I said earlier in my remarks that when I made a survey of my constituency last fall I found quite a large number of farmers who had suffered crop failure in 1953. I have found since that this was the case not only in my constituency but throughout [Mr. Campbell.] the western provinces. In 1953 payments under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act were as follows: Manitoba ........................ 5,025 farmers Saskatchewan ................... 5,733 Alberta .......................... 5,547 16,305 That was the number of farmers who suf- fered a crop loss two years in a row. Those are the people who are badly in need of some cash assistance at the present time. It is just as essential now as it was in 1939 that farmers who have had a crop loss or failure should receive sufficient assistance to carry them along. We all know that the wheat and grain grower, especially during the last ten or twelve years, has done more to put our economy in its present position than any other class. I should like to read a short editorial which appeared in the Ottawa Journal last week pointing out this fact. They say: Last year was not a particularly good or happy one for prairie farmers. Largely by adverse weather and rust, grain crops were cut sharply, a lot of 1953 wheat still remained on farms or in storage, and the net result was that cash was none too plentiful in the three provinces. There was a substantial decline in farm buying. This is bad for the prairies, but also for all of us. A survey just completed shows that in Canada last year 33 per cent fewer tractors, 64 per cent fewer combines and 44 per cent fewer threshers were sold than in 1953. In many cases farm machinery sales were lowest since 1944. While a large part of our farm machinery sales are to prairie farmers the machines are almost all manufactured in Ontario. Ontario workmen were out of jobs because prairie farmers did not buy machinery in 1954, and they may still be out of jobs in 1955 unless things pick up on the prairies. It's the old story of distant causes having their effect near home, something too often forgotten when the related questions of employment and agriculture are debated. My whole argument is this. If $2.50 per acre assistance was needed in 1939, double that amount is needed today to provide the same assistance to the farmer. Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to follow the hon. member for The Battlefords (Mr. Campbell), and I think he is to be congratulated upon bringing this matter to the attention of the house at this time. There is a certainty that this year the farmers of the prairie provinces have suffered an unprecedented crop failure due mainly to rust and the severe wet con- ditions which have prevailed in those prov- inces. The resolution moved by the hon. member reads: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of introducing legislation to double the payments to farmers under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. This act was set up 16 years ago when the farmer's cost of production was much lower than it is today. Since that date the act has never been changed to increase the payments; consequently when payments are made in all fairness they cannot be said to meet the needs of the farmers. The farmer's cost of pro- duction has risen greatly in the years since 1946. The house will recall that controls were taken off by this government shortly after the war, and it was not very long before the farmer's cost of production began to rise, especially the cost of farm machinery. In some cases farm machinery prices have in- creased 150 to 200 per cent over what they were prior to 1945. Today the farmer finds himself in a cost- price squeeze, a position about which he can do very little as far as reducing his cost of production is concerned. In the three western wheat-producing provinces crop failures have made it very difficult for the farmers to carry on. Looking at the consolidation of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act I find that section 3 is entitled "Crop Failure Assistance". The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has indicated to the bouse that the act was set up primarily to meet drought conditions. It may be quite true that that is what they had in mind at the time, but I see nothing in the act which would prevent it being used to cover other types of crop failure. I plead with the minister and the government to do everything possible to make this problem easier for western farmers who have suffered such severe losses from crop failures due mainly to rust and wet conditions. Many sections of the west were flooded. In some sections farmers were not able to put in crops and in other sections where they were able to put them in the continuous rains were so heavy that they had absolutely no crops. Then we suffered from stem rust, called 15-B, which took a great deal of our western crop. I am sure all hon. members of the bouse want this act to be as comprehensive as pos- sible so it will carry out its objectives. I was able to spend a few days up in the interlake country of Manitoba helping my good friend the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce), and they told me there was a large section of country which was not covered by the act. Having regard to the position and the plight of the farmers up there, I want to appeal to the minister to do something about that con- dition so these people will have coverage under this act. They have been paying their share, by the deduction provided for in the act, of 1 per cent levied on the return from their grain. I think it only fair that they should also have the payments, but according Prairie Farm Assistance Act to the act they are not eligible. I do not think that under the act as presently constituted they are getting a fair deal. I should like to draw the attention of the house to chapter 213, section 3, subsection 2, paragraphs (i) and (vi). There we find that in special areas where the settlement has been made under the Veterans Land Act they are now eligible for payment, but I under- stand there are still sections which, by agreement between the federal government and the provinces, are not covered under the act. Then too we have large blocks of land which again were formerly provincial lands, which were classified as marginal or sub- marginal but later were found to be pro- ductive when brought under production. Today grain is being produced on many sec- tions of land of that nature. I would plead with the minister to change the act so these sections will be brought under its terms. I have stated something of the plight of western farmers, and I think it is unneces- sary for me to repeat the arguments or the statistics which were given previously by the hon. member for The Battlefords. I believe it is sufficient for me to say that the net Saskatchewan farm income dropped from $473 million in 1953 to $111 million in 1954. Those figures are for the calendar years. Furthermore, since 1951 the prices of farm products have dropped 22 per cent while production costs have gone up 16 per cent. One can readily see the plight of the farmers, even those who were fortunate enough to have good crops again this year. But I happen to come from the constituency of Moose Mountain, which is situated in the southeastern portion of the province. It is perhaps one of the hardest hit areas in Sas- katchewan this year owing to flooding con- ditions and the 15-B rust. I would therefore plead with the minister to do something about the situation existing in those areas where the act does not now cover the farmers. On February 17 I asked the minister the following question, as recorded at page 1237 of Hansard: Mr. Speaker, has the minister's attention been drawn to the situation where small acreages of Selkirk wheat have disqualified farmers from pay- ment under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act? Can the minister state whether in all cases Selkirk wheat will not be a determining factor in deciding eligibility under that act? The minister's reply was as follows: On two or three occasions at this session I have announced to the house that, prior to the seeding period of 1954, the government had distributed Selkirk wheat to quite a number of farmers in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. They dis- tributed six bushels to farmers who seeded it on FEBRUARY 21, 1955 1357 HOUSE OF COMMONS Prairie Farm Assistance Act from two to three acres, and have grown crops from it. None of the crops grown as a result of that distribution has been allowed to influence in any way the decisions with regard to payments under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act in those areas. In other words they are not allowed to prevent payment in the area because of that particular production. I have tried to make a survey in my con- stituency, and I have found to date there has been a great deal of indecision with respect to whether or not payments are going to be made. I want to read to the house a portion of a letter forwarded to me by a constituent who had received it from the department of agriculture at Regina, the P.F.A.A. branch. It reads in part as follows: In view of the small acreage of wheat with a high yield we had already determined to take this block back to the board of review to be recon- sidered. We cannot prophesy just what their decision will be and, therefore, hesitate to make any hopeful prediction. The letter goes on to say that they are going to have the matter under review. My appeal to the minister is that in all cases in deter- mining eligibility under this act Selkirk wheat should be taken out of consideration and that, regardless of what acreage a farmer may have, it should not in any way disqualify the remainder of his farm should he have other acreage under production, nor should it dis- qualify any block of sections which other- wise would be eligible under the act. I think this can be done without any con- travention of the act and without any changes in the act. In the regulations, chapter 213, section 5, we find paragraph (e) which reads as follows: (e) providing that in special circumstances another kind of grain may be taken in lieu of wheat as the basis of awards under this act, and in that event what number of bushels of such other kind of grain shall be deemed to be equiva- lent to a certain number of bushels of wheat for the purposes of such substitution; If the minister is willing to do so, I think he can rule out, under the regulations, wheat in certain areas as the qualifying grain for eligibility, and can accept the farmer's pro- duction of coarse grains. Then again in the same section, in paragraph (g) we find this provision: (g) excluding from the operation of any section of this act any lands in the spring wheat area and any grain grown thereon; I think that paragraph makes it quite clear that this year. without waiting for any amend- ment to the act, these people can be covered so they will not sufTer through having no payment under this act. I might point out to the minister that many of the farmers in my constituency last year- that is in the crop year 1953-suffered condi- tions of rain and flooding as a result of which [Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain).] they had little crop. This year the situation is just doubly hard because it is the second year in a row during which many farmers in my constituency have lost their crops. Consequently merchants are in need of money. In many cases the municipalities are not able to collect taxes. The problem is urgent. Of course I think the government has been remiss in the past in allowing the decontrol of prices to put the farmer into the present position. While it is true that we had for three years-namely 1951, 1952 and 1953- abnormally large crops, the fact remains that the indebtedness of western farmers has in- creased both under the Canadian Farm Loan Act and under loans from the chartered banks. Therefore I appeal to the minister to take what I have said into serious consideration and make these payments. There is one other thing I wish to say in closing. I think the government has been remiss in not doing something about this matter earlier. The crop was taken off some three months ago. The act stipulates that the first of these payments should be made about December, the second 40 per cent being in the month of March following. I think the government should speed up these payments so the farmer will have at least this payment in order to meet some of his current expenses. Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us has caused me considerable concern, because I have been interested in the Prairie Farm Assistance Act for a good many years. I have been convinced that the act has provided a good many farm- ers in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta with considerable benefit over the last 15 years, helping them in their farming opera- tions. But the act is now 15 years old, and since it was made law in 1939 a good many changes have taken place. Conditions today are much different from those of 1939 which the act was supposed to be designed to meet. The act has not been amended to keep pace with the changes or the needs of these times. We think it is time for a thorough overhaul of the legislation to bring it into line with the realities of the present situation. The hon. member for The Battlefords made what I thought was a good case for increased payments to the farmers under the act. His main argument, as I heard it, centred around the increase in costs to the farmers since 1939 or, if we want to put it another way, the serious decline in the purchasing value of the Canadian dollar since 1939. I think that argument is valid; but at the same time I suppose we would have to admit that the government's argument will also be valid, FEBRUARY 21, 1955 namely that the dollars contributed by the farmers to the fund are also short in pur- chasing value. Mr. Argue: That is all the more reason why the payments should be increased. Mr. Low: But at the same time I think the government might argue that if the bene- fits under the act are to be doubled, then the farmers will also have to consider doubling their contribution because there is no fund that has accumulated over the years. We have to admit the validity of that argu- ment. But does that mean to say for one moment that increased payments should not be made to farmers under the act. There is a good deal of dissatisfaction ex- pressed with this act and its administration. As I go about my constituency and other parts of the country I have discovered that the farmers generally are just not pleased with it, and there are several reasons they cite. One has to do with the way the govern- ment interprets the definition of the word "farmer" as it is set out in section 2, subsec- tion 1 (e). In so many cases we find that the word "farmer" is interpreted in such a way as to do a valid farmer out of his benefits under the act even if he should qualify in the township. For instance, take the case of a man who has been forced by the circumstances of the times, that is a minor recession or some- thing of the kind, to find a job to supplement his meagre farm income. Nevertheless he does go ahead, farms his land and tries to be a good farmer as defined in subsection 1 (e) of section 2 of the act. But when at the end of the year he finds that his whole township or area qualifies for payment under the act and he makes an application, he is denied the benefit because it is said that investiga- tion shows that he has received a little more than 50 per cent of his income for the year from a pursuit other than farming. That interpretation has been used in many cases to deny bona fide farmers the benefits of the act, and the people generally are not satisfied with that situation. They feel that because over a good many years they have contributed to the fund out of which the benefits are paid they should be entitled to the benefits if in their farming operations the crop yield falls below the 8 or 4 bushels per acre prescribed in the act. That is only one of many complaints. I find that there are a good many farmers in differ- ent parts of the country who are unhappy over the operations of section 6, particularly subsections (a) and (b). Many injustices have been caused, and the application of these clauses has been very unfair. I think section Prairie Farm Assistance Act 6 (c) was very good initially, but sections 6 (a) and 6 (b) certainly can be and are used by the administration to bring unfairness and injustice to many farmers. In Alberta particularly crop loss very often results from hail. The administrators of the act do not like to admit that hail loss is a cause for benefits to be paid under the act, but it is admitted that where hail loss causes a drop in yield to below 8 bushels or 4 bushels to the acre, if the whole area in which their farms are situated qualifies the farmers are to be paid the benefit. Amongst the farmers in hail districts much dissatisfac- tion arises because of the fact that the hail- storm may sweep over a particular area totally destroying the crop, but the area will not be large enough to qualify for benefits. It may also be that the small area totally destroyed is in an area of otherwise very high yield, and so the operation of section 6 (c) is denied. Because of the fact that this does happen so often in high production areas, and in- justice occurs, we feel that it is not merely a question of increasing the payments to farmers. That would of course meet the needs of a good many farmers who feel that this year they are in need of emergency assistance, as has been suggested by the mover and seconder of the resolution. But that is only part of what we think should be done with the act. We believe it is time for a complete overhaul of the legisla- tion. We are not against what the mover of the resolution is seeking to achieve. We support the need for higher payments, and we do not want what we are about to propose to be interpreted to mean that we are opposed to the resolution itself. We shall support it, but first we would like to test something else by way of an amendment to the resolution. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch): That the resolution be amended by deleting all of the words in the third and fourth Unes thereof and substituting the following therefor: "(1) referring the Prairie Farm Assistance Act to the standing committee on agriculture and coloniza- tion for a thorough study of the administration of the act and (2) amending the Prairie Farm Assist- ance Act to establish the basis of qualification for payments of benefits on an individual farm basis". Mr. Speaker: May I intervene immediately to inform the hon. member that it does not constitute an amendment to move that a motion should go to a committee. However, the hon. member may continue his speech and I will have a further look at the authorities on the point. Mr. Low: Mr. Speaker, actually I was not moving that it be sent to a committee. The net result of the amendment would be that HOUSE OF COMMONS Prairie Farm Assistance Act the motion would be that the government take under consideration referring the whole act to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization with a view to having a thorough study of the act and its regulations and the effects of the administration thereof on farmers generally. Mr. Speaker: In that case, I may inform the hon. member, it widens the scope of the motion; and if it does that, in accordance with our rules, it is not in order. It is wider than the scope of the motion and such an amendment cannot be moved unless there bas been previous notice. However, the hon. member may continue his remarks. Mr. Low: Whatever may be the position of the amendment itself, Mr. Speaker, per- haps just proposing it suggests the sort of thing that is in our minds. We do feel it is not enough merely to ask for an increase in the payments. I suppose such an increase would materially help those farmers who this year find themselves in a bad position as a consequence of the widespread crop fail- ure last year, and who could qualify under the act. But it would not help those people who have been on the borderline, or who can- not now qualify as a consequence of the inter- pretations that are placed on some of the definitions as well as through the operations of section 6, subsections (a) and (b). It seems to me that the only way we can get down to something like a complete over- haul of the act to bring it into line with today's needs is to have it brought before a committee for study. I would suggest that the government do that of its own motion, without having it called for from the other side. No one can argue that after 15 years of operation, with only minor amendments here and there, the act does not need to be brought up to date and does not need a thorough overhaul. We suggest that instead of amending it piecemeal, we bring in amend- ments that will be really worth while. I suggest, too, that we should bring this Prairie Farm Assistance Act more into the category of an insurance program. I feel that is what we thought it was going to develop into. I suggest the farmers themselves had every rea- son to believe that the Prairie Farm Assist- ance Act, as passed in 1939, would gradually develop into a worth-while crop insurance program. I suggest that the government give very careful consideration to subjecting the act to a thorough study and overhaul. In our judgment it is the only way a satisfactory result could be obtained. We shall support the request of the hon. member, because we do feel that increased payments should be [Mr. Low.] made; but at the same time we would not feel that that is as far as we should go. Mr. W. A. Tucker (Rosthern): I have already indicated my thoughts as to the considera- tion that should be given to increasing these prairie farm assistance payments, in my speech on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I do not intend, therefore, to take up too much time tonight, other than to mention again some of the points to which I feel the government might give considera- tion. As bas been pointed out, when the act was first passed in 1939 the average price the farmer received for wheat was about 57 cents per bushel. With the 1 per cent deduction he was paying to the government a little over half a cent or -57 cents per bushel. The average price the farmer has received for No. 1 northern wheat during the last eight years bas been about $1.63 per bushel. In other words, for eight years the average amount collected by the government under this 1 per cent deduction bas been 1-6 cents per bushel, or roughly three times the amount per bushel that was collected when the act was first passed. By virtue of the increase in the price of wheat, due to some extent I suggest to a drop in the value of money, the amount collected by the government bas been increased but the amount a farmer can collect bas not been increased. The figure to which most reference bas been made is the maximum amount a farmer can receive, namely $500. Some bon. members might be under the impression that in a year of crop failure the farmer will get $500. In order to get $500 there bas to be 400 acres under crop, which would mean that the farmer would have to have at least three- quarters of a section. So there are literally thousands of farmers who have no hope of qualifying for the $500 maximum payment. This year, when a great many farmers have had almost complete crop failure, the average payment under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, which was designed to help tide the farmer over to the next harvest and help him seed his crop, will be somewhere between $200 and $250. On the basis of the cost of living back in 1939, $200 is worth less than $100 was then. As bas been pointed out, the farmer's cost of production and cost of living, on the basis of 1935-1939 equalling 100, have now risen to 225. In other words it takes $225 to do the same work in helping tide the farmer over the year and put in another crop that he could do with $100 in the days when the act was first passed. I submit, Mr. Speaker, we have recognized that money does not go as far as it did some years ago in regard to other occupations. We have recognized it by raising our own salaries; we have recognized it by raising the salaries of civil servants. We have recognized it all along the line by doubling pension payments and increasing unemployment insurance pay- ments. It has been recognized that a dollar does not go as far as it would 15 years ago. Since for the past eight years the farmer has been paying into this fund about three times as much per bushel as he was when the 'act was passed, since the money he is getting back is worth less than half in so far as pur- chasing power is concerned and doing what the act was designed to do, then it seems to me a case has been made out for considering increasing these payments. It has been pointed out that the govern- ment has paid out to our western farmers about $146 million under this act, and under the 1 per cent deduction provision they have collected slightly less than $80 million. The government has, therefore, paid out of the consolidated revenue fund about $66 million. It has been recognized that the only reason we can grow hard wheat in our prairie prov. inces is because it is a more or less semi-arid region. It was recognized also that the government had a choice of either paying out agricultural assistance during the future years of crop failure or setting up a scheme to which the farmer would contribute but which would not be self-supporting. Repeated studies of the situation in western Canada and in simi- lar parts of the United States have shown that the areas that need this protection most can- not afford to pay a sufficiently high premium to provide crop insurance. It was realized from the outset that the government would have to contribute to any scheme that would substantially alleviate these conditions. In 1939 it was considered better for the government to set up a schene to which farmers would contribute, facing the fact that from time to time the government would probably have to contribute to the fund to make up any deficiency. That fact was faced by the government of the day; and at this point I wish to pay tribute to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) for introducing the measure and having it accepted by the House of Commons. I was present when he did this, and I would say to him that this legislation has been greatly appreciated. I am sure it will be appreciated in future, and I hope the Minister of Agri- culture will be with us for many years to witness its application. This act has been of such great assistance to the farmers of western Canada that I am Prairie Farm Assistance Act sure the work of the Minister of Agriculture in this connection will be appreciated for a long time to come. Those of us who are taking the position that the payments should be increased are simply saying that the act should be placed in a position where it would give assistance to farmers to get them over a difficult period, until the following year, so they may look after their families and sow their crops. For this purpose we feel that the payments should be as effective today as when the act was passed. When we ask for this I submit we are not asking for anything that is really out of place. At the time the act was passed the millions of dollars it was contemplated would have to be put into the scheme bulked much larger, when compared with expenditures by the federal government at that time, than would a similar amount today. Hon. members will recall that at the time the act was passed total expenditures by the federal government were in the neighbourhood of $400 or $500 million, and of course they are much greater today. If at that time we were ready to face an expenditure considered so worth while, then I submit we should bring the act up to date, when the amount involved represents a much smaller proportion of total national expenditures. It has also been repeatedly brought to my attention-and members from the prairies will realize that this is correct-that these payments are made to individual farmers. The maximum amount payable is $500. In other words the act was designed to help the small farmer. No matter how big a farmer's operations may be, he cannot get more than $500 under the act. The trend in western Canada has been such as to reduce the possible obligation of the federal government under the act. In 1941 there were 298,131 or almost 300,000 eligible farmers in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Peace river area. In 1951 the total number of farmers who might conceivably qualify for help under P.F.A.A. had decreased to 250,302. In other words the number of farmers who might hope to get benefits under the act had decreased by 47,829 in the ten- year period between 1941 and 1951. This means a reduction in the amount the national treasury would have to face in the event of total crop failure. It has been pointed out that since that reduction in liability has taken place, it would be even more in order to bring up the purchasing power of the amount paid under the act to where it was when the act was first passed. Something has been said by some of my friends about our being too much inclined to ask for help fron the national treasury. Let FEBRUARY 21, 1955 1361 1362 HOUSE OF Prairie Farm Assistance Act me point out to members in all parts of the house that when western Canada is pros- perous the whole of Canada tends to be prosperous. Depression struck first in the thirties in the agricultural areas of Canada, the prairie areas; and it would not be a good thing now for the national economy to permit the purchasing power of the western prairies to sink too low. That was one of the original ideas behind passage of the act, to tide the west over those times it had crop failures, which it was recognized were bound to occur from time to time. It was considered better to have a scheme like this to maintain pur- chasing power in days of crop failure, not only from the standpoint of helping out the farmers but also from that of lightening the blow to the national economy. I submit that if payments under the act are increased, as I suggested during the debate on the speech from the throne, or if they are doubled, as is now suggested, it might cost the government about $25 million more. This amount would go into circulation, with the result that it would build up employment here in central Canada and, generally, prevent as much suffering from a crop failure. It would do just as much good in central Canada as it would in the west, because everyone knows that most of the money paid to our farmers is ultimately used to buy goods produced here in central Canada. So I suggest that if this scheme were amended so it could do what it was intended to do originally, not only would it help us in the west but it would help the economy of Canada as a whole. One of my reasons for taking part in the debate is, as hon. members know, that last fall our party had a convention in Saskat- chewan. I believe I am quite within the mark when I say it was one of the most enthusiastic and best attended political con- ventions ever held in the history of our province. At that convention a resolution was passed asking the government to give consideration to increasing payments under the act. This was one of the measures which made me proud of supporting the Liberal government of that day, which passed this act which has been of so much benefit to the people on the prairies. And I take equal pride in supporting the government now in office which has improved the act from time to time. I am quite satisfied consideration will be given to the representations for further improvement made from time tc time. It seems to me a good case has been made out for increasing these payments this time. I went over these points in my speech in the debate on the address in reply. Since [Mr. Tucker.] COMMONS that time I have received more mail con- cerning that speech than I ever received with respect to anything I have said in the House of Commons. In that mail were resolutions frorn eight municipalities in and around my constituency. I have received representations from wheat pool committees, from farmers' union lodges. and from in- dividuals. I have received letters and petitions, and there is no doubt that the farmers of western Canada, knowing that this government passed the act in 1939 and knowing also that it does not go as far as it did when it was first passed, have great confidence that favourable consideration will be given to the request for increased pay- ments. I commend the government most highly upon having passed the act originally, and in particular I commend the Minister of Agriculture upon his leadership in that direction. I look forward with confidence to this matter being given the consideration I feel it deserves. Mr. Speaker: I think I should dispose of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low). It is not with- out hesitation that I do so, because the hon. member and I seem to be always at variance recently. Latitude on private members' day is quite wide. Although in the discussion of the subject matter of the resolution moved by the hon. member for The Battlefords (Mr. Campbell) great latitude is allowed, when it comes to amendments one must be very careful because otherwise they may be used as precedents, and if we should let one go we do not know where it might take us. Probably the hon. member has read cita- tion 344 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, third edition, and has construed the citation and the resolution to mean that provided he was dealing with the Prairie Farm Assistance Act he was on the subject matter of the motion and therefore his amend- ment would be relevant. What is the subject matter of the resolution moved by the hon. member for The Battle- fords? It is not the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. He wants an amending bill to double the payments to farmers under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. Therefore the subject matter is the doubling of the payments, and any amendment moved would have to be relevant to that particular subject matter, the doubling of the payments. What the bon. member proposes in his amendment is a totally different subject matter which could be the substance of a motion moved after notice and debated in this house under the heading: "Notices of Motions". He proposes to refer the Prairie Farm Assist- ance Act, the entire act, to a standing com- mittee and amend it in a particular different from that which is being asked for by the hon. member for The Battlefords. It has no reference to the doubling of the payments. He wants to amend it in order to establish the basis for payment of benefits on an individual farm basis. If he reads citation 344 he will see: It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed. Every amendment pro- posed to be made either to a question or to a proposed amendment should be so framed that if agreed to by the house the question or amendment as amended would be intelligible and consistent with itself. The law on the relevancy of amendments Is that if they are on the same subject matter with the original motion, they are admissible but not when foreign thereto. The amendment of the hon. member relates to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act but not to the doubling of the payments under the act, and that is the distinction. Therefore, with much regret, I must rule the amendment out of order on the ground that it is not relevant to the subject matter of the main motion. Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for The Battlefords on the very important motion he presented this afternoon for the consideration of the house. The Prairie Farm Assistance Act is of very great impor- tance to western Canada. It is an act, as hon. members have said, that has been on the statute books since 1939. It was placed on the statute books by a Liberal administration. No one in this group is attempting to with- draw from the Liberal administration any credit that is theirs because in 1939, after they had been in office for four years, at long last they did something that would provide an alternative to the relief that was being distributed in those days. Do not let anyone in this house go away with the impression that in this act we have something peculiar to western Canada; that it is one of those things, as so many hon. members like to believe, that is intended to benefit western Canada only; because if hon. members will study other acts of this govern- ment they will find that from 1948 to 1953 the government provided the gold mines of this country with a subsidy of $65 million. This amount is almost as great as the subsidy of $66,400,000 paid over a period of 16 years under this act, for the benefit of over 200,000 farm families on the prairies. Therefore I say in relation to the treatment given the gold-mining companies, the treatment given FEBRUARY 21, 1955 Prairie Farm Assistance Act 1363 western wheat producers has not been any great credit to the government. The Prairie Farm Assistance Act came about, as I have said, because of the huge relief bills paid in the 1930's, owing to low farm prices. That is the main reason, but there was also the fact that there were many years of lower than average crops. According to the book entitled "The Wheat Economy" by Professor Britnell of the University of Sas- katchewan, between 1929 and 1938 the dominion government paid out in relief, or had guaranteed provincial payments, a total of over $131 million in the province of Saskatchewan alone. It was in the light of the calamity that results from widespread crop failures that this act was placed on the statute books. It was put on to make sure that such relief payments would not have to be made again. Along the same lines and for the same reason the government placed on the statute books the Unemployment Insurance Act. I as a member of the C.C.F. party am very happy indeed that we have the Unemploy- ment Insurance Act. We would like to see its benefits extended and the act improved. It should be pointed out that under that act the government has already contributed, in a shorter period than the Prairie Farm Assist- ance Act has been in existence, the large sum of $248 million. I repeat, the moneys paid out of the federal treasury toward prairie farm assistance are not payments made peculiarly to western Canada, because other acts have provided for payments to other sections of the economy. If any hon. member in this house from Ontario, the maritimes, Quebec, British Columbia or any other place wishes to say something about this act I suggest that in- stead of making any criticism of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and the moneys the government has paid out under it, he should be standing in his place fighting on behalf of the producers in those provinces for the same kind of protection, In the event of a crop failure, that the prairie farmers have under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. If the members who have tobacco growing areas, potato growing areas or fruit growing areas or other such areas in their constituencies would rise in their places in this house and support improvements in this particular measure, and join with us in asking that the provisions of such an act be applied to all parts of the agriculture industry, they would be doing a whole lot more for their own prov- inces and for agriculture than they would by criticizing -the benefits that have been paid under this act. HOUSE OF COMMONS Prairie Farm Assistance Act I listened very carefully to the speech delivered by the leader of the Social Credit party and I failed to see why he should in any way criticize or wish to amend, even by way of suggestion, the motion moved by the hon. member for The Battlefords asking that the payments be doubled. Instead of support- ing such a motion be wants to amend it by deleting the most important part of it. He does not want to improve the act by making additional payments; he wants the whole question of the administration of the act referred to the committee on agriculture for study. Prairie producers are 100 per cent in favour of the resolution to double payments moved by the hon. member for The Battle- fords. They are not asking that this motion be studied; they are asking that the govern- ment take action along the lines suggested in this resolution. Since I have been in this house, from 1945, I have seen the government adopt suggestions made from this side of the house which brought about improvements in the adminis- tration of the act. I have seen the act amended time after time so that payments were made on a somewhat smaller area. As far as I am concerned, while I am criticizing the act itself I have little or no criticism to offer of the detailed administration of the act. In any cases I have brought to the attention of the officials of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, while I may not always have obtained the answer I would have liked to obtain, I almost invariably received a fair decision related to the provisions of the act. There- fore I cannot join with those who have com- plained about the detailed administration of the act. However, I support the request that the area on which a payment is made should be reduced. Over the years the trend has been in that direction, and it should be continued. At the present time payment may be made on a half township. After a half township has been established, payment may be made on a one-sixth township if it is a rectangular area with one side lying alongside an eligible township. I should like to see the six-section block reduced to four sections, to two sec- tions-yes, right down to at least one section of land, if not to an individual farm basis. As I have said, the trend is in that direction. I am pleased to note that trend and I hope the government will bring in amendments to the act to put it on an individual basis. When the Prairie Farm Assistance Act is talked about in this house one hears a lot about crop insurance. I have read in the press from time to time where people say that we now have a crop insurance scheme. [Mr. Argue.] I agree with the statement made by the hon. member for Rosthern that as far as the wheat economy on the prairies is concerned, any- one who has made a serious study of a crop insurance scheme on an actuarial basis applied to such an area has recommended against it. An hon. Member: What about tobacco? Mr. Argue: My hon. friend should be an authority on tobacco, and I would be very glad to hear him speak on that subject. It is probably quite true that a crop insurance scheme, as crop insurance is known to every- one, would not be applicable to a tobacco area, but that is not what I was advocating. I was advocating that the sane principle of a government scheme to protect the tobacco growers and make payments to thern in years of crop failure be instituted by the govern- ment for the very reason that crop insurance is probably impractical in a tobacco area as I know it to be in a wheat growing area. As my authority, and as one authority that probably the bon. member for Rosthern would accept, I quote from "A Study of Crop Insur- ance" by the late R. E. Motherwell, B.S.A., printed on August 2, 1944. I want to say that over the years I considered that Dick Motherwell was an outstanding authority in the field of crop insurance. His contribution throughout his too short life to agriculture, in which he believed fundamentally, was out- standing. I am sure that had be been spared he would have made his mark in public life in Canada and would have made an outstand- ing contribution to the welfare of agriculture, which was his first interest. In the summary on page 66 Mr. Motherwell states: 1. Completely self-carrying crop insurance has not been successfully achieved for small grains in any country. 2. of all ventures in the field of crop insurance the American experiment is the most noteworthy. This experiment showed several things. (a) That farmers in high-risk areas were unable to pay the premiums necessary for their own protection. Crop insurance in the strict sense of in- surance, according to Mr. Motherwell, if it is to be successful must obtain from each farm unit over a long period of years sufficient pre- miums to make the crop insurance payments on that particular piece of land in that period of time. However, there is definite room for im- provement in the act. I believe the act should be overhauled along the lines suggested by Mr. Motherwell. One suggestion was that an area such as Manitoba, where the pre- miums paid in have exceeded the payments out, should receive some special considera- tion and a zone might be established with different premiums being paid in that area and perhaps even different payments made. FEBRUARY 21, 1955 As I have said, there is room for improve- ment. Certainly the first improvement that must be made should be along the lines sug- gested by the hon. member for The Battle- fords. The hon. member for The Battlefords is perfectly justified, in spite of anything said by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), in asking that the payment be doubled with- out the premium being increased. In 1939 when this act was passed the wheat board had established an initial price for wheat of 70 cents per bushel, with the initial price to the farmer of some 50 cents per bushel. Since that time the price of wheat bas gone up two and a half or three times, so as a result the payments into the fund have in- creased more than the increase suggested by the hon. member for The Battlefords. There- fore it was not necessary for him to ask that the premiums be increased, because with the increased price of wheat the amount of money paid in per bushel has been increased. I do not want to take any credit away from the government for having passed the act in 1939, but I am critical of the action or inaction of the government since 1939 in permitting the benefits under this act to wither away because of inflation. The bene- fits obtained today under this act have just a fraction of the purchasing power of the benefits back in 1939. The official 11-factor cost of production index prepared by the bureau of statistics includes the important item of farm implements, building materials, gasoline, oil, grease, feed, fertilizer, binder twine, seed, hardware, tax rates, interest rates and farm wage rates. This production index prepared by the bureau of statistics, basis 1935-39 equals 100, was 99-3 in 1939 when the act was passed. One year later that index had risen to 106-8. That meant that from the maximum $500 benefit $35 had been taken away in pur- chasing power through that increase. The Liberal government that put the act on the statute books in one year had taken away $35 of the benefit. In 1941 the index went up to 116.1 and an additional $37 was taken from the value of the maximum payment. The maximum pay- ment in constant 1939 dollars became $428. In 1942 the index increased to 131 -6 and an additional $51 was lost. The $500 payment had become $377. In 1943 the index rose to 143.4 and the value in purchasing power was reduced by $31, making the $500 payment worth $346. In 1944 there was another in- crease in the index, a loss of another $11 and the value of the payment was down to $335. In 1945 there was another increase in the farmer's cost of production index and an- 50433-87 Prairie Farm Assistance Act other $9 was chiselled off the value of prairie farm assistance, bringing the total purchasing power of the $500 payment down to $326. Mr. Speaker, the figures I am placing on record tonight indicate what this government has done to many measures which it has placed on the statute books and which have been to the benefit of the people to whom they apply. An act is placed on the statute books that provides certain benefits to the people. Then the government, through infla- tion, allows the benefit to wither away. By allowing inflation to persist year by year, the government has been robbing the western farmer of the purchasing power of prairie farm assistance. In 1945 the $500 was down to $326; in 1946 it was down to $316; in 1947, it was down to $291; in 1948, it was down to $252; in 1949, it was down to $243; in 1950 it was down to $236; in 1951, it was down to $216 and in 1952 the value of the $500 cheque in 1939 dollars had become just $204. In 1953 the value .went up $3, back to $207; and in 1954 the value had increased from $207 to $208. At the rate of increase in the value of prairie farm assistance for that one- year period, if the same rate continues I suppose the Minister of Agriculture might tell the farmers not to worry, that in 300 years the value of prairie farm assistance will be back to its 1939 position. There is what has happened. The govern- ment placed a good act on the statute books in 1939. Since then the farmer has paid and is now paying premiums two and a half to three times as high as those he paid in 1939, and the value of the payment is down to only 42 per cent of the value in 1939. It is no wonder that one municipal council after another and farmer after farmer have been writing to the hon. member for The Battlefords and other members of this house urging them to support the doubling of prairie farm assistance payments. I should like to see this resolution voted on and passed. I should like to see the payments doubled. I think a strong argument could be made for an even greater increase, but certainly that is the minimum that should be done. There are other improvements that should be made. As I have said, pay- ments should be increased and should be made on a section basis. In keeping with the changing value of the dollar I think the minimum payment under the act should be increased from $200 to $400 and the maximum from $500 to $1,000. Mr. Speaker, no one in this group wants to detract from any credit coming to the government for having passed and admini- stered the Prairie Farm Assistance Act; but HOUSE OF COMMONS Prairie Farm Assistance Act I appeal to the Minister of Agriculture not to allow these benefits to continue to wither away until this act is unable to provide the protection that all hoped it would provide in 1939. If there is another crop failure in western Canada in 1955 prairie farmers will be back in a position not much better than they were in during the 1930's when this act was placed on the statute books. In western Canada today there are many farmers who have not sufficient money to carry on farming operations for the current year. That would not be so if the prairie farm assistance dollar had kept its 1939 pur- chasing power. In order to do that the pay- ment should be at least $1,100; for that the government itself, by allowing the dollar value of prairie farm assistance to be reduced, bas taken away $600 in purchasing power at today's prices from every farmer in western Canada entitled in 1955 to a full payment under this act. For the sake of protecting agriculture and the western economy I ask that the govern- ment consider this resolution and bring in at this session of parliament an amendment to the act so that payments may be doubled. Righi Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, in the first place I want to thank the hon. member for Assini- boia (Mr. Argue) for the extremely kind references made to his old fellow student and my late secretary, Mr. Motherwell. He was an expert on this particular question. I also understand that the hon. member for Assini- boia, at the end of his university career, wrote his thesis on this question. He is no doubt as well informed on the question as is any member of the house. I also want to express my own appreciation to all hon. members who have referred to this legislation in such glowing terms on this occasion. It is rather interesting to look back over 15 years and remember the reception given the legislation when it was brought into the house. There was a great deal of questioning in the minds of members who were here then as to whether or not it would ever work to the satisfaction of the farmers in western Canada and to the benefit of agriculture and the economy of this country in general throughout the years. It is there- fore interesting to come back 15 years later and hear members who have made a close study of the question, together with members who have come into the house recently and have found the legislation on the statute books. refer to it as something which is very helpful. I want to say that before I go on to criticize some of the things which have been said. [Mr. Argue.] The act was put on the statute books at the end of a period of about 50 years during which farm organizations all over this con- tinent had been asking for crop insurance of some kind. It had been found almost impos- sible to find a form of crop insurance which would suit the different crops we have on this continent. Eventually we worked out a plan which is not insurance. That is one of the reasons we have it. If the amendment to the resolu- tion had not been declared out of order it would have been necessary for me to say that to put it on the basis suggested in the last part of the proposed amendment would have been to make insurance out of it. If we attempted to make insurance out of this act it would have to go to the provincial legislatures, and not be passed in this house. We cannot pass crop insurance in this house unless we amend our constitution. That was decided years ago when we attempted to pass hail insurance in this house. Each of the three prairie provinces moved to have a hail insurance bill passed in the federal house and it was declared at that time that this house did not have the right to pass it. We therefore passed separate acts out in the three western provinces, and some of that legislation is still in effect. In the province of Saskatchewan we still have hail insurance provided for under the municipal hail insurance act. That is one of the reasons it was never considered, from the beginning, that this was an act to take care of hail insurance. Hail insurance is taken care of under provincial legislation in Saskatchewan. It was taken care of at one time in Alberta and Manitoba as well. I am not sure that those two pieces of legislation are stili on the statute books, but certainly the Saskat- chewan legislation is still there. Mr. Harkness: We have it in Alberta, too. Mr. Gardiner: It has been continued as well in Alberta, I am told, so that two of these pieces of legislation at least are still continued very much as they were when they were passed many years ago, I think about 1913, to be exact. It was declared then that that kind of legislation could not be passed here, that it had to be done by the provinces, and therefore I suggest that we considered the Prairie Farm Assistance Act to be the only kind that could be passed here. I would go further and say that I agree with the hon. member for Assiniboia when he states that it would be very difficult to get a form of crop insurance that you could apply to the wheat growing area in the three prairie provinces, and more particularly to that section in Alberta and Saskatchewan. It 1366 FEBRUARY 21, 1955 would be possible to institute a form of insur- ance which would work in Manitoba, judging from the experience we have had in that province under this legislation. In order to indicate what I mean by that I should like to refer to the statistics with regard to payments. The bon. member for Assiniboia bas just attempted to demonstrate to the house that there has been a great deal of loss from time to time because of the fact that the payments were not higher, or did not go up with the changing price conditions over the years. I am not going to take every year but in 1939 the amount was $9,900,000, in 1941 it was $15,500,000, in 1945 it was $16,900,000, in 1947 it was $17 million, and in 1949 it was $22 million. Because the crops were better in the four years following the figures were $10 million, $4 million, $1 million and $2 million down to 1953. It is estimated that on the crop of 1954 we will pay in the neighbourhood of $25 million. I merely want to point out that while one can use arguments related to inflation and that kind of thing which appear to be very strong, nevertheless the total amount of money that it is suggested we will pay out in 1954 is approximately $25 million. In repeating that I want to call attention to the fact that the resolution calls upon us to double that amount. I quite agree that the resolution of the hon. member for The Battle- fords does not call for making the payments retroactive to cover the year 1954, but he has referred to the host of resolutions that have been passed in the west. Before dealing with these resolutions may I call attention to a fact which has already been referred to by one speaker-I think it was the member for The Battlefords-namely that when the farmers' union came here very late in the month of January to make their representations to the government with re- gard to the needs of the farmers, more par- ticularly those of western Canada because the farmers' union only exists to any con- siderable extent in the three prairie provinces where wheat is grown, they did not say a single word about prairie farm assistance; not a word. After they had been down east here a while they apparently learned some- thing about prairie farm assistance out west, and they went back, passed another resolution dealing with prairie farm assistance, and sent it here. In that resolution, which has been quoted on a number of occasions in this debate, they included certain information which had been gathered from somewhere. Then I went to Edmonton two or three weeks later and listened to the represen- tations of the Canadian Federation of Agri- culture. They did not have a word to say about prairie farm assistance. Apparently 50433-871 Prairie Farm Assistance Act both organizations were in agreement with members who have said throughout the debate that prairie farm assistance is one of the best things that has ever been brought into being in this country to deal with the difficulties of farmers in the area subject to drought. Apparently they all agreed with the last speaker, who said he has no criticism to make of the administration. The detailed administration is good. The act is carried out in the manner intended to be from the be- ginning; and while the hon. member for Assiniboia has some criticisms to make of it he nevertheless thinks it is very good. All I want to say about that is that I am very pleased to note that when the farmers' union came here to present their difficulties, none of them had anything to do with prairie farm assistance. I am very pleased to note, too, that when I travel all the way from here to Edmonton to listen to what the federation has to say they do not think there is anything seriously wrong with prairie farn assistance or, at least, not sufficient for them to want to say anything about it when I am there. So I come back here and listen to this debate, in which some bon. members indicate that there is something very seriously wrong. Mr. Nicholson: The hon. member for Rosthern made a very good speech. Mr. Gardiner: He made a very good speech, and speeches are always good when, they set out certain facts- Mr. Argue: He was right too. Mr. Gardiner: -but sometimes they re- quire completion, and I am going to complete some of the speeches that have been made in this debate. Mr. Argue: Don't repunctuate them. Mr. Gardiner: No, they will not require any repunctuation. But a great deal has been said about the amount of money provided by this legislation when it was placed on the statute books 15 years ago and the amount required at the present time to do the same things that were done with the money pro-vided then. Incidentally, I note that the sub- mission of the farmers' union was drafted on January 19 while they may still have been here. In this submission they make certain statements, and these statements have been quoted over and over again in this debate. This is the first one: we believe that the principle embodied in the Prairie Farm Assistance Act-to give western farm- ers some measure of government aid in the event of disaster overtaking their crops, and to require. farmers to contribute one per cent of the value of their grain deliveries in years when they have• crops-is sound. Over the years, P.F.A.A. has proved its value. Prairie Farm Assistance Act That is very good, and we appreciate their having said it. Then they come down to the argument which was used a few months ago by the hon. member for Assiniboia. He referred to the 1939 index number for the commodities and services required by farmers as 99-4, and then came down to the present time and said the index number now stands at 225. A lot of arguments are based on that. Then we find that in 1939 the price of No. 1 wheat was 79-3 cents and that the price per bushel in 1952-53 was $1.811 cents. These are figures that have been quoted over and over again in this debate. What astonishes me is that persons who have given so much thought and time to this matter could not think of any new arguments other than those which were presented in that afterthought of the delegation which was down here. But there are some other argu- ments. The main argument is that our friends have forgotten all about what we started out to deal with 15 years ago. We did not start out to give farmers enough to run their farms. We took for granted that over the years they were going to grow some wheat. We did not figure that the only money a farmer was going to have was the money that was paid to him under prairie farm assistance. But my friends have been arguing as though that is the only money the farmers have, and they have tried to indicate to us that the act has not taken care of the situation which has developed. What I am going to claim, and I think I can prove it, is that we were sufficiently far- sighted 15 years ago to provide for just what has happened. The only thing to which none of us ever gave thought was that for the last 10 years we would average $1.82 per bushel for wheat, basis No. 1 northern Fort William. None of us thought of that. Not hav- ing thought of that, we did not believe the farmer would have as much money as he has. Looking at it from that point of view, when it gets down to 4 bushels we say the farmer has nothing; he has a complete crop failure. Having 4 bushels, or he may have had 3 bushels, or 2, as the hon. member for Ros- thern says wheat was worth 57 cents a bushel to the farmer in 1939, so the 4 bushels would bring him $2.28. We offered to give him another $2.50, making the total amount for the wheat plus the payment under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act $4.78 per acre. An hon. Member: Throw in a steer, too. Mr. Gardiner: We will throw in a few bulls; that will suit you better. We were con- sidering the 4 bushels; now how much does that bring at present? Four times $1.63, which is the price at the farm, makes $6.52. An hon. Member: No. 6 feed? IMr. Gardiner.] Mr. Gardiner: We will come around to No. 6 feed. Many farmers have other wheat. We never thought about No. 6 feed because it had to rain too much to get No. 6 feed on account of rust. Then we add the $2.50 to the $6.52 and that gives us $9.02. In other words, 15 years ago the 4 bushels brought $4.78 and now 4 bushels bring $9.02. Mr. Argue: Going down all the time. Mr. Gardiner: We are not nearly as far away from the index figure my hon. friend was quoting a few minutes ago as one would think. Instead of the prices going down and down over the years, they have been going up and up over the years. Mr. Argue: What about prairie farm assist- ance? Mr. Gardiner: Prairie f arm assistance helped all the time, because the $2.50 is added to the increases on account of wheat sold. Com- ing now to the fellow who gets 8 bushels- An hon. Member: What about the man who gets none? Mr. Gardiner: There are not many of those people this year. The 8 bushels per acre 15 years ago at 57 cents brought $4.56, in addi- tion to which he got $1.50, making $6.06. Now, our figuring was not so bad, you know, as is seen by what we put in the act. The fel- low who had 4 bushels or below got $4.78, and when he got up to 8 bushels, with assist- ance, he got $6.06; not very much difference. Today the 8 bushels would bring $13.04 an acre and adding the $1.50 would make $14.54. Fifteen years ago such a farmer would have received $6.06, whereas today he would receive $14.54, which more than takes care of the differences in the index the hon. member for Assiniboia was talking about a few minutes ago. Mr. Argue: Not at all. Mr. Gardiner: Yes, it is far more than double. The present index is only 225 as against 99-4 in 1939. Mr. Argue: It was 238. Mr. Gardiner: This is more than the in- crease which took place. The index is now 225 or two and a quarter times which is $13.45. Mr. Harkness: You should give lessons to Einstein. Mr. Gardiner: You feed pigs; you don't know much about this particular question. Let us take 6 bushels, which is about an average between 4 and 8. Six bushels at 57 cents would bring $3.42, plus $1.50, which would make it $4.92 back 15 years ago. Six 1368 HOUSE or COMMONS bushels at $1.63 would be $9.78 and $1.50 would make it $11.28. As one goes over these prices one will see that the act itself as it was drafted 15 years ago brings about the exact result that the bon. member for Assini- boia says it should bring about. Mr. Argue: No, no; we want the payments doubled. Mr. Gardiner: In other words, some years ago when he was coming out of university we must have read his essay and written it into the act. So much for that part of it. Our friends say, what about the crop this year? If I may be permitted to say so, at the time we were drafting this act no one ever expected we would likely be called upon to deal with a crop such as the one we had in 1954. As a matter of fact this act was put on the statute books to deal with drought, and the calamity of 1954 was not drought. Mr. Knowles: You are all wet. Mr. Gardiner: Yes, it was rain; everybody was wet and because everybody was wet the crop rusted. There is a very great difference between a rusted crop and a crop failure as the result of drought. Back in 1931 when we had no crop we had to bring our livestock in off the pastures and sell it on the market at about $20 a head. I know, because I brought mine in and sold them. Then we got along with half crops or fairly poor crops until 1937. Then we had another complete crop failure. We had to bring in our livestock and sell them again. We set up pastures al over western Canada and sent out crews who went through the different towns and villages buying up the cattle. The farmers could not get more than a cent and a quarter for this thin stock they were taking from the pastures, but we paid them double that. It was not enough to permit them any earnings what- ever. You cannot compare a condition like that with the condition of 1954. This act was drafted for the purpose of taking care of such conditions. I am one of those who believe that these conditions will return periodically to western Canada. I am not one of those who believe we should take a chance by try- ing to do anything with this act that would spoil it for the purpose of taking care of drought. It was drafted to take care of drought, and we hope it will be on the statute books in its present form when drought comes back again, as it will. Within the last few years we had years when the crop was almost as poor as it was back in the thirties. The reason we did not notice it.was twofold. In the first place wheat was very high in price and 4, 8 or 10 bushels Prairie Farm Assistance Act to the acre meant so much more than it did at the time this act was drafted. We went through those conditions, therefore, without very much discussion of the problems that were confronting farmers at that time. As I indicated a few moments ago, we paid out as much as $22 million in one of those years to farmers in areas where there was little or no crop but feed was available within reasonable distance. What is the condition in the west this year? I know what the condition is on my farm, and we are in the middle of the rust area. Our area was probably not as badly rusted as the area in the constituency of Moose Mountain and particularly in the area between Moose Mountain and the main line of railway. Nevertheless we are in the centre of a strip of country extending from down in Minnesota right up to Lloydminster, which is from 150 to 200 miles wide, that was so badly rusted this year that every rust expert says it was the worst rust epidemic we have ever had in the central part of this continent. Well, I have more feed in my barn this year than I ever had before, and so have a lot of other farmers. We had no feed in our barns back in the years I have been speaking about, because there was none to put in. This year the rough feed is not so good as it bas been in some years. The cattle do not like it as well as they did at other times, because it is rusted. It is not clean straw. Nevertheless we have the feed, and our cattle are not thin. They are not losing weight at all. I had cattle on the Toronto market last week and they brought the top price on that market. They were fed out in that country. But if I had tried to send them down to Toronto back in 1931, or again in 1937, they never would have reached there. They just could not have stood the trip. But they can go down this year and top the market. Every farmer out there knows the condition -that is, every farmer who has lived there during times of drought-at the present time is not comparable with that condition at all. And he knows that this act was not brought into being for the particular purpose of deal- ing with a situation like we have this year at all; but it helps, and they are not grasping at shadows. That is why they did not pass resolutions about it. They know that to have a resolu- tion passed, of the kind that has been dis- cussed here tonight, to double the rate, would do this legislation more harm than good. Therefore they have hesitated to make any suggestions. I suppose there is a good reason why I should get as many resolutions and letters as anybody else about this thing. FEBRUARY 21, 1955 1369 HOUSE OF COMMONS Prairie Farm Assistance Act Mr. Argue: They have given up, so far as you are concerned. Mr. Gardiner: Oh, no, they still write. I imagine I have had resolutions from the areas and municipalities from which my hon. friends opposite have had resolutions, and they have indicated to me as a rule to whom they have sent them. There are a few of them, yes, but very few as compared with the days back in the thirties. Mr. Knowles: What do you tell them? Mr. Gardiner: The correspondence which comes in now is trivial compared with what it was then. The only resolutions that I have had have come from people who have said, "So and so has called my attention to the fact." Well, now, I did not require anybody to call my attention to the facts that existed back in the thirties, when this act was put on the statute books. Everybody had their atten- tion drawn to the facts every time they went out to look at their cattle. They had their attention drawn to the facts every time they looked toward the station to see if the hay being shipped in from Quebec had arrived yet, carrying freight at $18 a ton, and so on. This is not a condition comparable with that at all. This is a condition under which we had more rain last summer than we knew what to do with. So while up to August our crops looked the best of any we ever saw standing, when the August rust came that grain on the top of the stocks began to dis- appear or shrivel up, with the result that we have not so much grain. But there is no one in this house who will say we do not have feed, and that we have to go somewhere else for it. The complaint is that we have too much feed grain, and not enough of Nos. 1, 2 and 3 wheat. Somebody said something about No. 6. Well, one of the characteristics of No. 6 is that you cannot make much flour out of it. But you can feed pigs with it, and you can feed cattle with it. There is nobody complaining about lack of feed. We do not have to ship hay in from away up at Le Pas or Quebec or Minnesota, and certainly in the years immedi- ately before 1939 we were shipping feed in from all those places, giving relief to the farmers everywhere. This act was put on the statute books because of that experience; but to take it back into the committee on agriculture at present and bring it back into this bouse in order to amend it would bring up a discus- sion of conditions so different from those which existed at the time the act was placed on the statute books that most people would begin to wonder why this happened at all. [Mr. Gardiner.] The farmers know why. The farmers knew that when they did not pass these resolu- tions which were spoken about, and they still understand it. It is all very well for my hon. friends to laugh, but they do not go to Liberal meetings, you know. When we have Liberal meetings out in Saskatchewan we explain these things. Some of our friends may peek around the corners and look in the doors from outside, but they do not get the full argument. So they come down here to Ottawa and talk as though they are speaking for the farmers when, in fact, the farmers out west know exactly what the situation is. They understand it very well. Perhaps I should say something about the act itself. The bon. member for Moose Moun- tain was going to ask me a question this morning. I phoned to tell hiim I did not have the full information, but that I would get it. He has brought the question up tonight. I have the information before me now. The question he asked me the other day was whether or not Selkirk wheat was being figured in the computation as to whether certain townships would be paid or would not be paid; that is, whether their crop was less than 8 bushels to the acre or whether it was more than that. I told him a few days ago when be asked me the question in the house that it was my understanding that the 6 bushel lots which had been turned over by the government to a good many farmers in western Canada to be sown in order to have their Selkirk seed for next year-which is resistant to 15-B rust-did not come into the computa- tion at all. I must say that I have phoned Regina since, and that I did not have exactly the right idea in my own mind at the time. But the facts are true, nevertheless. I thought we had found it necessary in the beginning to say that particular wheat was not taken into the computation. Now I am told that what actually did happen was this: that they checked the municipalities and the Selkirk wheat grown from these 6 bushel lots did not make any difference in any of the munici- palities that were checked. Those that were under 8 were sufficiently under that the bringing in of the rule would not have made any difference; and those that were under 4 were sufficiently under that bringing them in did not put them into a higher bracket. There was only one case left, and pre- sumably it was the one brought up by the hon. member for Moose Mountain tonight. There was one case of one area of which they were not certain until yesterday, and the recheck of that municipality has now been passed, so payments will be made there. So there are no municipalities anywhere in the 1370 FEBRUARY 21. 1955 tbree provinces wbere the 6 bushel arnount, or the Selkirk grown on plots seeded by 6 bushel amounts, would make any difference. Mr. McCullaugh (Moase Mouniain): My question was in respect to those contiguous sections whicb were taken out. I arn concerned about individual farmers being taken out under that clause. Mr. Gardiner: They tell me today it will flot make any difference ta any sized section of country that is under the act. They have gone into that very carefully. If it were going to make any difference we would make a regulation about it, but tbey say there is no necessity for doing that because it does not affect any of the districts at all. Well then, we did find it necessary ta deal with one feature of it, and we dealt with it sorne weeks ago by passing an arnendment to the regulations. Under tbe section ta which my bon. friend referred-tbat is, sec- tion 5 (g), where we have authority ta take out any section of land anywbere in the whole area-the amendment reads like this: Those portions of land cultivated by any one fariner which were sown to rust-resjstant wheat In the year 1954 If the total area sa sowfl comprised 10 or more acres and the average yield thereon was more than 10 bushels per acre. That cornes out, and it neither figures in the computation as ta whether the district cornes in nor does the individual get any pay as a resuit of the passing of that regu- lation if the area rernains ini. I think that meets with the approval of those who have been bringing the question up. I think it meets with the approval of the bon. rner- ber for Moose Mountain who bas brought it up more often than anyone else. Mr. McCullaugh ess. I do not want people of good faith to be taken advantage of by these cranks and that is why I amn exposing their tactics to the bouse. We bave work to do, first for our cons titu- ents and then for the Canadian people at large. I do not see why a crank sbould be able to comne to my office to disturb me in the work I arn doing as a member of parlia- ment for my constituents and for the Cana- dian people at large. That is the first point. Wbat is worse is that some gullible fellows take for granted wbat is written in these circulars. I pity tbem; I have compassion for tbem. I want to summarize, as I do flot; intend to take up ail tbe time this afternoon. I want to tell you, as you know, that the Libera] government bas done more than any other government in enacting social legislation. I want to tell you that the Canadian people at large are satisfied with wbat bas been donc. Tbcy realize the prudence and care exercised by the government and tbey know It would be impossible to increase f amily allow- ances witbout increasing taxation. That Is wby they are so careful about ItL During tbe last election I was in a position to state autboritatively that the amount paid for family allowances and old age pensions in my constituency amounted to $2 million a year. That is some amount. Depending upon population, the same is probably true of the Family Allowances Act constituency of Assiniboia, of the constituency of Letbbridge, and of the constituency of Bow River and many other constituencies. The resuit is that over $300 million is paid out each year for that purpose. This should receive recognition frorn the Canadian people and I arn sure they will pay no attention to speeches such as the one that bas been made here this afternoon. (Translation): Mr. Fernand Girard (Lapoinie): Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Assini- boia (Mr. Argue). I shouid also like to echo the numerous petitions which have reacbed me from various parts of my constituency, urging the government to increase family allowances. Taking into account the present cost of living, which has more than doubled since 1945, the rate of family allowances is no longer such as to answer the original purpose of that legislation. It therefore follows that what we are asking the government to do today is primarily to raise the value of f amily allowances to the level whicb bad been set by the government itseif, back in 1945. Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to dis- cuss the validity of the reasons advanced by those wbo might ask for allowances in the province of Quebec. Rather I wish to stick to the point, that is, to determine whether or not they are in the interests of tbe Cana- dian nation and family. The depreciation of the value of our cur- rency as a resuit of the steadily rising cost of living since 1945 bas caused the $5 family allowance to be wortb, at this time, no more than $3.22. It will therefore be seen that, by granting this request, the government would only be consistent witb the principle it had laid down itself in 1945 when the f amily allowance rate was originally set at $5. 1 therefore hope this legitimate request wrnl flot be ignored too long by the government. I amn not personally in favour of too many social security measures, because tbey would lead us to socialism. Still, tbere are some whicb are indispensable to the balance of our Canadian standard of living. Industry pays wages wbicb take no account of the family status of the worker. No account is taken of the fact that he may be eitber a married man witb heavy obligations or oniy a bachelor. Wages are paid on the basis of services rendered, and it would be very bard to do. otberwise. Therefore, only the govern- FEBRUARY 23. 1955 1435 1436 HOUSE 0F COMMONS Family Allowances Act ment could correct this situation and restore the balance of the family budget by granting higher family allowances. The increase in family allowances is not requested because of unemployment, as it is obvious that farnily allowances were not intended to replace em- ployment. Besides. even if they were doubled, everyone knows what it costs to raise a family, and it is obvious that every- body would stili have to work ta provide for the needs of the children. On various occasions, there has been talk of the need for increased immigration ta this country, in order ta raise the population ta 30 million people within a few years. How- ever, Canadian families are denied proper family allowances, geared ta the present cost of living, which would allow them ta take care in a much more normal way than immigra- tion of the need for increased population, through family growth. Ail sociologists de- plore the falling birth rate and yet the best support that could be given ta the large f amily is unquestionably an increase in the amount of farnily allowances. 0f course, every time this question is raised in this house, the budget argument is put forward, "Where shall we find the money?"' When, for reasons of security, it was con- sidered necessary ta devote close ta 40 per cent of the budget ta defence, no one asked: "Where shall we flnd the money?" It was said: "It ýis essential ta the security of the country, it has ta be donec". And it was done. Yet, when it cames ta the family, the very hasis of society, the most valuable asset that we as lawmakers should protect, the question is asked: "Where shall we find the money?" True, it is the duty of the representatives of the country ta distribute public moneys according ta needs, but they should also dis- tribute thern according to the scale of values. And in that scale af values what social asset can have precedence over the family? It theref are means that, of ail the financial problems that we have ta settle, we should deal first with the one cancerning the welfare of the family. And at the moment there is no better way of doing it than by increasing the rate of family allowances. Besides, what is given families by increas- ing family allowances is perhaps the best investment that the nation could make for its future. There is nat one member in the house who has not, at one time or another, paid tribute ta the great Canadian family, talked about the future of our children, of those young people who will succeed us. And [Mr. Girard.] when the government is given an exceptional opportunity of helping them directly, we hear the same old story, the sarne excuse: "Where shaîl we find the money?" Mr. Speaker, I support the resolution moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia, not because it has been drafted by the union des electeurs of Quebec or by other graups of the house, but because it is logical and necessary to the family, and because it affords the government a great opportunity ta do sornething worth while for the welfare of the family. Mr. Charles Cannon (Iles-de-la-Madeleine): Mr. Speaker, in taking part in this debate, 1 again intend ta speak in French, because the resolution before the house has been moved by a member of the C.C.F. party and because I believe we should remind the members of that party that we have the right ta speak French in this house. Since my speech of January 19 last, I have received numerous letters from members of the Quebec Social Credit party, the union des electeurs. I arn happy to say that 1 have not received one letter from the people of my constituency, although I have received several from outside, accusing me of having apposed family allowances and an increase in their rates. There was even an article blaming me in the February 15 issue of the publication Vers Demain. I think it is my duty, Mr. Speaker, ta take this opportunity to define my exact position with regard ta family allowances. I arn not against family allowances; on the contrary, I arn in favour of such saund social legis- lation. I arn in favour of increasing family allowances, as can be gathered from page 357 of Hansard. This is what I said on January 19 last: I say ta the people of my caunty that when the timne cornes ta increase family allowances the Liberal party will increase them. The Liberal party was the party that introduced famjily allowances in the first Place, and it can be counted upon ta jocrease themn when the revenues and wealth of the country Permit us to do sa. In case there should be any doubt on the subi ect, I categorically state that I am in favour of increasing family allowances as soon as practicable. On page 357, when I was speaking in Eng- lish 1 used the words "silly petitions". I used the word "silly" in the sense of "naïve", which is, anyhow, the translation given by Cassell's dictionary, which says that "silly"l 1436 may be translated by "naïf" in French. 1 tbink the people who would like to double family allowances, wbich are now costing tbis country $350 million a year, are naïve indeed. To double these allowances, an addi- tional $350 million would be necessary. And these people want this to be done witbout any increase in taxation. The petitions I received were flot prepared by people frorn my county, they were written by members of the Social Credit party and printed in the publication Vers Demain, whicb bas been distributed in my riding. Now when I said that these petitions were silly, I was in no way referring to tbe people of my county, but to tbose wbo bad written those petitions. Tbose petitions dlaim tbat we could take tbe $350 million in question frorn the national defence budget. If we did that we would be unable to fulfil our obligations towards NATO; that would serve the purpose of tbe cornmunists. I knew that those petitions had been pre- pared outside my riding; therefore I was in no way thinking of my constituents when I said tbat the petitions were silly. One must be silly to believe tbat family allowances would be maintained if comrnunists overran our country, for lack of adequate defence. I want to point out once more that I was not dlrecting my remarks to my constituents but rather to those wbo drafted the petitions. In fact, in my riding, family allowances bave a greater importance tban elsewbere; indeed my constituents being fishermen wbo do not work during the winter need the family allowances all tbe more as they do not collect unemployment insurance, wbicb benefits, I hope, tbey will soon get. I arn confident, Mr. Speaker, that tbis gov- ernment, under the guidance of the Liberal party, which instituted family allowances in Canada, will raise tbem in due time. For th-at reason, I intend to vote against the mo- tion introduced by the bon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) since I belleve that if we wait for the C.C.F. party to gain power and raise farnily allowances, we will have to wait a very long time. I thi 'nk that the chances are greater that tbey will be raised by the party now ia power and, once more, I say that we can count upon the government to raise family allowances when it le advisable to do so. (Text): Mr. W. Ross Thatcher (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre): Mr. Speaker, it is witb some relue- tance that I feel obliged to comment on this 50433-92 Family Allowances Act motion. If a vote should corne I feel I must vote against the proposai, even though it was introduced by rny friend and colleague, the hon. rnernber for Assiniboja. I should like to make it crystal clear that I support the prin- ciple of family allowances, and I arn con- vinced that family allowances are making a real contribution to the well-being of the nation. I hope, moreover, the day will corne when we can increase the level of these allowances. However, in my opinion such a proposition is neither realistic nor practicable today. As I read the estirnates, the government is planning to pay out $384 million in family allowances this year, if the rates rernain exactly as tbey are at the present time. That is a lot of rnoney. The resolution whicb my good friend bas proposed today is framed in general language. However, the one be rnoved sorne two years ago suggested tbat the level of allowances should be increased to a point wbere it would take care of the cost of living increase wbich. bas transpired since the original legislation was introduced. If sucb a proposition were accepted, I believe it would cost the taxpayers of Canada rougbly $200 million. In view of tbe already very heavy commit- ments we have for national defence, and in view of the very heavy commitments we have for existing social welfare measures, I tbink it would be rnost difflcult to find another $200 million at this time. I have read in the news- papers statements by tbe Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) that he was going to find it dif- ficuit tbis year to balance bis budget. I have seen reports to the effect that be could well have a deficit of about $100 million. It is one tbing to propose expenditures of tbis kind but it is usually quite anotber to find the money to pay for them. Perhaps I arn wrong, but as I see it before you can give a dollar to one person you first of all have to take that dollar away frorn someone else. If we have to find anotber $200 mnillion for farnily allowances it must corne from taxation. What taxes are going to be increased? I listened to rny good friend and colleague the bon. member for Assiniboia, but frankly I could not understand bis eco- nomic reasoning. Perhaps I arn not as bright as I should be, but I still could not compre- bend bis arguments. I would rernind the bouse that our budget this year is approacbing the $5 billion mark. Governments at the tbree levels are already taking frorn Canadians 33 cents out of every dollar in the f orm'of taxation. I do not tbink he wants to see tbat 33 cents increased. It is easy to say that you can get the revenue needed for a proposition su*cb as this by tax- ing tbe ricb more severely. But if you study FEBRUARY 23, 1955 1437 HOUSE OF COMMONS Family Allowances Act the statistics published by the Department of National Revenue you will find that there are not enough rich people in Canada to yield such revenue. I would refer hon. members to page 8 of the taxation statistics for 1954. There you will find that the total income of ail Cana- dians who earned $10,000 or more was only slightly over $1 billion. If you confiscated that whole amount you would still only have about 20 per cent of the federal budget. Therefore I submit to the house that we cannot finance measures of this kind simply by taking more money from the rich. I say that if legislation of this kind is passed it should be clearly realized that it is the aver- agt Canadian, the labouring man, the farmer, the small businessman and so on, who is going to have to pay for it. Mr. Argue: Not at al. Mr. Trainor: Why not? Mr. Thaicher: That is my opinion, rightly or wrongly. Mr. Argue: Never. Mr. Thatcher: As far as family allowances are concerned, I think we have gone quite a way. As a matter of fact the United States, which is a much richer country than Canada, has not gone nearly as far as we have. It seems to me that sooner or later we will be able to finance an increase in family allow- ances, but I do think that day must await the time when Canada is not spending so many dollars for national defence. I am not going to say any more. If this matter comes to a vote I feel that I must oppose it, and I want to make clear my reasons for such action. Mr. Elmore Philpoit (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on this resolution. Last year, when there seemed to be some difference of opinion among my hon. friends opposite, I cannot remember ever finding myself on the same side as the bon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Thatcher) as opposed to the hon. mem- ber for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), but on this occasion I think the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre is speaking plain common sense, and I am sorry to say that I cannot even find diplomatic words to describe the practicability of the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Assiniboia. Mr. Studer: He knows it. Mr. Philpoit: If the hon. member for As- siniboia is just trying to carry on general propaganda in favour of higher family ai- lowances at some time in the future, then I can assure him that we on this side of the [Mr. Thatcher.] house are constantly keeping before the gov- ernment the advantage of having higher benefits for the people who draw family allowances as well as higher benefits for aIl the other people who draw any kind of benefits under the welfare state set-up that we have in Canada. When I heard my hon. friend suggest that at this time and as of this very moment it is a practical proposition to increase family allowances without having either an increase in taxation or an increase in the public debt, then I can only say that be knows better. He is too hard-headed a man for that; other- wise be never would have got first-class honours for writing that thesis on wheat about which we heard the other day. I think the hon. member had better stick to theses on wheat and not this thesis on family allow- ances in the year 1955. I am compelled to say that while I hardly ever agree with my hon. friends to the ex- treme right, I do believe that the campaign being carried on for higher family allowances by the Quebec section of the Social Credit movement is more honest, because at least the Quebec wing of the Social Credit move- ment have a proposal attached to their .de- mand for higher family allowances which would purport to show how the government could get the money. The Quebec wing not only say there should be higher family allowances-I think they want to double them-but they advocate doing that by writing direct credits in a cheque book, and of course they say it is just as easy as that. Perhaps my hon. friends opposite may be able to facilitate the writing in a cheque book process a bit in view of the fact that the de facto minister of finance of British Colum- bia has now become a director of one of the great chartered banks of Canada. Perhaps they will be able to speed up the process a little bit. If the hon. member for Assiniboia was suggesting as a serious proposition that we could have an increase in family allow- ances in 1955, when he knows quite well that this parliament is facing a deficit in the present year's budget, then I think he is just not talking common sense. I see that over in France, at the very time when it has taken about three weeks to find a man who is even willing to try to form a new government in that country which has such great difficulty in keeping its govern- ments for more than two or three months, the man who is drawing the largest crowds is not a very great speaker. He is drawing crowds of about 20,000 people, and has a very popular and very simple program. It can ail be summed up in four words: Down with ail taxes. He does not believe in paying taxes of any kind. But I must say that my hon. friend seems to be even more ingenious than this gentleman who is causing such a stir in some parts of France, because the hon. mem- ber for Assiniboia says: Up with family allowances and down with all taxes. When I listened to his rather ingenious suggestion as to how we could pay for this increase in family allowances this year with- out any increase in taxation or without any increase in public debt, it seemed to me he was saying that we could pay for this in- crease by somehow, in reverse or in retro- spect, bringing into being all the production and distribution we did not have. It seems to me something like finding the little man who is not there. It seems to me something like a proposal to give every family drawing family allowances a free bonus of a Ford car by giving them one of those Ford cars that was not produced during the long months of the strike. There is about that much reality in the proposal he is making to bring into being production that was never there. My hon. friend talks about inflation in this country. I might point out that while I think inflation is serious business, the definition of inflation that I read in the textbooks is too much money chasing too few goods. I do not know that anyone has convinced this house we have too few goods in Canada today. I have heard some criticism here and there to the effect that food prices are too high. I have sometimes heard criticism of the expenditures this country makes, for instance, in putting a floor under butter to hold up the price. I have even heard criticisms at times of the various kinds of subsidies and bonuses that go out for this and that. I am not saying that in an unkind way, because I am in favour of these things. I am pointing out to the hon. member for Assiniboia that when we talk about family allowances shrinking, one reason for it is that food costs have remained pretty high. They have remained pretty high because it has been the fixed policy of this government to see that the great primary producers of this country get a fair deal on the same basis as other primary producers, such as the gold miners to whom my hon. friend referred the other day. I should like to mention another point before I come to my conclusion. I feel that the hon. member for Assiniboia was in serious error when he quoted the Minister of Fisher- ies (Mr. Sinclair) as referring to family allowances being in the category of transfer payments. I might not have heard the Minis- ter of Fisheries on all occasions that the hon. member for Assiniboia has heard him, but on the numerous occasions I have heard him 50433-92J Family Allowances Act he has pointed out that the things to which there was a prior contribution, such as a contributory scheme of unemployment insur- ance, a contributory scheme for old age security, were transfer payments. Family allowances, of course, are of an entirely different character. Just in passing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that in my opinion old age security should never be considered as just a welfare scheme. It really is compulsory national saving for old age on a systematic basis, and that clearly could be described as a transfer payment system. Family allowances are surely not in that category. I want to say that while I yield to no man, and certainly not to the hon. member for Assiniboia, in my desire to see higher family allowances when the exchequer of this coun- try is in a position to pay those higher allow- ances, I feel it would be the height of folly, the height of irresponsibility, to vote for higher family allowances now. We just can- not get higher family allowances. If the hon. member for Assiniboia would like the best short answer to why we cannot afford higher family allowances now, it was given by his colleague the premier of Saskatchewan when the provincial -civil servants asked for a pay increase. He gave the quick, short answer that you cannot get more pieces out of a smaller pile, and that is still the best answer right now. Mr. Argue: That is what R. B. Bennett said. Mr. Philpoit: While I yield to no man, and certainly not to the hon. member for Assiniboia, in my desire to see higher family allowances, I believe we will have higher family allowances and higher welfare benefits of all kinds at the earliest moment it is pos- sible for the production of this country to make higher benefits feasible. Just in closing I should like to say that in my opinion a higher priority than the pay- ment of family allowances should be given to the people who are living on old age assistance, that meagre, miserable $40 a month. Mr. Argue: A good definition of your government. Mr. Philpoti: In all the provinces of Canada- Mr. Argue: A good description of your government. Mr. Philpoit: The hon. member does not need to argue with me, because I have pressed this matter on the government for a long time. In the Minister of National Health and FEBRUARY 23, 1955 1439 HOUSE OF COMMONS Family Allowances Act Welfare (Mr. Martin) we have a man who knows the need for higher welfare benefits better than anyone on the opposite side because he has all the facts and figures. When we are able to afford anything more for welfare benefits, after the very substantial increase we are making this year in war veterans allowances for which some of us on both sides of this house have fought so hard, in my opinion the first priority should go to that minority of Canadians who are living on old age assistance. Two of the western provinces, and a third on a some- what more modest scale, have increased the old age assistance payment; and how the provinces in eastern Canada can get away with paying their people as little as they do for old age assistance, I do not know. I want to close by saying that in my opinion this resolution, if it was moved as a serious proposition, should be withdrawn. It cannot do any good, and all it can do is cruelly deceive people who might think it is a prac- tical proposition at this time. Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare): Mr. Speaker, every year now, for four years, the hon. member for Assiniboia has brought forward a resolution asking that consideration be given to an increase in family allowances. Certainly one advantage of this practice is that it affords members of the government an opportunity to make a report on one of the major social measures in our country. I think that is essential, because while some hon. members may feel that from time to time there should be improvements in various social measures, including this one, there is a considerable body of opinion in the country, as I well know, which feels that the expenditures by the government of Canada on health and welfare at this time are beyond the capacity of the nation. Therefore I welcome this opportunity of dealing with this question in its broadest aspects. The hon. member today, as on other occasions, has said that this government was to be congratulated upon bringing in family allowances. I want to say to him that when àhe next provincial election takes place in Saskatchewan I hope he will be among the first to deny suggestions by certain individuals in the provincial government who take credit for this legisiation, as though it were a provincial enactment. Mr. Argue: To whom are you referring? Mr. Martin: The same is true in other provinces, particularly in Quebec. Mr. Argue: Would the minister permit a question? To whom are you referring? [Mr. Philpott.] Mr. Martin: To the premier of Saskat- chewan. The experience of the last 10 years- and we have now had family allowances for 10 years-according to a number of special surveys, reports and studies carried out by universities and other disinterested observers, indicates that family allowances have suc- ceeded in accomplishing the objectives for which they were established. We find that school authorities in the vari- ous provinces, especially in Ontario and Nova Scotia, report consistently that family allowances have improved school attendance and reduced truancy and illegal absence from school. Reports from at least a dozen uni- versities and other surveys show the follow- ing order of priority in the use of family allowance funds: 1, clothing; 2, food; 3, savings and insurance; 4, education; 5, health and medical care and 6, recreation. And of course authorities dealing with Canada's Indian and Eskimo populations report a notable improve- ment in the economic health and social status of these families, attributable in a significant degree to this particular measure. I have here the firsthand opinion of a distinguished senator in the United States, the junior senator for Oregon, who is proposing to urge in the congress of the United States that a measure of this kind be adopted. The senator has spoken in the highest terms of the Canadian family allowances program. I know of no social measure more respon- sibly administered and within the concept of our desire to preserve freedom that brings as much social benefit as family allowances. It does not deny the character of a free country, but it does provide, as I say, in a responsible and effective way for those in need of assistance more than any other social measure that I know of to be found in any jurisdiction in any country of the world. And so we may feel that the achievements of this measure, introduced as my hon. friend has said by a government of Liberal persua- sion, and adopted by practically all members of the house, and now by all parties, indicate that it is a measure, despite criticism from certain quarters, of which we have every reason to be proud. Now I think we should give careful exam- ination to the resolution before the house. It reads: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to the advisability of introducing legislation to provide an increase in the family allowance. Last year my hon. friend had a resolution in more precise terms; and likewise the resolutions of the previous two years were 1440 FEBRUARY 23, 1955 In more precise terms. In one of those reso- lutions my hon. friend suggested a 60 per cent increase in family allowance payments. In another resolution he suggested that the family allowance payments should be linked with the uncertain fluctuations of the cost of living index. Mr. Argue: I never did either one. Mr. Martin: My hon. friend says he never did either one. I would be happy to be shown where I am wrong; but I have done him the justice of paying a good deal of attention to what he has said on previous occasions. Mr. Argue: Would the minister read the resolution? Mr. Martin: When I have finished I shall be glad to be shown where I am wrong; but I am quite satisfied, of course, that I am not wrong. This year there is no suggestion that the proposed increase should be tied to the cost of living index. Mr. Argue: I never said that at any time. Mr. Martin: If one looks at my hon. friend's motion he will find that it makes no proposal whatsoever. Mr. Argue: Wrong again. Mr. Martin: If my hon. friend wishes to interrupt- Mr. Argue: You are wrong again. Mr. Martin: I am making an argument. When my hon. friend spoke I listened to him carefully. I do not agree with practically anything he said, but I kept my seat and kept quiet. I would ask him to allow the minister in charge of this important measure to make his argument. Then when I have finished my hon. friend may ask any ques- tions he wishes. I can only conclude that his impatience when he interrupts anyone on this side of the house indicates that he resents anyone taking issue with some of his arguments. Mr. Argue: Just stick to the facts, and don't misquote me. An hon. Member: Keep quiet. Mr. Martin: Well, it seems to me that the more we argue about the "Argue" resolution, the hazier Hazen becomes. Mr. Argue: Poor Paul. Poor Paul. Mr. Martin: So I say the resolution is vague, it is anaemic. It is not only anaemic; it is weak in character, in that it offers no proposai at all. It is against sin, yes; but it does not tell you, Mr. Speaker, or members on this side of the house or on the treasury benches how we are going to overcome the evil effects of a sinful life. Family Allowances Act Mr. Argue: Would you let it come to a vote? Mr. Martin: My hon. friend says, would I let it come to a vote? Of course; why should we not let this question come to a vote? But I am certainly going to give other hon. members besides my hon. friend the oppor- tunity to say something on this measure. Otherwise what will my hon. friend do? He will go out in his constituency and say, "Here is my speech-" Mr. Argue: The Liberals will talk it out. Mr. Martin: Do you not want me to go on? Mr. Argue: The Liberals will talk it out. Mr. Martin: The reason my hon. friend is where he is, and will never be on this side of the house, is that he cannot listen to the other side of an argument. I was about to say that the reason I think other hon. members should be allowed to speak is that otherwise my hon. friend will go around the country, hold up what he said in the House of Commons, and say, "Look; there are a hundred Liberals in the House of Commons and only a handful of us, the pioneers in social welfare, who spoke on this measure. Yes, we are the only ones who spoke." That is why I think others should be given the opportunity as well as my hon. friend. What are the facts? The house would want to weigh this motion carefully. As my hon. friend from Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, whose courage we all admired this afternoon, has pointed out, we have to consider the total obligations of government at this time in respect to any proposal. For, whatever may be our differences, surely we all agree with the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. MacInnis), who reminded us a number of years ago that all social measures have to be paid for out of the hard work of the people of this country. Any failure to recog- nize that elementary fact is not, I think, acting in a responsible way. Mr. Studer: Socialists would not under- stand that. Mr. Martin: Our 1953-54 federal budgetary expenditures on all functions of government totalled $4,847 million, and of this amount $1,208,460,000 was devoted to social security, health and welfare. I am now speaking only of the federal share in the field of health and welfare. The total national expenditures of the provinces and dominion were $1,600 mil- lion, but of this $4,847 million of total govern- mental expenditures our share for social welfare and health was some $1,200 million. HOUSE OF COMMONS Family Allowances Act In other words, Mr. Speaker, health and wel- fare expenditures accounted for nearly 25 cents out of every dollar spent by the federal government last year, and of every dollar spent on health and welfare, family allow- ances accounted for 29 cents. Therefore anyone who rises in his place and uses the word "callous" in respect of the government, under these circumstances, I am sure either has not had drilled into his mind the impor- tance of these figures or- Mr. Knowles: Turn around. Mr. Martin:-he has failed to use the kind of language which in the context of a debate like this every hon. member should be pre- pared to employ. No one in this house is callous to human misery and suff ering. Every hon. member in this house is as interested as any other hon. member in doing what should be done to improve the lot of fellow Canadians in the field of health and welfare. It was for that reason that I did not take strong exception to, but I did resent, the suggestion that the government was callous in this and in other similar measures. I venture to offer the advice that the use of that adjective has not furthered my hon. friend's argument one iota. Last year family allowances accounted for 7.2 per cent of the entire federal budget. My hon. friend said that we are callous, or that we are not in- terested in the children of this country. Although he said in the first instance, of course, that we were the authors of this plan, he failed to point out that Canada devotes a higher percentage of its social security budget to family allowances than it does to any other program. Four and a half months from now, namely on July 1, 1955, we shall mark the completion of 10 years of family allowances in this country. When cheques go out for June to families all across the country we shall have passed the $3 billion mark in family allow- ance payments since the inception of this program. That is hardly a form of callous- ness on the part of the government or on the part of the people of Canada who make this program possible; for we must not forget that it is out of the hard-earned money of the people of this country that everything we spend in this house is provided. These payments will reach 2,200,000 Cana- dian homes every month. They will be paid for the benefit of 5,100,000 children every month. They cost the Canadian taxpayers $1 million a day. By the time a child reaches 16 in Canada, under our plan he has received an amount of $1,188 in family allowances. That is a significant contribution. It is the kind of fact that my bon. friend could have mentioned when he was trying to make a case [Mr. Martin.] for our acceptance, or our consideration, of the vague proposal that is before you at this time, Mr. Speaker. In reaching out to parents and children in Canada this program alone benefits at least 50 per cent of the total population of every constituency in Canada. I can say that no program in all our history compares with it in the universal scope of its provisions. No program touches so many of the homes, the families and the children of this nation. It is only because we want to continue this measure and other measures that we have to weigh every proposal for an increase in expenditure with the greatest of care in this house. My hon. friend could possibly have sup- ported his argument, or strengthened it, by telling us about family allowances in other countries. He could have told us what they were paying in family allowances in New Zealand and Australia. But no; he just made a wide-and I may say an irresponsible assertion without giving any argument-and I say this in the kindliest way-that could be characterized as having much substance, as one would expect from the mature gentleman I know the hon. member really to be. Mr. Knowles: Smile, Paul, smile. Mr. Martin: Let us examine the situation in other countries. I know the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is howling now. He rises in his place here day after day criticizing and endeavouring to pull me to pieces. But when I tell him that others are as interested as he is he cannot stand it, and his quality of impatience bursts forth to interrupt even the speech of a mild-mannered gentleman like the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Mr. Knowles: I want you to prove it. Mr. Martin: Let us examine what the annual average payments are in other coun- tries. The average annual payment per child in Canada is $72.48 a year. The next highest is New Zealand, at $70.98; Australia, $57.20; the United Kingdom, $56.44; Sweden, $54.89; and Norway, $32.88. I mention these countries because they are comparable. Another method of comparison is to take the total expenditure on these programs in relation to net national income. By using that test it will be found that in terms of net national income Canada's contribution to family allowances is almost two and a half times that of Great Britain and well ahead of Australia. Therefore when my hon. friends talk about the callousness of the government, why do they not remind the house and the country that this country, this government, FEBRUARY 23, 195 Family AUlowances Act -and thisparliament have taken a step which no other country in the world has emulated? I would remind my bon. friend that at the present time ail political parties in this bouse support this measure. There has been only one note of criticism about the measure in the past five years, and that came from a mem- ber of my hion. friend's own party, who arrived at bis view based on his concept of wbat his responsibility and judgment in the matter should be. But I do not want my bon. friend to suggest that anyone on this side, or in any other part of the bouse, ex- cept the bon, gentleman to wbomn I have referred, is not as fervent in advocacy of family allowances as my lion. friend. As a matter of fact I want to tell my bon. friend that there was much truth in what the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) said today. An hon. Member: Ail true. Mr. Martin: Everytbing hie said was true. ro my mind my hion. friend more than any other lion. member of this bouse comes close to supporting the attitude of l'union des electeurs. The leader of the Social Credit party bas dissociated bimself from l'union des electeurs, and, so have the other members of that party in this bouse. I am sure tbe bon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) does flot regard the proposal, if it can be so called, of the hon. member as one really wortby of consideration at this time, in the light of expanding social measures and the other obli- gations facing this country. I am sure that if be bad the opportunity the bon. member for Peace River would be the first to agree with wbat I am saying now. My bon. friend the bon. member for Assiniboia, tbe author of this new splinter group in the C.C.F. party, bas really in one particular allied bimself with l'union des electeurs. 1 tbink it is important that this bouse sbould know wbat tbat group is ad- vocating. I beard a delegation of l'union des electeurs this morning, and tbey urged me to recommend to tbis bouse that we double family allowances. 1 told them that it could not be done. I gave them the same reasons I am giving now to the bouse, and other reasons I shail give before I sit down. They have been circulating many petitions around the country. Here is one addressed to the bon. member for Ricbelieu-Vercberes (Mr. Cardin), and I shahl read it in Frencb: (Translation): I cannot believe that the members of parliament will resist the great pressure of the whole of the population and will not prevail upon the goverfi- ment to double at this session the rate of f amily allowances. (Text): And listen to tbis: (Translation): One must be very much bllnded by war propaganda to sincerely belleve that a country needs Sa much money for war production, when flot at war. and can be so stingy toward familles raising children. Our ancestors did flot do so much for war. (Text): Wby should we spend money in preparation for defence wben there is no war? That is what this petition says. Let us not spend any money fighting communismn, for the pres- ervation of decency and freedom; instead let us double family allowances. Here is another one: (Translation): The government could very wefl take the money for these allowances out of Its large war budget. There would be noa need for an Increase ia taxa- tion of even one cent for allowances. Familles are more in need of bread than of guns ta raise chlldren. (Text): Tbey say the people of Canada do not need a large budget for tbe purpose of carrying on war or defence preparations. My bon. friend and everybody in this bouse knows, and it is our duty to tell tbese people in every corner of aur constituencies, that tbe only reason we are spending so mucb money in tbe building up of our defences is that this is the only way of preserving this coun- try for tbe cbildren who benefit by family allowances. So my bon. friend is in com- pany with tbese people, I do not say on ahl counts, but be is advocating a measure tbat tbey support. Mr. Argue: Quit smearing me; tbat is what that is. Mr. Martin: I do not smear anybody; I can argue without smearing anyone. Mr. Argue: Tbat is wbat you are doing rigbt now. Mr. Martin: If My bon. friend thinks 1 bave smeared bim I wish he would rise in bis place and say wberein I bave done so. Mr. Argue: My point of order is tbat the Mînister of National Healtb and Welfare bas deliberately tried to associate me with l'union des electeurs, and tben quoted their attitude toward the defence budget to continue the suggestion that that is my attitude. Tbe minister knows that is not my attitude or the attitude of any member of tbis group. The attempt ta associate me witb the attitude of l'union des electeurs was the reason I made tbe interjection I did. Mr. Pauliot: Sbake bands under the table. 1443 HOUSE OF COMMONS Family Allowances Act Mr. Martin: I was going to add that my hon. friend has some justification. I did not seek to say that he was implying that there should be no defence expenditure and I thought I had indicated that. If I did not, I indicate it now. Mr. Knowles: The minister had better straighten it out. Mr. Martin: What did my hon. friend say? I really want to know what my hon. friend said. An hon. Member: You implied that. Mr. Martin: If I implied that my hon. friend was in favour of an increase in family allowances at the expense of our defence budget I withdraw that fully, because he said nothing of that character. But what he did was support a measure which would have the result of forcing me to say that we cannot do this. We could not double family allowances when we had a defence budget of $2 billion. That is what I am saying. That is not the only argument in this con- nection. I think it is my duty to indicate that we do not really know what my hon. friend is proposing. He has not said whether he wants family allowances increased by 50 cents, by one dollar, by two dollars or doubled. I do not know, but I am assuming that he wants them increased in some way. There is surely an obligation on him, or on any hon. member who makes a proposal in this house, to indicate whether he wants family allowances doubled or simply increased by 60 per cent as he proposed a number of years ago. I cannot read my hon. friend's mind. I shall have to assume that he has something definite in mind. In December, 1954, the average family allowance in Canada worked out at $6.04 per child. On that basis the annual cost of family allowances is $369,986,000, which is a great deal of money. If the average family allowance were increased by $1, that is, increased to $7.04, the annual cost would be $431,244,000. If the increase were $2 the total payment would reach almost $500,000,- 000. If the allowance were doubled, which is the proposal of the organization known as l'union des electeurs, to an average of $12.08 per child, the total cost of family allowances would be nearly three-quarters of a billion dollars-precisely $738,968,000. Is there any hon. gentleman in this house who will rise in his place and say he agrees that this is a responsible proposal at a time when we are engaged heavily in the building up of our defences, when we are engaged in a responsible expansion of social measures? If we had accepted my hon. friend's proposal [Mr. Pouliot.] a number of years ago does any hon. member think it would have been possible to have an old age security program that is costing Canada over $350,000,000 a year? If we had accepted my hon. friend's proposal last year would we have been able to bring in the disability allowances program last year? If we had accepted my hon. friend's proposal would we have been able to bring in legis- lation to help the blind, or to bring in a national health program? My hon. friend nods yes. I say we could never have done these things if four years ago- Mr. Noseworthy: If war came tomorrow you would do 10 times as much. Mr. Martin: My friend says if war came we would do 10 times as much. My hon. friend is right. If our freedom and our way of life were in jeopardy this nation and all the free peoples of the world, including my hon. friend, would want us to resist to the last. Mr. Noseworthy: The welfare of the people is in jeopardy now. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Martin: My hon. friend knows perfectly well that these things must be viewed in their proper context. My friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-and I do not quarrel with this because I am generally able to handle myself when he puts a question to me-asks me about the possibilities of health insurance. He has an interest, as have all other hon. members, in doing something in co-operation with the provinces to provide a responsible system of care for the sick through a proper system of hospital and medical insurance. Assuming that the provinces take the initiative, as under our constitution they must, does he think for one minute that if we were to load up the family allowance program beyond all proportion having regard to other social measures, there would be any opportunity in the foreseeable future of do- ing those important things in the field of health? Of course not. What I have said applies not only to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre but to all other hon. members. When my hon. friend today pointed out the desire of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) to bring in a balanced budget this year, he might have mentioned the fact that the Department of National Health and Welfare was one of a minority group of departments of government whose expenditures this year were higher than they were last year. He did not tell the house that our family allow- ance payments this year will be $17j million FEBRUARY 23, 1955 higher than they were last year. No. Accord- ing to him this government is callous; some of the membership of this house are not interested in the children of this country. Mr. Speaker, I think every hon. member in this bouse recognizes the value of the family allowance and realizes its relationship to other obligations and other social measures, both those now existing and others we might from time to time have in mind. I close what I have to say with this further observation. My hon. friend has taken his position today vaguely. As I said at the outset, there are many people in this country who take the opposite position, namely that Canada is spending too much money in the field of health and welfare. I have answered my hon. friend. I should like now to answer this latter group. We are not irresponsible in the expenditures we are making on federal account in the field of health and welfare. Our expenditures, which now are over $1,200 million, represent only one-half of 1 per cent more than we spent in these fields in 1938, in relation to the net national income or the national product. There has been no irresponsible administration of health and welfare measures in this country. I do not say that we have done everything perfectly, but I do not like the suggestions made in certain newspapers in this country, especially certain financial journals, to the effect that the government has become irre- sponsible through its Minister of National Health and Welfare with respect to these expenditures in these important fields. I am convinced beyond any shadow of doubt that while at present there is no course open to the free world but to build up our defences so we can be strong enough to resist force if it should ever be used in wanton aggression from any quarter, I am satisfied that in the long run the kind of social and health meas- ures we have introduced in this country in the last decade and a half, setting a pattern for what we will do in the future, will be one of our best bulwarks against dialectical materialism or communism as practised by those ruthless men in the Kremlin. I am sure of that. We are not the authors of a welfare state. I deprecate the use of that word. It is used often by editorial writers in criticizing me and other members of the government. I even find that sinister phrase creeping into the recent book on Lloyd George written by Frank Owen. During the British prime minister's time no one in the United Kingdom or anywhere else ever used the words "wel- fare state". It is a term of recent vintage. If by welfare state you mean emphasis on welfare, then this government believes in the welfare state. But if the term welfare state means creating greater powers for the state Family Allowances Act and curtailing the liberties of the ordinary human being, then this government does not believe in that kind of welfare state. Mr. Speaker, this family allowance measure about which I have made a report today is a monument to the vision and the humanitarian qualities of the late Right Hon. W. L. Macken- zie King. It is a measure that has now received the support of every political party in this country. As the minister responsible for the administration of this measure I can say that this country need not be ashamed of having adopted the Family Allowances Act. Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, in the light of what has been said this afternoon in connection with this resolu- tion introduced by the hon. member for Assiniboia, I feel that I must take a few min- utes of the time of the house in order to make a few things clear. My name was men- tioned on one occasion and I felt that it was something of a challenge to me to say some- thing and perhaps speak on this measure for the group I represent. I should like to start by saying that we were glad when the family allowance scheme was introduced back in 1944, because for a good long time we had been promoting some such idea. I am not going to take the time of the house today to enter into any quarrel about where the idea originated. I will say in passing, however, that there must have been some relationship between the $25 a month proposal of Mr. Aberhart in Alberta, a gift of purchasing power to the people of the country, and the family allowances that were introduced as a gift of purchasing power by the late Mr. W. L. Mackenzie King. He could not quite match the $25, but he came close to it. The fact is that this scheme was introduced for two purposes. The first was to give a certain measure of stability to the economy. I distinctly remember Mr. Mackenzie King saying so. He said that when the war was over and we had to absorb back into our economy the two million young people who were engaged in military operations, we would have to find some way of keeping the level of purchasing power high so as to pro- vide a market for the greater production that would be brought into being as a consequence of taking those young people back into civil life. We agreed with him because for a long time that was exactly what we had argued. The second reason Mr. Mackenzie King gave at the time was exactly the reason that was cited here this afternoon by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, with ail it implied; it was to help our families have a decent standard of nutrition, schooling, medi- HOUSE OF COMMONS Family Allowances Act cal care and all that sort of thing. Those things cannot be denied. We were glad, as I say, when we saw this form of national dividend introduced in this country. I use that term advisedly. It is exactly a national dividend, because it is nothing but a gift of purchasing power every month to the children between certain ages in this country. I do not care what you call it. The point is that it is a gift of purchasing power. We felt that the two purposes cited by Mr. Mackenzie King were sound and good, and we therefore supported the idea and support it today. I wish to say, too, that over the 10 years during which family allowances have been operative in this country they have done a tremendous amount of good, and I commend the Liberal government for hav- ing introduced them. I do not want to take away from them any glory that is coming their way for having done so and having stood by their guns. I think we are all grate- ful for the fact that family allowances have, without any question, achieved the purposes for which they were introduced. Having said that, I should like to pay a bit of attention to some of the things that have been said by some of the other speakers. I refer for the moment to my good friend the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). My genial friend always has a good time. I enjoy him. He keeps his good humour, and I like that. When he is speaking he never seems to exhibit any rancour; and, while his thrusts sometimes are pointed and they go home, at the same time I enjoy him very much. But this afternoon I think he did not make clear in his speech on family allowances the difference between the poli- cies put forward by the Social Credit Asso- ciation of Canada and the union of electors of Quebec. He said it is Social Credit policy that family allowances can be doubled, tripled, etc., without taxation. I have never made such a statement as that without mak- ing a qualification, and I do not think any member of the Social Credit Association of Canada has ever done so. Let me make the matter clear. I am in thorough agreement with the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre when he says that under present financial policy the only way that you can increase family allowances is either to increase taxation or to pare down some of the other services, take the money saved and pay it in family allowances. Mr. Pouliot: If my hon. friend will permit me, he is more honest than l'union des electeurs. I hope he will disassociate himself from them. Mr. Low: I want to make it very clear where we stand because it is important, when Social Credit and its policies are dis- [Mr. Low.] cussed in the house, that it be understood what it is that the Social Credit Association of Canada really does put forward. The Social Credit Association of Canada is a political action movement. Therefore we are in a responsible position where we must take a good, thorough look at everything we pro- pose so we will not be bringing upon the Canadian people additional burdens of taxa- tion which they cannot bear. That is the thing I want understood today. I should like to see an increase in family allowances, certainly; and I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver South when he says he is certain the day will come when there will be an increase. I think that time will come. I hasten to say right here that I can show one way whereby the allowances can be increased without increasing taxation or taking away from any other service. Per- haps I can show another later. If we con- centrate our attention on putting cents back into the Canadian dollar to bring its purchas- ing value to what it formerly was in those days when we had a dollar that would buy a dollar's worth, then by that measure family allowances will certainly be increased. Let me give some idea of what that would amount to. The Minister of National Health and Welfare cited some very interesting figures this afternoon. If I remember his figures correctly, he said that last year the average payment per child under family allowances was $72.88. That would pretty nearly agree with the figures I have com- piled for the years since 1945. I think that is what last year's payment would indicate this year's would be. The $72.88 per child per year is in terms of 1954 dollars, but let me hasten to point out what has happened over the years. The real purchasing power of the $72.88 average per child per year would only be $39.60 when you realize that there has been an increase in the cost of living index to approximately 184 on the basis of the old index. Apply the index of 184 to the $72.88 and you get the real pur- chasing value today of $39.60. That would indicate that there has been a confiscation of the purchasing power of the family allowances of the difference between $72.88 and $39.60, which amounts to $33.28 per child in a year. In other words, by allow- ing the purchasing value of the Canadian dollar to decline to its present position we have actually taken away from each child, based on this year's payments, $33.28 of purchasing power. When you translate that into terms of some commodity like milk, for example, which today has an average price throughout Canada of approximately 21-2 cents per quart, it means that we have denied every child in this country 157 quarts of milk in the year. I think that was the basis of the argument used by the hon. member for Assiniboia. On the basis of that argument he is quite right. We have not kept the purchasing power of our dollar at or near the original level, and as a consequence the present level of family allowances is not adequate to do what it was originally designed to do. But there that argument has to stop. If we are going to increase family allowance payments, under present financial policy we have to do it either by taxation or by taking away from some of the other services. Let me make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that at no time has the Social Credit Association of Canada ever proposed that we should decrease the appropriations for defence purposes for the purpose of paying social security. I think under present circumstances that would be a most irresponsible proposal to make, and we do not make it because we realize that we are living in days of danger, when it is essential that we be as strong as we possibly can. If we are going to negotiate for peace- ful settlement of the world's problems we have to negotiate from strength, and we have to be in a position to defend ourselves against the dangers that beset us on every hand. Consequently we feel that the responsible position to take is to continue to make our- selves strong, and let us not reduce our appropriations for defence except to the extent that we possibly can reduce them by greater efficiency. Certainly I would never say that under present circumstances we should take the money for defence and pay it out in family allowances. I am dissociating myself and my group from that proposal. I hope that is understood. Therefore when the hon. member for Temis- coùata says that we suggest increasing family allowances, or doubling or tripling them, without increased taxation, it is not this group that is making the suggestion. The hon. mem- ber for Temiscouata also took the hon. mem- ber for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) to task for having said- Mr. Blackmore: He thought he did. Mr. Low: Well, of course I suppose we are all subject to that limitation-in a speech in the House of Commons some months or years ago that it could be that machine production in this country would throw a great many men out of work. That of course has hap- pened. My hon. friend knows it has happened. Let us take a look at the figures. He must know that largely through technical advances in machinery and better methods of produc- tion through machine use, hours of labour have been greatly reduced in the past few years. For instance, it was not very long Family Allowances Act ago, and quite within my experience, when the work week was 60 hours. Today what is it? In most places it is 40 hours or 48 hours, not more than 48. In most places it is 40 hours, and I suppose the average would be somewhere around 44. What has made the difference? The introduction of machines, and certainly an increase in technology. My hon. friend must also admit that even though that is the case we have not solved the problem of employment, because today what have we? There are 600,000 people out of work, even with the 40 or 44-hour week. He must admit that the hon. member for Lethbridge was on the right track when he said that the continued use of machines and advanced methods of production would in- evitably throw a lot of people out of work. The question my hon. friend poses is, where is the increased purchasing power to come from to purchase all the goods which we are capable of producing in this country? That is what he was pointing out. My hon. friend, in his inimitable way, ridiculed it; but I am sure that is all the hon. member was trying to do. Mr. Blackmore: He ridiculed himself, really. Mr. Low: I think the hon. member for Lethbridge was certainly on the right track. Mr. Pouliot: If my hon. friend will permit me to interject, I referred to the description of that machine, not exactly of that machine but what that machine could do by way of making fruits, fish, shoes and so on available, in the first place. In the second place, I quoted the hon. member for Lethbridge as stating that two men could operate that famous machine and make a living for 98 per cent of mankind. That was what I did not understand. Mr. Low: I shall have to let the hon. member for Temiscouata and the hon. mem- ber for Lethbridge get together on that matter. Each can tell me what he had in mind, and then I shall try to understand it. Mr. Philpoit: Let us all hear it. Mr. Blackmore: All the hon. member needed to do was look down the street at the snow-clearing machinery, and he would understand what is happening. Mr. Low: If I may continue, I would say that certainly under the present financial policy it would be impossible and impractic- able to attempt to load the Canadian people with an extra burden of taxation to increase family allowances at this time. I believe that is true; but that does not mean there is no way by which it could be accomplished. I believe there is. I feel that it may have its FEBRUARY 23, 1955 1447 Family Allowances Act limitations, but I am going to put it forward just the same. I feel it would be possible, if a new financial policy were introduced throughout the country, to increase family allowances without increasing taxation or paring down defence or any other necessary appropriations for the government. I am quite certain it is possible, but I am not going to take the time of the house to put the proposal forward in detail. I will say this. If we discover this year 500,000 or 600,000 unemployed in our country who are unable to earn because they cannot find work, that must be very largely because of the accumulation of unsold goods, goods that can- not find a market. If the financial policy of the government were to make available to the consumers of this country, by means of a national dividend, the purchasing power with which they could buy the surplus goods and take them off the market, we could very soon increase employment and in fact do away with the problem of unemployment. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, it would have to be done very responsibly and very carefully. If the Bank of Canada were to advance to the government sufficient purchas- ing power to make up the deficiency that exists between the total price of goods avail- able for sale and the effective purchasing power in the pockets of the consumers with which to buy the goods, then that amount could be distributed in the form of national dividends or family allowances, I do not care what you call it. This amount of purchasing power would then balance our economy and make it possible for us to quit worrying very much about unemployment. If we were to do that under present cir- cumstances, however, the Bank of Canada would have to declare an increase in the cash reserve requirements of the chartered banks in order to prevent inflation. We realize that. But under the revised act they have the right to declare an increase in the cash re- serve requirement. By that method they could prevent inflation. The amount of new purchasing power issued may not be sufficient to take care of the kind of increase in family allowances that the hon. member for Assini- boia had in mind. It may not be anything like the amount required to do what l'union des electeurs of Quebec suggest. We would have to limit the amount which could be issued to the exact deficiency of purchasing power between the price of goods offered for sale and the effective purchasing power in the pockets of the people with which to buy those goods. If that were one dollar, then that is all that could be safely issued without creating inflationary trends. If it were $2 million, that would be the limit. If it were $10 million, that would be the limit. EMr. Low.] I certainly hold no brief for those people who take the view that you can go on issuing purchasing power indiscriminately, unrelated entirely to our production increases; not by any means. I hold the position, and I am speaking for my movement, that as the pro- duction of the country increases the purchas- ing power of the country will have to increase to keep pace with it, otherwise we will not be able to distribute the goods. If there were a 1 per cent increase in production, then you could safely increase the total purchasing power of your country by 1 per cent. It would have to be limited to that. I hope that makes the position clear. Let me say in conclusion that we feel it would be possible, under a changed financial policy, to increase family allowances. We feel that a good case can be made for increasing family allowances without taxation. We do feel, however, that we must take into account the position of our taxpayers in this land, and not heap upon them any further burdens of taxation. At the same time we must be very careful to see to it that every policy we intro- duce in this country will have the effect of putting cents back into the Canadian dollar, by increasing the purchasing value of the Canadian dollar. When we do that certainly we are, by that means, increasing family allowances in proportion. Those are the things that we feel should be done. Mr. Daniel McIvor (Fort William): I con- gratulate the hon. member for Assiniboia, for two reasons, Mr. Speaker. He made a good speech and he showed outstanding imagina- tion. The result of his speech was to bring forth one of the finest deliveries we have heard from the Minister of National Health and Welfare. He has shown to us the founda- tion on which family allowances are built. I congratulate both hon. members on what one called forth and what the other measured up to, just in the usual way. There are three reasons why I cannot yet support this resolution. I believe I know the homes in Fort William better than any man in this house, and almost as well as most people in that city. I have never yet heard the mother of a family say she is dissatisfied with family allowances; never once have I heard one say that she wanted more. But I have heard many of them say that it has been a great boon to them to get that cheque once a month. Therefore I say that is one reason there is no call for an increase. Then, second, some- times I visit the public schools and see how the children are dressed. I see the children not only in the public schools but in the high schools and technical schools, Protestant and 1448 HOUSE OF COMMONS Roman Catholic. I see the school yards crowded with bicycles; and at this season of the year hundreds of the school children have been able to purchase their own skates. So why should more cash be paid to those homes by the dominion government? Surely that is a sound argument. Then, when a young man has made up his mind to choose a partner for life, what does he do? If he is a real Canadian he will pro- vide a nest. He will have more than a room in a rented suite. He will have something more than a cigarette lighter. That man will have a nest for her. Then when a wise Provi- dence comes with a happy bundle from heaven, what does the father do? He goes to his young wife and he says, "Now we will have to measure up to our responsibility. I shall cut out cigarettes; I shall cut out light refreshments. I shall spend less money on myself." He does not say "Oh, we will get $5 for this child, and we will have more to spend." That is not the type of young Canadian I know. Then let us suppose that his companion is a bachelor. He says, "I am not going to have a home of my own." He denies himself the great privilege and happiness of a home, but when the happy little bundle comes to the other house he is supposed to help his friend pay the cost. Another reason I am not in favour of this resolution just now is that there are greater needs in Canada. As I have said before, veterans of the first war should have pen- sions at the age of 60 years, without a means test. Just the other day I met a friend of mine who said that his company was ordered into the trenches and told they would be there for only three or four days. However, they were there for 31 days, and the trench was never without a foot of water in it. The shells were coming over constantly. The lives of men in that position would be shortened by at least 10 years. This is an outstanding need; and I am going to fight for it, and it will have my support before I would be pre- pared to support an increase in family allowances. The Minister of National Health and Wel- fare knows perfectly well that I have sup- ported national health insurance, and we are going to see it in this country before we close our eyes in the long sleep. We are going to have a national health insurance scheme. We are not going to have it this year, but I expect it will come-and it will come before we have an irncrease in family allowances. I am convinced there is no need at the present time for this increase because mothers Family Allowances Act and fathers are not seeking it. The need is not pressing. There are other things far more urgent. I thank hon. members for their courtesy in having listened to me. Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): Mr. Speaker, despite the attack made by the minister of national welfare upon my colleague the hon. member for Assiniboia, and against this party as a whole, and despite what I shall say before taking my seat a few minutes from now, I wish in my first words to take the part of the Minister of National Headth and Welfare in one respect, and I assure him it will be in one respect only. I noted his complaint that certain news- papers in this country have referred to him as an irresponsible minister because he is spending so much money on health and wel- fare. and because he is trying to get more money for expenditure in that field. Far from any suggestion that the minister's efforts or those of any other person in that connec- tion are irresponsible, I suggest they are highly responsible. I go further than that and say that in this time of uncertainty and tension in the world at large it is important not only that we look to our material and military defences, but that we concern our- selves with the strength of our people in every way; and not the least important of our concerns should be in the field of health and welfare. The minister is perfectly right in every effort he makes in this field. I suggest the same applies to others who likewise may be seeking to strengthen our position in the matter of health and welfare. I said I was taking the part of the minister in only one respect. As for the rest of his speech, I certainly do not agree with the description applied to it by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. McIvor). Once again the minister was trying to have it both ways. He wanted all the credit he could gather to himself and his party for family allowances and other social legislation, but he also wanted to take the position that at this time nothing more could be done. He wants to build a monument to Mackenzie King for family allowances, but he does not want to do anything to stop the crumbling of that monument that is taking place because of the effects of inflation on the value of family allowance cheques. I suggest that if the Minister of National Health and Welfare wants to boast either justifiably or erroneously of what the Liberal party has done in the field of social welfare it would be far better to implement that boast by doing something to preserve the FEBRUARY 23, 1955 1449 HOUSE OF COMMONS Family Allowances Act value of such social legislation as we now have, and by doing something to extend its provisions. This afternoon the minister suggested that anyone who asked for an increase in family allowances was blocking the way to health insurance. He suggested that this gets in the way of doing something more in the field of old age pensions. The hon. member for Fort William suggested that it gets in the way of improving the position of the veterans. They ail ask the question: If you spend the money on this, where will you get the money for other things? The first reply is that the government is not making any serious attempt to find money for these other things. The second reply is that if the government had done something about unemployment in the past two or three years we would have had in this country during that period of time more than sufficient extra wealth to take care of ail the things we are asking with respect to health insurance, old age pensions and increased family allowances. Far from the proposai by my seatmate, the bon. member for Assiniboia, being irrespon- sible, I suggest his proposal, along with our other proposais regarding old age pensions and health insurance, is highly responsible. Indeed these things are related to the need for increased strength on the part of the people of this country at this very time. In part of his speech with which I shall not deal in detail now, the Minister of National Health and Welfare this afternoon tried to link my seatmate with another organization. That matter was straightened out, I believe, when my colleague the hon. member for Assiniboia rose on a question of privilege. I suggest that if the Minister of National Health and Welfare wanted to find out what other organizations might be advancing, along the lines of the proposai before us this afternoon, he should have looked at the proposal of the Canadian Con- gress of Labour, than which there is no more responsible body in Canada, which has pro- posed that there should be an increase in family allowances to the extent of $2 in each category. Mr. Martin: The bon. member recom- mended doubling the family allowances. Mr. Knowles: Instead, the minister tried to make that association between my hon. friend and a group with which none of us in this house has any connection. The minis- ter is also using the phrase about the doubling of family allowances. That is one of his complaints. On the other hand, he complains that my colleague's motion is vague in that it asks just for an increase in the amount, without specifying the extent to [Mr. Knowles.] which be wants that increase to be made. Which way does the minister want it? A few days ago another motion was before the house asking for the doubling of a certain payment because of the increased cost of living, or the decrease in the value of the dollar. In a speech the other night, which was very much like the speech made this afternoon by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Minister of Agriculture- Mr. Martin: He made a much better speech. Mr. Argue: You are right there. Mr. Knowles: I shall let the ministers fight that out between themselves. The Minister of Agriculture suggested that if, instead of asking that the amount be doubled, the mo- tion had just asked for an increase, he could have considered it. Now this afternoon we get a motion which avoids what the Minister of Agriculture did not like. It just asks for an increase, and the Minister of National Health and Welfare says be cannot consider it be- cause it does not specify precisely what my hon. friend wants. There you have it; the government wants things both ways. Weil, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take any undue time because I would like to see this resolution come to a vote, but I do feel there are just one or two other things I should say while I am on my feet. First of ail, this is something I have intended to do every year when this debate has been up, because inevitably this house seems to get to the question of who started the campaign for family allowances in this country. Last year, as a matter of fact, after the debate was over I had a letter from a friend of many of us in this house, the late A. A. Heaps, written just before he died, who reminded me that 40 years ago be was a member of a delegation that waited on the provincial government of Manitoba, requesting legisla- tion of this kind. Hon. members know, too, of the speeches that were made by various members in this house, particularly the late Mr. Heaps, and the late J. S. Woodsworth, supported by some others on the other side, back in the 1920's, calling for legislation of this kind. However, Mr. Speaker, I hold in my hand a document which was the first of its kind in this country. This was the first time that a national political party in Canada wrote family allowances specifically into its national platform. This is the platform of the C.C.F., as adopted at the national convention held in Toronto in 1942. This document was issued under date of July 29 of that year. I find in this document a paragraph entitled "Social Justice". I read one or two sentences: The first need, in war as in peace, is to safe- guard the welfare of the Canadian family. FEBRUARY 23, 1955 Under that, the C.C.F. proposed at that time that we should have the following measures: a floor below which no person's income should be ailowed ta fail; increased old age pensions starting at 60; and pensions for unemployables. In other words we asked then for the disahility pension that we finally have achieved. I read on: national health insurance and famiiy ailowances. I suggest, therefore, that until some other national political party can produce a document eariier than 1942, with a specific proposai for family ailowances in it, that is the record as to where the parties of this country stand on this question. The next year, 1943, the Marsh report, which was produced under the direction of the late Prime Minister King, proposed family aiiowances, and in 1944 the legisiation was introduced in this house and became law in 1945. Mr. Studer: You are not a national party; you are a splînter party. Mr. Knowles: Unfortunately a siight bit of evidence has been given today o! what the hon. member for Swift Current-Mapie Creek says, namely that we sometimes have a slight splinter, in that one member of this party has expressed his opposition to the resolution that is now before the house. I feel it is only fair to this party, and to al who are interested in keeping the record straight, that it shouid be made clear to this house that the hon. member for Moose Jaw- Lake Centre, who has exercised the privilege that is his of speaking for himseif, was doing just that, and that he was speaking only for himseif when he said he was against this proposai. My colleague the hon. member for Assini- bola piaced this resolution on the order paper not oniy on his own behaif but on behal! of this C.C.F. group. But I go further. I wish to place on the record another statement fromn a C.C.F. national convention. At this Uirne I hold in my hand a copy of the record of our twelfth national convention which was held in 1952, also in the city of Toronto, at which time we passed a rather lengthy resolu- tion on ail phases of social security. 1 shahl not read it ail, but under the heading "Social Security" 1 quote this: S(e) an Increase in fanxily ailowaxices ta com- pensate for the inerease In the cost of living since they were first established, and the continuance of family allowance paymnents for children from 16 to 21, as long as they remain at school or college. In allier words, Mr. Speaker, what everyone knows is quite clear. The resolution that is before the house at the present time in the name of the hon. member for Assiniboia Family Allowances Act clearly represents the position of this C.C.F. party. Mr. A. H. Hollingwarth (York Centre): Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about the resolution. Since my colleague the hion. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Enfield) also wishes to say something, I shall give him the opportunity shortly. First of ail I should like to agree with the hon. member for Fort William, who wants a health insurance plan. He thinks that is more important at the present time than an increase in family allowances, but I shaîl deal with that in just a moment. At the outset I should like to say that I believe the success of this government is due to the balance they hold between private and public enterprise. That is fundamental, because a government which believes in private enterprise has to take into considera- tion the public interest. In that regard it is paramount that certain public enterprises should be encouraged, and that has been the case. Because of this we have a very comprehensive social security plan in this country. We have unemployment insurance; we have farnily aliowances; we have old age pensions, and we have other kinds of social legisiation. In my own riding I find that most of the people are interested in health insurance. I have had no requests that famiiy aliowances should be increased, but I have had several inquiries as to when we were going to get a national health plan. I feel that the Minis- ter of National Heaith and Welfare shouid be warmnly congratulated on the fine program he has instituted in this country in the interests of the people. I submit that at the present time there are many reasons why family aliowances cannot be increased substantiaiiy. For exampie, we must remember that many new expenditures are being made this year in the field of social security. We have an increase in the war veterans allowance. Last night the Minister of Veterans Affairs stated that this govern- ment was increasîng the ailowance to single pensioners from $50 to $60 and for married pensioners from $90 to $108, and that the permissibie ceilings are also being raised. Again, we have legisiation having to do with disabied persons, and an increase in unem- ployment insurance. In other words, Mr. Speaker, there are continuai increases in social security benefits in this country. It seems to me that if we are to have these Increases we cannot aiso increase the family allowances at the present time. I have no hesitation in saying that I shahl support vigorously any social securlty measure in this country, but the hon. member for Assini- HOUSE OF COMMONS Family Allowances Act boia always gives me the impression that he represents the repository of all wisdom. If we are to have increased expenditures on social security I should like to see more money spent on bringing in a national health insur- ance plan and on bursaries for needy univer- sity students in conformity with the resolution that I have on the order paper at the present time. Second, I would be forced to vote against this resolution moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue). (Translation): Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I wish to say that I will always support family allowances and that I think it is the Liberal government who will set the example in reform in this country. (Text): Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, some of the arguments advanced in opposing this resolution remind me a great deal of the arguments we had during the thirties. It was assumed then that there really was not very much we could do about having poverty in the midst of plenty. Last night I was reading a book by Robert Sherwood dealing with Roosevelt and Hopkins. While this book dealt primarily with the war period, I think more people should read about the imaginative way in which Roosevelt and his associates dealt with a very real economic problem in the United States 20 years ago. In reply to a question asked by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) the minister readily admitted that if war should break out Can- ada would have no trouble in raising 10 times the amount proposed to increase family allowances. Mr. Martin: I did not say we would have no trouble; I said that Canadians generally would do everything possible to preserve their way of life. Mr. Nicholson: If we should have the mis- fortune to have a third world war, and assuming that it could go on for four years, I am sure events would prove that Canada could raise enormous sums. The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) raised two relevant questions. He mentioned the responsibility to old age pensioners and to those who are getting war veterans allowances. I think we cannot at this time justify our shabby treatment of the people getting war veterans allowances and of our old age pensioners by the argu- ment that the present scale of payments for family allowances is stretching our economy. The hon. member for Assiniboia pointed out that if people now unemployed were given a chance to do productive work, a very [Mr. Hollingworth.] large amount of new wealth would be created. Yesterday someone mentioned that there are 600,000 in the ranks of the unem- ployed at the moment. It is estimated that on the average every person who works creates at least $8 worth of new wealth in return for a day's work. That is a total of $4,800,000 a day that the people of Canada are losing by condemning 600,000 of our fellow Canadians to continued unemploy- ment, or a total of $1,440 million a year of new wealth which would be available if we gave these unemployed a chance to work. That is seven times the increase of $200 mil- lion mentioned by the Minister of National Health and Welfare over the present amount of $384 million. I am sorry the Minister of National Health and Welfare made his unfortunate reference to the premier of Saskatchewan. If he would like to have the unanimous consent of the house to have that section expunged from the record I am sure we would give it. Mr. Martin: Are you asking me a question? Mr. Nicholson: No, but I am suggesting that if at six o'clock the minister asks for unani- mous consent we should give it. The Minister of National Health and Welfare and the premier of Saskatchewan came here together in 1935 as bright young men. Mr. Martin: We are still bright young men. Mr. Nicholson: I am sure that while the premier of Saskatchewan was minister of health the Minister of National Health and Welfare found there was no other minister of health in Canada who gave more complete co-operation. I think on reflection he will ask that that reference be withdrawn. When the debate started I was reading the New York Times, and I noticed that they are proposing in Washington to increase the pay of members of congress from $15,000 to $25,000 a year. The judges are having their salaries increased from $25,000 to $35,000, and the salaries of the vice-president and the Speaker are being increased from $40,000 to $45,000. Is it not strange that increases of this sort never place any strain on the national economy? When we considered increases for the members of this house and of the Senate a year ago, very few, if any, hon. members raised any question about what those in- creases would do to the economy of Canada. I submit that the proposal of the hon. member for Assiniboia is sound. Every politi- cal party is for family allowances. If it was a sound principle in 1944 or 1945 to earmark 2 per cent of our gross national product for family allowances, I submit that it is a sound policy in 1954. The proposal made by the FEBRUARY 23, 1955 hion. member for Assiniboia to increase this amount would really have a beneficial effect upon our economy. Those people who are unfortunate in that they do not receive enough to have to pay income tax are placed in a most difficuit position in that their in- comes are not; sufficient; to provide enough food, clothing and shelter for their families. Here is one simple step that can be taken by the federal parliament to make it possible for every Canadian family to have additional purchasing power. I agree with those who have stated that in the final analysis the wealth of Canada is produced by ahl the people of Canada and that there is a limit to the amounts that can bie spent by the provincial, federal and munic- ipal authorities. But 1 submit that the people in the lower income brackets are not receiving a sufficient share o! the national income. If we will take steps to see that the unemployment problemn is solved and that our agricultural producers are given a fair share of the national income, then the federal gov- erniment wîll have no .problemi in meeting the commitmient suggested by the hion. member for Assiniboia. Mr. 0. C. Trainor (Winnipeg South): Mr. Speaker, the humorous reference of the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) to the wonderful Social Credit machine is per- haps not as far wide of the mark as it might at flrst appear to be, because the governiment have their own version of this wonderful machine, and its name is inflation. It may be necessary ini order to have a social security program to have a policy of inflation, but I suggest that the government should tell the people this quite frankly. It is perfectly obvious that a large portion o! the funds necessary to finance the social security pro- gram of the governmnent are obtained in this way, and my suggestion is that the public of this country be informed of that fact. Mr. F. A. Enfield existence in days gone by. I want to know where are those champions of liberty, truth and justice, the defenders of these things. Those people who in weeks past were ready to get up to speak about a human bill of rights would be well advised to ask themselves how you can get a human bill of rights if you are going to vest every- thing in the power of the national govern- ment. If you want a human bill of rights you must give the provinces their bill of rights, you must give the local districts their bill of rights. I do not want to labour that point, but there is an important factor involved in these things. Every time we get centralization of authority within the centre of this government or any other government we give away a part of our own particular human rights, especially when it affects only one particular province as does this bill. There is one further step. I mentioned earlier the responsibility of members of par- liament. I should like to ask the indulgence of the house to quote certain excerpts from bills and debates which have been brought up in this house in past years. One debate I should like to refer to is that of the parlia- ment of Canada on confederation in 1865 and also the debates during the session of 1877. These are books that are revered by Canadian citizens everywhere. In years gone by I have frequently wondered what particular value there was in the teaching of history, but I think I found its particular purpose at this time. There were certain fundamentals and prin- ciples that make up the basis for confedera- tion and we should keep these in mind. When we think of this Dominion of Canada we must remember that it is not made up of just one or two particular provinces; it is the dominion as a whole. First, I should like to refer to page 377 of the debates of 1865 when the Hon. Mr. Langevin, who was HOUSE OF COMMONS International Rivers solicitor general and from Quebec, spoke. At that time the province of New Brunswick had export licences on timber and when they came into confederation they wanted that right to be retained. Mr. Langevin said: As to New Brunswick, the duty on the article in question is their principal revenue, as coal is almost the sole revenue of Nova Scotia; and if they had been deorived of them, they would have oeremptorily refused to join the confederation. I do not hear anybody applauding now, )ut at that time the report indicates "hear, ear". If the government which was formed at that time had taken from the province of New Brunswick the right to export its tim- ber or had denied that right to Nova Scotia those two provinces would not have joined confederation at that time. Mr. Langevin then went on to say: Their demand was perfectly just, and could not be refused. Then on March 28, 1871, as reported in column 661 of the debates of that day, Sir George Cartier, a commoner of that day, when speaking on the bill to admit the province of British Columbia into confederation, had this to say: He invited the freest and fullest discussion on each and every clause but he would remind them that the bill was in the nature of a treaty . . - that the amendment of one paragraph or one item of those terms would defeat the whole project. When British Columbia came into con- federation she came in under a form of treaty. Members in the house at that time considered that a form of treaty. I am satisfied that they did it for only one purpose, to protect the rights of that particular province. Mr. Blackmore: Their sovereignty. Mr. Hahn: This is an amendment to that. It is taking from that power and right what was theirs at that day. British Columbia was happy to come into confederation because her rights were not being tampered with at that time. She sacrificed a lot to become a member. We hear people say peanuts, that it is a sell-out, that it is a steal when referring to this particular deal. Unfortunately I am not a constitutional lawyer nor a lawyer of any kind. If I were I might have more of these things at my fingertips and be able to refer to them as so many hon. gentlemen of the two senior parties in this house are able to do. On April 3, 1871, as reported in column 777 of the debates of that day, Mr. Campbell, a member, said that British Colum- bia gave to the railway a continuous grant of 20 miles on each side of the railway. That was the grant that was given. Was that a steal? How much was the property worth even at that time? Well over $50 million. What did Ontario do in comparison? She fMr. Hahn.] gave every other 20 miles on the right of way. I know we are not debating what was given by each of the provinces and under what terms they came into this agreement of con- federation; but I say that it has an important part to play in the establishment of the rights of the province of British Columbia and of those of each and every province that is in existence today. I might carry on and say that British Columbia received $100,000 a year from this government for their share of land, as I understand it. Newfoundland had been offered, four years earlier, $150,000 per year in perpetuity. The indications are that the people of that time did not realize the value of land in the province of British Columbia. Mr. Lesage: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I submit that what the bon. member is saying at this time has nothing to do with the amendment which is now before the bouse. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite): The point raised by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage) had occurred to me but I am not going to say at this time that the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hahn) is out of order because, as I followed his argument, he is endeavouring to bolster an argument that this bill has an effect on provincial rights and is laying the groundwork for it. He will, I think, permit me to say that at times he has gone fairly far afield. If he is going to conclude his argument in the time allotted to him, perhaps he had better stay as close as possible to the bill. Mr. Hahn: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am staying very close to the bill in my own mind at least, so far as relevancy is concerned, in having to do with the rights of the province of British Columbia and not just of British Columbia but of each and every province within this dominion. I now carry on, if I may, Mr. Speaker. Sir George E. Cartier, on March 28, 1871, as reported at column 661 of Hansard, had this to say. This was another example that British Columbia was coming into confederation so that ber demands or ber part of the treaty would not be amended: The customs duty collected under the tariff of the colony amounted to $350,000,- Note this closely. -which would give about twice as much per head for the population, as was collected in the Dominion. Mr. Speaker, British Columbia bas been paying through the nose ever since she came into confederation and she is continuing to do so. There is hardly a member of this house that dares to get up or is getting up to establish the truth of that particular state- ment. Now she ia to be kicked around. It is an interesting fact that at the time of entry of British Columbia into Canada Mr. Camp- bell, on March 28, 1871, as reported at column 658 of Hansard of this date, had this to say: It was aiso urged that the population were larger consumera of dutiable gooda. than the pop- ulation of Canada were and would therefore return more proportlonately to the revenue. Why were they willing to give this? So these rights would not be taken from them. I wonder, as has been said before, if the same treatment has been accorded to British Columbia as is and has been accorded, let us say, to the other provinces in respect of the development of the St. Lawrence water- way project. I wish at this time to come relevantly to the matter of water itself. I have in my hand a copy of a minute of a report of the committee of the privy counicil approved by His Excellency the Governor General on June 19, 1947. The purpose behind thîs order in counicil was to outline the policy in respect of water rights between the prov- inces and the federal authority. Let us see what they had to say in 1947 in the privy counicil order: The committee of the vrivy counicil have had before them a report. dated June l7th. 1947. from the Minister of Agriculture. representlne that in connection wlth the construction of such large water development projects by the Prairie farm rehabilitation organization as are approved by the governor in council and for which funds are Provided by parliament It ts desirable- Note this. -that the respective responsibilities of the dominion and of the Province in whlch a project is con- structed should be clearly defined and the proce- dure to be foUlowed In regard thereto be estab- lished: Lest someone say that this has to do with agriculture and possibly irrigation, may I say that so has the Arrow lakes project. The committee. therefore. on the recommenda- tion of the Minister of Agriculture. advlse that Your Excellency may be pleased to approve the following principles to govern the policy of the dominion in respect to such prujecta: 1. Before Canada undertakes the construction and operation of a project it will be necessary for the Province inx which the project la located to enter into an agreement-, (1) to tranafer any water rlghts reouired for the construction and operation of such proJect; (2) to make avallable to Canada any Provincial crown lands whlch may be reauired for dam site. reservoir or canal rigzht-of-way Purposes In con- nection with such Projects;- And note this. -<3) under whlch the water will be utilized by the province or some other authority or organiza- tion on the terma set out in sucb agreement. Thereafter, Canada will at the coat of Canada proceed wlth the construction of its share of the project at the earliest possible date. 2. Canada wlll operate any project constructed pursuant to this policy In such a way as to International Rivets maintain so far as possible the minimum flow determined by the prairie provinces water board for the stream upon which the project la con- structed; 3. Canada will make a legal survey of any lands necessary for the construction, operation and maintenance of the Portion of sfly proJect to be constructed by Canada Pursuant to thia policy and will file a Plan or plans of such survey in the avPropriate land titles office and In the water resources office of the province. 4. In the construction of an irrigation project hereunder Canada wlll undertake and assume re- sponsibility for the construction of the main res- ervoirs and any connecting canais. and wll be responsible for the maintenance and operation of such works; Canada will deliver to the province such water as it is agreed the province wll utilize at such Place and for such f ee as may be agreed upon between Canada and the province. If the Province does not desire to utilize ail of such water Canada may enter into arrangements with others for the delivery and use of any water not taken by the Province. You will notice that it is the province. It is signed by A. D. P. Heeney, clerk of the privy counicil. I now corne to the member responsibility in connection xvith this bill. Mr. ICnawles: May 1 ask a question? Mr. Hahn: Yes. Mr. !Cnowles: Dîd that order in counicil make any reference to international rivers? Mr. Hahn: No; it made no reference to international rivers but it was delegating the authority. Many of the rivers in the province of British Columbia which run into the Columbia river are being covered by this particular bill and are or should be subject to this particular order of the privy council. But because they run into the Columbia they are considered as international rivers. Mr. Knowles: Does that not make a dif- ference? Mr. Hahn: Not specifically as to whose authority this might be under. But I have not time to get into a controversy. Mr. Lesage: You have enough on that point. Mr. Blackmore: The hon. member can take care of himself quite well. Give him a chance. Mr. Hahn: I should like to deal with mem- ber responsibility before six o'clock. Solicitor general Langevin in 1865, on February 21, had this to say. Part of this, Mr. Speaker, deals specifically with the protection of pro- vincial rights: Total population in 1861- He was referring to, Canada. -was 3,300,000 souls, and of these the total number of Catholica amounted to 1,494,000. Thus they wlU be numerous enough to protect their rellgtous and other interests; and those Interesta wlil be Inx 1483FEBRUARY 24, 1955 HOUSE OF COMMONS International Rivers a position of safety in the local legislatures. We do not seek to be allowed privileges which others have not- But notice this. -we only wish that our rights may be respected as we respect those of others. That was the purpose of the members of the House of Commons at that time, namely to protect the rights of local interests. This, sir, is a local provincial problem, and we should be protecting the rights of the prov- ince. These words are just as applicable to British Columbia today as they were at the time when confederation was being brought about. Further, the hon. solicitor general had this to say, as found at page 384: History is before us to prove that there will always be an opposition- I should like the members of the official opposition to recognize that. -and that if an attempt is made to oppress any one section of the confederation, its representa- tives would unite in a body with the minority, and having thereby constituted a majority, would pre- vent any injustice on the part of the federal government. If the official opposition dies, we will do the job for them. Where is this unity when there is oppression of one province? Our province is claiming that it is being oppressed in this particular respect, and yet we find that because half a dozen other members of our group who come from the province of Alberta rise to help to defend us they are castigated for their action. I say "hear, hear" to them. Is it just that British Columbia's one great natural resource should be sacri- ficed to the rest of the dominion through the introduction of this bill? The federal author- ity apparently has set itself up as judge and without discussion has decided against the provincial authority. We find that to be very true. Certain cabinet ministers made specific remarks as to the deal that the province of British Columbia was consummating. Where are these mouths that were going to speak so much in favour of the protection of provincial rights? I say they are indeed dumb mouths whose lips are sealed in mute evidence that this whole thing was set up under a false premise. The hon. solicitor general Langevin, as found at page 368 of the proceedings of Feb- ruary 21, 1865, also had this to say: Under confederation- Remember, this is the confederation that British Columbia entered in 1871. -there will no longer be domination of one race over another, and if one section should be desirous of committing an act of injustice against another section, all the others would unite to prevent it. Where are these people who will stand up and speak to prevent the injustice that the [Mr. Hahn.] government of British Columbia claims is being perpetrated against them? I should like to re-emphasize before I take my seat that this is not and should not be a fight with respect to the merits of the Kaiser dam, but rather we should try to present the prob- lem of provincial autonomy and provincial rights as they exist in the minds of the people of the province of British Columbia, in our own minds and, in fact, in the mind of everyone in this dominion. I have one final statement which I believe deserves close scrutiny. It is found in ses- sional paper No. 18 tabled in 1871, and is a letter to Governor Musgrave of British Columbia, datelined Ottawa, February 1, 1871. It reads: The terms of union are In nature of a treaty. They have been extensively published in Canada, and accepted by British Columbia. The Canadian government, therefore, think they have no right to alter those terms. After acceptance by Canada, parliament may, in its discretion, modify the tariff on the request of British Columbia. I have no doubt that parliament will consider any proposition made by you, with a desire to meet your views as much as it properly can. The letter is signed by Lord Lisgar. Mr. A. B. Pailerson (Fraser Valley): Mr. Speaker, will you call it six o'clock? Some hon. Members: No. Mr. Low: That is all right. He will go ahead. Mr. Quelch: Just wait until the next time you make the same request. Mr. Patterson: There are times when courtesy is a rather neglected attribute in this house, and it has been revealed as such in the last several days. Mr. Blackmore: Even decency. Mr. Patterson: However, I wish to take part in this debate, and regardless of the attitude of members across the way we insist on our right to carry on the debate, present the facts as they are and state the position not only of the people of British Columbia but of the people of Canada. I do feel there are times when courtesy might be extended, but it certainly has not been on the present occasion, nor on other occasions. Mr. Low: Not even one minute's worth. Mr. Johnston (Bow River): We will remem- ber it. Don't make any mistake about it. It will be remembered. Mr. Knowles: Tempus fugit. Mr. Patterson: Constitutional issues do come before us in this house, and I have been reminded that in the last few days there have been a number of issues that have come to the surface with respect to dominion- provincial relations. I certainly f eel that the present one is of vital concern and one that certainly fits into this particular and specific category. Therefore, in rising to take part in the debate I am reminded of the fact that I arn speaking to an amendment to the motion now before us in effect giving- Mr. Knowles: Six o'clock. At six o'clock the house took recess. AFTER RECESS The house resumed at eight o'clock. Mr. Paiierson: The amendment to the motion now before us, Mr. Speaker, is that Bill No. 3 be not now read a second time and that the subject matter be referred to the committee on external affairs. I recognize, of course, that the Minister 0f Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) in introducing this measure, after stating the reasons for its introduction, referred to the fact it should be referred to the committee on external affairs. However, like some other members, I arn under the impression that once a bill passes second reading the principle of the bill has been approved. When it goes to committee, it is then just a matter o! dis- cussing the details of the measure. This is one reason why I find it difficult to understand the attitude of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green). He re- ferred to the fact he was anxious to see the bill go to the committee. I believe he did state that neither he nor his party could support this amendment, and therefore I sup- pose we are to take it that the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, and others in the Conservative party, are in favour- Mr. Robinson (Bruce): Talk for yourself. Mr. Patterson: You have not got up to say anything to the contrary. Mr. Robinson (Bruce): You are talking now. Mr. Pattersan: You have had your oppor- tunity. I understand they are supporting the principle of the bill and are, therefore, in favour of a further concentration of power i the central government here in Ottawa. We are unalterably opposed to the principle of the bill and that is the main reason why we are so anxious to see the subi ect matter referred to the committee before this measure is given second reading. As I say, if second reading is approved then the principle will be approved. Canada, of course, is a fedieration. It is a federation in which power is shared, and International Rivers within the constitution certain stated author- ity rests with the provinces, and the central parliament is free to legisiate in other fields. Section 92 of the British North America Act designates provincial rights. In clause 10 we find this: Local works and undertakings other than such as are of the following classes: (c) such works as. although wholly sltuate wlthin, the province. are before or after their execution decIared by the narliament of Canada to be for the izeneral advantage of Canada or for the advantage of two or more of the provinces. I suggest there is a very delicate situation existing here. It seems to me as though the needie is very delicately poised. Before this parliament invokes this particular provision and exercises this overriding authority, it should very carefully consider its position. It has been suggested that this is a borderline case or an item in the twilight zone. Evi- dently this parliament must legisiate before it can rob the province of certain rights and exercise authority over these particular types of works. The procedure, I suggest, will have a devastating effect upon dominion-provincial relations. At the moment, the federal gov- ernment does not have the constitutional authority, otherwise they would not be intro- ducing this particular measure. Not only, Mr. Speaker, does the federal gov- ernment not have the constitutional author- ity, but I suggest it does flot have the ethi- cal or moral right at this juncture to invade the fields of authority the provinces have been exercising-I may say, without chal- lenge by this federal government-through- out the years. When we consider this bill we think of the extent to which it goes. The governor in council may. for the purpose of developing and utilizing the water resources of Canada in the national interest. make regulations (a) reapecting the construction, operation and maintenance- Mr. Depuiy Speaker: Order. Do I under- stand the hon. member is reading from the bull? He will, of course, not refer to the clauses in the bill itself. Mr. Pa±±erson: All right, Mr. Speaker, thank you. We find that through this bill the government proposes to take control and usurp those rights and privileges that the provinces have exercised ini the past. I sug- gest the measure is of tremendous import; and wide authority. As the Minister of Trade and Commerce has said, the measure was introduced to pro- tect the rights of the people of Canada, at least to see that there is an orderly develop- ment of resources in the best interests of the national economy. I am not going to take the time to read the particular sections in Hansard in which the minister made refer- ence to the fact, but I would suggest that FEBRUARY 24, 1955 1485 HOUSE OF COMMONS International Rivers the provincial governments, British Columbia or any other government, are best qualified to decide what procedures are best, what matters are best, in the interests of the people. They are working with the problems day by day, and they are seized with the responsibility. The responsibility has been committed to them by the people of the respective prov- inces and they are held accountable by those same people for the faithful discharge of those obligations. I would suggest, therefore, that this bill is predicated on the assumption that the provincial government is neither capable nor desirous of developing the re- sources in the best interests of the people of Canada. As I have already said, I and the other members of this group are unalterably opposed to the principle of this particular bill. I know that the Minister of Trade and Commerce referred to the fact that over $2 million has been spent by the federal gov- ernment in surveys in a particular area of British Columbia. I was waiting for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage) to shout out "Two peanuts", but he did not do that. When there was a reference to the fact British Columbia was getting a million dollars, he said, "Peanuts". He is shaking his head. Never- theless, I was waiting for him to say that when the Minister of Trade and Commerce gave that figure. He did not do so. The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) referred to the fact that the inter- national joint commission and the federal Department of Public Works had been very solicitous of the interests and welfare of the people before any development had been carried out. He went to great lengths to outline that. He was spreading it on very thickly. Mr. Herridge: Telling the truth. Mr. Patterson: Sometimes we resort to fiattery. I did not intend to deal with the Kaiser project, but coming back to that again I remind the hon. member that before a licence is granted, every individual, every interested group, every organization will have ample opportunity to present their case before the authorities. I believe the hon. member should have presented both sides of the case instead of trying to make it look as though the pro- vincial government was going to railroad the thing through without giving anybody an opportunity to raise an objection. Mr. Herridge: How could they do anything when they have signed an agreement? Mr. Patterson: They have signed an ex- ploratory agreement. That has been brought [Mr. Patterson.] out time and again, but apparently it has not sunk in yet. Now then, I have been referring to the fact that the provincial gov- ernment should be in the position to make decisions in the best interests of the people. I know the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sin- clair) stated that the provincial government in British Columbia was cockeyed, that they did not know what they were doing. That was the statement to which the minister lent his support. When it was read and placed on the record be said, "All true." I would sug- gest that that is not a very good way to main- tain the minister's popularity in British Columbia. Mr. Cannon: You would be surprised. Mr. Patterson: It would be surprising, yes. However, as I have said, we are not challeng- ing the right of the dominion government to legislate on matters clearly in their jurisdic- tion. There is a division of jurisdiction; that is desirable and necessary. But we are objecting to the passage of a measure meant, no doubt as an emergency clause, to take from the provinces authority which is right- fully theirs. During this debate in the last few days this matter of dominion-provincial relations has come up quite often. It came up in con- nection with educational grants, in the debate on the bill of rights. This government agreed with the principle that there must be a recog- nition and acknowledgment of provincial rights and provincial autonomy. Now, why bring in this measure to expropriate rights that have been exercised by provincial gov- ernments in the past? I think there is an inherent danger here, because we have not been told to what ex- tent this will be carried out. I would like to ask the question: What proposed development is next going to fall under the disapproving frown of this gov- ernment? What provincial rights are going to be whittled away next? There has been some talk about the diversion of flood waters from the Columbia into the Fraser river. I shall not debate the merits or demerits of that suggestion; but, in the event of a pro- vincial government objecting to that, what is the federal government going to do? Will they pass another measure and say, "Whether you like it or not, we are going to do it." I think it involves the very same principle and the same situation. I would like now to refer to a statement made by General A. G. L. McNaughton when he appeared before the committee on exter- nal affairs last year. This is a rather general statement. I do not think there is any con- troversy about it, but I would like to place it FEBRUARY 24, 1955 on the record. General McNaughton said this, as recorded at page 168 of the proceedings of the standing committee on external affairs: In dealing with British Columbia we feel we are dealing with views that are the consensus of views of all the people in that province. and I think when you have views with that sanction behind them, that they are views to which we must all oay the greatest attention; they have to be given every weight in the considerations that come forward in the international field. Now, I have read that because I feel it is the basis of all successful dominion-provincial relations. They must be founded upon mutual respect for the rights of the respective juris- dictions, and a refusal to be led into the position of encroaching upon those respective jurisdictions, except by mutual consent and understanding. Bill No. 3 is far-reaching in its implications. As I have said, it will be looked upon as absolutely indefensible inter- ference with provincial prerogatives. Perhaps I now pass into the realm of the imaginary, if you wish to call it that-but let us suppose this bill is passed and any province refuses to recognize and acknowl- edge its validity. I think this matter was brought to our attention some few days ago by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) when he intervened in the debate and asked just how the penalties were going to be imposed, if the bill was passed. He asked how it was going to be enforced if a provincial government refused to recognize its validity. Well, we have the penalties out- lined in the bill-and I understand at this stage I must not read them. But we do know there is a provision for fine and imprison- ment. Would it be possible to enforce those penalties in the event of a provincial govern- ment refusing to recognize the authority of the federal government in this respect? Would it be advisable to try it? Would it be wise to put this measure on the statute books, with that question in mind? Just how far could we go in the imposition of those par- ticular penalties? The question has been asked as to who is going to arrest whom? It would be interesting to see just what would happen, if somehow or other a way was worked out whereby this could be enforced, to see the custodians of the law going into the province of British Columbia or any other province, enforcing the regula- tions, taking premiers and cabinet ministers and putting them in the pokey. As the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) said the other day, no doubt it would pre- cipitate something almost like a civil war right in Canada's front yard. Perhaps the Minister of Justice (Mr. Gar- son) will accede to the suggestion of the hon. member for Vancouver East and shed a little International Rivers light on the problem from that constitutional angle. I believe if this government goes ahead, against the considered judgment of the pro- vincial government and the will of the people of British Columbia, then the Liberal party will be about as dead as a mackerel. In fact it will be about as dead as the Conservative party in that province at the present time. And the Minister of Fisheries will no doubt be right there. Mr. Knowles: I suppose he will be a fossil. Mr. Patterson: Of course, we remember certain ministers have had their knuckles rapped after some statements had been made. However, we do not believe that the govern- ment would consider seriously doing any of these foolish things. But apparently they are considering doing this foolish thing, by putting this measure on the statute books of Canada. Permit me to say that provincial govern- ments are elected by the people, in what- ever province it may be, and the same people will insist upon a report of their steward- ship. They are there to fulfil an obligation under constitutional authority, and it would be unwise for the federal government to usurp that power which ethically, morally and constitutionally belongs to the province. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) has insisted that the reason for the introduction of this bill is purely to safeguard the interests of the Canadian people. There have been other suggestions. They have not been denied; and I hope when the time comes to close this debate-whenever it comes-the minister will reply to some of those charges and let us know whether there are some other reasons-perhaps some hid- den reasons-why the government has sought to bring in this measure at the present time. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the house ready for the question? Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I feel that at this time I should take a few minutes of the time of the house to say a few things about the matter that is before us and perhaps make more clear exactly what it is that we have been striving to do. Before I start on the few points that I want to make in connection with the bill itself, I would like to deal just briefly with one or two things that were said by other speakers this afternoon. One of the things that attracted my attention particularly was a long telegram which the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources read into the record today that purported to be an answer to a question that was asked the other day by the hon. member for HOUSE OF COMMONS International Rivers Kootenay West. One does not suggest col- lusion between the two members to get that on the record at all, but one could easily be excused for doing so. Mr. Lesage: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, when the bon. member for Koote- nay West asked his question on Tuesday last I had no knowledge that he was going to ask it. I answered his question by saying that I was going to try to seek definite informa- tion, which I did, and I gave him my answer this afternoon. Mr. Low: Yes. The interesting thing to me -and I am sure it must have occurred to many other bon. members-was that the minister would feel it necessary to go clear down to Washington to try to find out the answer to that question. Mr. Byrne: Why not? Mr. Low: Why not ask the government of the province of British Columbia for an answer to that question? Mr. Lesage: They would not know. Mr. Low: This, and a good many other things that have gone on, or have failed to be done, indicate quite clearly to me the singular aversion on the part of this govern- ment, or of any minister of this government, to go to the authorities in British Columbia to try to get the truth on any one of these matters. That is perfectly correct. There has been no effort on their part to go to the authorities in British Columbia for informa- tion, or for the purpose of trying to work out the basis of co-operation to get this whole matter cleared away, not the slightest. If there has been, no one on the other side of the house has attempted to place the infor- mation before this house so that we would know it. And yet the minister rises in his place today and reads this long telegram in which he emphasizes the information which he got to the effect that no contract was signed between the Bonneville authority and Kaiser, and therefore he deduces, by infer- ence, at any rate, that there is no possibility of the Kaiser deal being enforceable. Well, now, Mr. Speaker, nobody here or anywhere else that I have known, except on the opposite side of the house, has said that there was a contract. I thought I made it abundantly clear when I spoke on February 11-and finally it was noted, at any rate, by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, because he mentioned it in his closing speech on the night of February 11-that I went to the province of British Columbia and obtained information which I put on the record. [Mr. Low.] I am just going to refresh the memory of the minister, for whom I have high regard. For us, at any rate, it is a matter of principle, and I think he is on the wrong end of the principle this time. I said, as reported at page 1092 of Hansard, in relation to this very question: Here are some of the things the minister could have found out if he had made the slightest effort to put himself on speaking terms with the British Columbia administration. which he did not. As the minister knows. the present Kaiser agreement is mainly exploratory. It does not pretend to be final in all respects. Before it is finalized, there will be a contract between Kaiser and Bonneville which will be assigned to the government of the province of British Colum- bia. Guarantees with respect to the delivery of power, and the posting of the performance bond to guarantee delivery, are all part and parcel of a conditional water licence which can contain any termas and conditions which the province may wish to impose. The performance bond will be issued by a reliable bonding company and will guarantee either the delivery of the stipulated amount of power in British Columbia or, in case of bankruptcy or failure of the company, a cash payment ecual to the value of the electricity over the entire 50 years. Now, everybody who knows anything about this situation at all must realize that nobody has claimed that there is a firm contract signed. Nobody claimed there was a con- tract between Bonneville and Kaiser. Mr. Winch: I did, on the word of the minis- ter. Unfortunately, I took his word. Mr. Low: I am going to come to that in just a moment. As a matter of fact, I might just as well deal with it now. I listened to the hon. member for Vancouver East this afternoon. In his usual terms, which, by the way, have never been noted for their modera- tion under any circumstances, he proceeded to suggest that the minister of lands and forests in British Columbia had his political tail in the gate. Mr. Winch: He sure bas. Mr. Low: But what I have already said, Mr. Speaker, indicates that early in this whole dispute I was able to get the informa- tion which I put on record here. That information coincides exactly with the infor- mation which the minister of lands and forests in the British Columbia government gave in his letter to Mr. Winch. It suggests to me that there is a very strong possibility that the hon. member for Vancouver East is indeed mistaken, or misunderstood what the minister told him. I was not there, of course, and I am not going to stand up and try to enter into a dispute between him and the minister. I am only saying that I was able to get the information straight, which completely coincides in every detail with 1488 information we had today from Mr. Sommers. I feel quite certain that there is a good chance that when my hon. friend was in the office of the minister in Victoria he must have misunderstood what the minister referred to. At no time since this thing began has it ever been communicated to me that there was a contract, but it was certainly com- municated to me that before the final con- tract was signed there was expected to be a provisional water licence, and that provisional water licence would set out all of these things that amount to guarantees. Furthermore, as has already been pointed out, when the pro- visional water licence was applied for individ- uals, firms, groups and local interests every- where that might be affected would be given every chance for a fair and complete hearing of their case. Mr. Blackmore: Including -the federal gov- ernment. Mr. Low: Yes. That should set the picture as clear as I am able to set it. As I say, I am not going to enter into a dispute with the hon. member for Vancouver East because I was not there, and I would not call him a liar, or anyone else a liar, in connection with this matter. An hon. Member: To suggest is as strong. Mr. Low: It is a lot different from what other people have done with little excuse. It must be perfectly clear to anyone who has done any thinking at all about the manner in which the government has dealt with the province of British Columbia and the whole waters problem in that province that it has been unjust and unfair and unwise, and in many respects politically despicable; that it has caused much disunity in our country at a time when unity is so essential to our preservation and development. I think that I am safe in saying also that the way the government rushed Bill No. 3 before the house exposes the purpose that was behind it, that is to block a deal between Her Majesty in the right of the province of British Columbia and a private corporation. That has caused widespread fear about what this or some other reckless government in the future may be tempted to do if they do not like something that a province is trying to do toward developing its own resources. This business of federal action directed against a province is what we have been fighting. Federal action in this parliament directed against a province and what it is doing is something which the Canadian people will not tolerate if they come to realize the facts about what is really going International Rivers on. It is because we were anxious to see that the people from one end of the country to the other had a chance to get the details of what was going on that we have conducted this debate. I will say that there has been no element whatsoever in it of a desire to hold up this bill simply for the satisfaction of holding it up; not for a moment. The people of Canada by and large are very fair and just in their judgment. I am ready to leave the matter of judgment to them. They are most jealous also of their local rights. As the details of the present situation filtered through to them, I know from my own experience that the people felt angry about how this government was attempting to throw sand into the gears of provincial development machinery at this time and in this manner.. Hon. members opposite deny that there was any attempt by the federal government to use this bill as a means of blocking a deal. I have heard that said, but the pertinent facts prove that such a denial is unfounded and support our contention that Bill No. 3 was rushed in-I stress the word "rushed"-as it was and when it was for, among other things, and this was very prominent among the other things, the pur- pose of blocking the Kaiser deal. What are the facts that indicate that clearly? The first is that this bill was men- tioned in the speech from the throne and immediately afterward, far more quickly than on any other occasion that I have known of,it was introduced into this house and a state- ment was made which indicated that there was a real rush and that the house shoulddeal with it quickly. The second point is that the government of British Columbia was not advised that the bill would be introduced and was not consulted in any way in connection with it. In fact no effort was made by this govern- ment or by any member of it to seek the co- operation of the provincial government for the purpose of arriving at some satisfactory procedure which would guarantee the orderly and full development of the great Columbia river basin. There was the very pertinent and important fact that as early as last November, not so long after the preliminary agreement was reached between the British Columbia government and Kaiser,- Mr. Blackmore: For exploration. Mr. Low:-ministers of the government and members of this house supporting the gov- ernment began making public statements to the effect that the government at Ottawa would block the Kaiser deal. How did they know that this government would block the FEBRUARY 24, 1955 1489 International Riv ors Kaiser deal? They had assurance of it; thcy spoke \Vith assurance. For instance, I can mention my good friend the hon. member for Victoria, B.C. (Mr. Fairey> who, in delineating this matter at a public meeting for this Liberal government, statod that the govern- ment here would block the Kaiser deal. He must have had somo information about it, otherwise he would not be saying that in anything but a speculative manner. He would have said, "I hope they will". Ho did not say that; he said, "They will". An hon. Member: That it was a good thing to do. Mr. Low: Whether he thought it wvas a good thing te do, that is what he said was going to happen. I do not need to go over ail these things, but I have themn here, the words they said, and I can give the dates. It goes back to November; somo of it happened in December, some in January and somo in early February. So there is no question of that fact at ail. There is another thing. Thcre is every cvi- dence that this bill was rushed into this house becauso somoone was piqued. someone was angry.- If one looks over the speeches that have been made from the other side of the bouse ho will sec that there is inference after inference te that effect. Someone was angry. I wonder who it was. In his short speech on February 11, two wceks ago te- morrow. the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) indicated that it might be Cen- crai McNaughton. He said that General Mc- Naughton was very much concerned about it. I wondor why. I have tried to picture in my mind just what happened. I wonder if General Mc- Naughton came to the minister heatedly and asked him te bring in this bill. When I asked mysoîf why ho would do it I could flot find any other reason than that he feit ho had been slighted because the governmert of British Columbia had net consulted him. That is the inference that the Minister of Trade and Commerce left with us. Mr. Dickey: No. Mr. Low: Yes it was, and I will refer to it. The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey) says, "no". He is quite- Mr. Blackmore: Quite noisy. Mr. Low: I quote fromn page 1106 of Hansard of February 11, where the Minister of Trade and Commerce is reported as follows: Strangely enough, General McNaughton bas not been consulted by the province of British Columbia about this transaction. That is what I said he said. [Mr. Low.] Mr. Dickey: He was dealing with the ques- tion of co-operatien. Mr. Low: It dees net matter what ho was dcealing with, I am queting the exact words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. An hon. Member: Quote them. ail. An hon. Member: Why should he net have been consulted? Mr. Low: That is an honest question; that is a good point. Someene asks why shoiild ho not have been consulted. I will deal with that. No reason bas been divulged as te xvhy General 1\IcNaughton should have been angry about the thing. Things have been said fremn the other side cf the bouse te indicate that General lMcNau-ghton's anger arose becauso ho was net consulted by the governmont, of British Columbia before September 17 when the memnorandumn was completed between Kaiser and the province of British Columbia whereby certain preliminaries were te be undertaken with a view te a later contract for water storage in British Columbia. Mr. Goode: General McNaughton was in Victoria at that time. Mr. Low: That mav ho true; I do net know about that. The objection te what British Columbia has donc on the basis ef their alleged failure te consult General McNaugh- ton is ill-founded. This was net a matter for the international joint commission, net at ail; this was a matter for consultation and negotiation between the government cf British Columbia and the governmcnt of Canada. General McNaughton made his posi- tion abundantly clear in bis evidence befere the external affairs cemmittee hast year. I Just take time te quete briefly wbat he said at page 174 of the evidence. He was being questioned by the hon. member for Vanceu- ver-Quadra (Mr. Green): Q. Then you mentioned Mica creek and various other potential developments. By what authority wo uld those have to be but? Would they be the responsibility of the dominion, the provincial goveroment or private enterprise. or juat how would they be built? Then General McNaughton's answer was as follows: A. No sir, the commission% responsibility under the reference is an over-ail plan te develop the iarticulara and details right down te and includ- mne the designs of the particular worka needed. We are doing that. As regards Mica creek. we have had the additional survey information. that we se badly needed. made available te us. within the past few montha. And se on. Then he gees on te say this: Se fromn the commission Point of view. that Poi- ect could be cleared for construction at any time within a vear. The People te build it, the responsi- bility of building that dam, lies with the Provincial zovernment. TheY must say whether they are goiniz HOUSE OF COMMONS1490 FEBRUARY 24, 1955 to build it themselves through the B.C. Power Commission or whether they are going to bring in a group of private interests to build it. All these things are very definite possibilities, but the deci- sion will lie with the provincial government. General McNaughton realized only too well that the international joint commission's responsibility was, first, negotiation with the United States division of the international joint commission with a view to some inter- national agreement within the scope of their authorities; second, to develop plans to the last detail for the development of any one of these powers and to make them available to the authority that was to build them. So this was not a question of reference to Gen- eral McNaughton. It was not the responsi- bility of the province of British Columbia to consult with General McNaughton about it. If there was any consultation to go on at all, it was between the British Columbia govern- ment and the appropriate division of the government of Canada. I think that General McNaughton had no reason to feel piqued at what British Colum- bia had done. He may have felt concerned and one could understand that perhaps if he had plans in his mind. But it would seem to me that, with those plans in his mind, what he should have suggested to the minister or ministers of the crown here is this: Why do you not get out there or have those people come down here, sit down and talk this thing over and arrive at some sort of agreement so that we can go ahead without having a lot of trouble? That could have been done. I say this to you, Mr. Speaker: Personal pique or anger is not a good reason for bringing in any bill with the tremendous implications con- tained in this bill, which invokes a clause in the constitution that should be used most sparingly and then only after the fullest con- sultation with the provinces that are now or might later be affected by that legislation. If the federal government or any official of it was angry about what British Columbia was trying to do, it was clearly a matter between them and Her Majesty in the right of the province of British Columbia. This govern- ment should have communicated any disap- proval they may have had to the British Dolumbia government. Did they do that? Some hon. Members: No. Some hon. Members: Yes. Mr. Low: No. The proof has not been orought before us yet; and I suggest that it be brought before us. If there is some culpa- bility in that regard, let us establish where it is. But it has not been established yet. As far as I am able to understand, this govern- ment did not at any time communicate any disapproval of the proposal to build a dam International Rivers to store water in the Arrow lakes before this bill was conceived. It may have been after the bill was in the process of formation and plans had been made for legislation here. Did the minister wish to say something? Mr. Howe (Port Arthur): I would point out to the hon. member that I wrote a letter to Premier Bennett and also to the management of the Kaiser company last November, I think it was, stating that amendments were going to be made to the federal legislation, and just calling their attention to that fact. I did not receive a reply to either letter. Mr. Low: I am going to ask the minister now, if possible, this question: Did he express disapproval at that time of what the British Columbia government was trying to do? That is what I am talking about. If there was any disapproval to be expressed, this government should have expressed that disapproval then, but they did not do so. That is what I am saying. I did not say they had not com- municated. Mr. Howe (Port Arthur): Does the hon. member not think that would be implied in a statement that we were changing our legis- lation? Mr. Low: No; I certainly would not. Some hon. Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Low: I am just going to leave it to the minister himself. Would you really believe that that was expressing disapproval? Mr. Howe (Port Arthur): I now understand a lot of these speeches from the hon. mem- ber's corner of the house. Mr. Low: I know that the genial minister likes to try to laugh these things off but they are rather serious to many people; they are to us. They are extremely serious. I am going to tell you this, Mr. Speaker. No such peremptory thing as was done in this case was done with the province of Ontario when they were negotiating the co-operation for the seaway bill, nor with Quebec. Mr. Howe (Port Arthur): May I point out that the federal government conducted all negotiations for the seaway. Mr. Low: Surely; but you did it with the approval and the co-operation of the province of Ontario. Mr. Howe (Port Arthur): Yes. Mr. Low: But there was no peremptory action such as that which the minister has just pointed out he took. As far as I can ascertain-and I have not changed my mind one bit-this government did not at any time HOUSE OF COMMONS International Rivers indicate any disapproval of plans to build a dam to store water in the Arrow lakes. If they did, they have certainly kept it a deep dark secret. I should like just to go back for one minute to this question of principle. A good deal has been said about the principle of the bill and what it is. I do not intend to go over all of it because there is another thing that bas not been touched yet; no reference bas been made to it. This to me is a matter of principle. One part of the bill-under the rules I am not permitted to say which part that is-declares that all international river improvements heretofore or hereafter con- structed, and not excepted from the operation of this act are hereby declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada. That is, of course, the exercise of the power of expropriation by one government from another. The only way that very great power-and I say it is a very great power- can be granted is by majority vote of the people's representatives in this parliament. If we pass Bill No. 3, then we give this par- liament practical ownership-and I want this noted particularly-of all of the defined works on all the international rivers of Canada. But I wonder whether it has occurred to hon. members-whether it has not struck them as rather peculiar, as a matter of fact-that if this government bas induced this parliament to grant it drastic powers of expropriation by invoking section 92 (10) of the British North America Act, they would ask parliament at the same time to give the governor in council the right to set aside the declaration made in clause 9 by the powers asked for in clause 3. To me that is a mighty serious point of principle and is a mighty serious business. It is a principle which should never be countenanced by the parliament of a free country. That is one more right good reason why we are opposed to the principle of this bill. My friend the hon. member for Vancouver- Quadra this afternoon said that this is a bill which is just perfect to be studied by a committee. Well, maybe it is, but why in the world rush to get it to the committee before we understand what the principle is? We are discussing the principle here today, and if the bill gets to the committee then that is an indication that the house has approved the principle. That is what will be thrown up to us. It will be said: Well, you agreed in principle by a majority vote. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that becomes more serious when the principle has not been fully explored as yet. An hon. Member: That is real democracy. [Mr. Low.] Mr. Low: Certainly, I am quite ready to concede it. I feel now that the purpose for which we started this discussion about two weeks ago has been fairly well served. I think perhaps our case has been put on the record pretty clearly and completely so that the people of British Columbia and of Can- ada generally may be able to judge for themselves as to the seriousness or otherwise of what the government proposes to do. The newspapers of Victoria and Vancouver, in fact, of the whole province, have not, with very few exceptions, carried the details of our objections to the bill. I have noticed that they strained themselves in the very early weeks to give headlines to the political utterances of Liberal spokesmen prior to the introduction of the bill into the house, but they have really suppressed the news in connection with the debate on Bill No. 3. One of the reasons why we felt that it was essen- tial that we carry on this debate as we have was to try to see that the people of the country were informed, if not through the press, certainly through Hansard. We feel, however, that our purpose has been fairly well served and for that reason, although we cannot support the principle of the bill and will vote against it, as far as I am con- cerned and those in my group who will follow me we will not continue this debate further. The house divided on the amendment (Mr. Shaw) which was negatived on the following division: YEAS Messrs: Blackmore Gagnon Girard Hahn Hansell Holowach Johnston (Bow River) Leboe Low MeLeod Patterson Poulin Quelch Thomas Wylie Yuill-16. NAYS Messrs: Aitken. Miss Anderson Applewhaite Argue Ashbourne Balcom Barnett Batten Bell Bennett (Grey North) Bennett, Miss (Halton) Blair Bonnier Boucher (Chateauguay- Huntingdon-Laorairie) Bourget Bourgue Breton Brooks Brown (Brantford) Brown (Essex West) Bruneau Bryce Bryson Buchanan Byrne Cameron (High Park) Cameron (Nanaimo) Camobell Camoney Cannon Cardiff Cardin Carrick Castleden Cavers Charlton Churchill Coldwell Crestohl Croll Dechene Decore Denis liescflatelets IJesierea Dickey Dinsdale Dumnas Dupuis Enfield Eyre Fairclough. Ir. Fairey Follwell Fontaine Fraser Cameron (Nanaino) Campbell Campney Cannon Cardiff Cardin Carrick Castieden Cavera Charlton Churchll Coldwell Crestohl Cr011 Dechene Decore Denis Deschatelets Desiieres Dickey Dinsdale Dumas 1493FEBRUARY 24, 1953 International Rivers Dupuis Mcllraith Enfield MeIvor Eyre MeMillan Fairclough, Mrs. McWilliam Fairey Mang Follwell Marier Fontaine Michener Fraser (St. John's East) Manette Fulton Monteith Gardiner Montgomery Garland Nesbitt Gauthier (Lake St. John) Nicholson Gauthier (Portneuf) Nickle Gingras Nixon Gingues Pallett Goode pearkes Gour (Russell) Pearson Gregg Perron Habel Piekerszil Hamilton (Notre Dame Pinard de Grace) Pommer Hanna Pouliot Hardie Power (Quebec South) Harkness Power (St. John's West) Harris Proudfoat Harrison Purdv Healy Batelle Hees Beinke Hellyer Richard

House of Commons Debates Vol 2, Feb 14 to Mar 22, 1955

Object/Artifact

AVRO Museum

Name/Title

Entry/Object ID

Description

Category

Web Links and URLs

General Notes

Note