1950-04-24

Mr. W. G. Weir (Poriage-Neepawa) moved:: That the name of Mr. Dechene be substituted for that of Mr. Macdonald (Edmonton East) on the special committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government.
That the name of Mr. Jones be substituted for that of Mr. Thatcher; that the name of Mr. Apple-whaite be substituted for that of Mr. Eudes: that the name of Mr. Byrne be substituted for that of Mr. Hartt; that the name of Mr. Mott be substituted for that of Mr. Healy; that the name of Mr. Decore be substituted for that of Mr. Macdonald (Edmonton East), and that the name of Mr. Prudham be substituted for that of Mr. Whitman, on the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Resources and Development):: I believe that hon. members will be interested to know that the federal government this morning entered into agreements with six provincial governments for the construction, under the terms of the Trans-Canada Highway Act passed by parliament last session, of the links of the trans-Canada highway through their respective provinces.
Contracts were signed with representatives of Ontario, Manitoba, British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan and Alberta. The provinces with which an agreement was not signed were Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland.
Hon. members will recall that when the bill was being considered by parliament last session I informed the house of the government's view that the project would not be national in scope unless all provinces entered into the agreement, and that unless it were national in character the federal government would not be justified in participating.
However, in view of the fact that those provinces in which no such east-west highway exists have all signed the agreement, and having regard also to the fact that the implementation of the agreement with the
six provinces will result in a hard-surfaced) road from east to west across Canada, thereby in substance achieving the aim of the-act, it is the opinion of the government that-the people of Canada generally would approve-of having the project proceed in the six provinces with respect to which agreements have been signed. I am convinced, moreover, that it is only a matter of time until the remaining provinces will participate in the project.
I should like at this time to express the appreciation of the government for the wholehearted co-operation extended by the provincial ministers and officials concerned in the negotiations.
The agreement was signed on behalf of the province of Ontario by Hon. George H. Doucett, minister of highways and public works; of the province of Manitoba by Hon. E. F. Willis, minister of public works; of the province of British Columbia by Horn E. C. Carson, minister of public works; of the province of Prince Edward Island by the premier, Hon. J. Walter Jones; of the-province of Saskatchewan by Hon. J. Ti. Douglas, minister of highways and transportation; and of the province of Alberta by Hon. D. B. MacMillan, minister of public works.


Mr. Argue:: Will the Minister of Resources and Development table a copy of the agreement signed by the provinces with respect to the trans-Canada highway?


Mr, Winters:: Yes, I shall be very glad to do that.


Mr. Brooks:: Will the minister give the reasons why the province of New Brunswick would not sign the agreement?


Robert Henry Winters: The province of New Brunswick has not said it will not sign the agreement. At the present moment I think it is a matter of deferment rather than refusal.



ROUTE THROUGH B.C. MOUNTAIN PASS-QUESTION AS TO ENGINEERING ADVICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Decore (Vegreville):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Resources and Development. What engineering advice has the minister secured, if any, in regard to -the cost of construction, cost of maintenance and usability of the trans-Canada

Questions
highway over the three mountain passes in western Canada? In particular has any engineering opinion been requested from the engineering staff of the minister's department, and if so, what was the substance of that advice?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me this is a question which might be put on the order paper.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	How many employees have resigned from the staff of the government printing bureau since January 1, 1950?
2.	What reasons were given by such employees for such resignations?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	Eleven.
2.	No reason stated, 4; to better position, 2; did not want shift work, 2; unable to secure living accommodation, 1; dissatisfied with working conditions, 2.


' RIDGEDALE, SASK., POSTMASTER
Mr. Wright:: 1.	Who is the present postmaster at Ridgedale, Saskatchewan?
2.	On what date was this appointment made?


Mr. Lapointe:: 1.	John Richard Grandy.
2.	(a) Temporary, 1st May, 1949; (b) permanent, 13th October, 1949.


RADIO BROADCASTING
Mr. Fraser:: 1.	Is the radio program "What's Your Beef" sponsored by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?
2.	If so, what does this program cost per broadcast?
3.	Are the participants in this program interviewed before going on the air?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	No.
2.	No information.
3.	No information.


CANADIAN MARITIME COMMISSION-SHIPPING SUBSIDIES
Mr. Isnor:: 1.	Of the $3 million subsidy voted to be used by the Canadian maritime commission, what amount has been expended to date?
2.	What are the names and addresses of the shipping companies receiving subsidies, showing in

each case (a) number of ships owned; (b) names of ships; (c) size by tonnage; (d) amount of subsidy paid?


Mr. Chevrier:: 1.	The $3 million subsidy has not as yet been voted by parliament; therefore no amount thereof has been expended to date.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Knowles:: 1.	How many retired employees of the Canadian National Railways are in receipt of non-contributory service pensions (a) $100 to $199.99 per month; (b) $200 to $299.99 per month; (e) $300 to $399.99 per month; (d) $400 to $499.99 per month; (e) $500 or over per month?
2.	How many retired employees of the Canadian National Railways are in receipt of pensions in part basic and in part contributory (a) $100 to $199.99 per month; (b) $200 to $299.99 per month; (c) $300 to $399.99 per month; (d) $400 to $499.99 per month; (e) $500 or over per month?
3.	How many retired employees of the Canadian
National Railways are in receipt of retirement allowances, including pensions arising from any pension plan plus supplementary allowances, totalling (a)	$100 to $199.99 per month; (b) $200 to
$299.99 per month; (c) $300 to $399.99 per month; (d) $400 to $499.99 per month; (e) $500 or over per month?


Mr. Chevrier:: The Canadian National Railways advise as
follows:
1.
(a)	$100	to	$199.99	per	month	
107(b)	$200	to	$299.99	per	month	
8(c)	$300	to	$399.99	per	month	
2(d)	$400	to	$499.99	per	month	
1(e)	$500 or over	
3
2.
(a)	$100	to	$199.99	per	month	
1,644(b)	$200	to	$299.99	per	month	
113(c)	$300	to	$399.99	per	month	
24(d)	$400	to	$499.99	per	month	
10(e)	$500 or over per month	
15
1,806
Of the above, 1,111 are payable under the provisions of the I.C.R. & P.E.I. provident fund and G.T.R. superannuation fund.
3.
(a)	$100	to	$199.99	per	month	
4(b)	$200	to	$299.99	per	month	
3(c)	$300	to	$399.99	per	month	Nil(d)	$400	to	$499.99	per	month	
1(e)	$500 or over per month	Nil
These retired employees do not receive any payments under any pension plan.


GOVERNMENT ELEVATORS
Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I should like to table an amended answer to a question asked by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) on April 17, Hansard, page 1623. The question was as follows:
1.	What amounts of different types of cereals, seeds, or other commodities were stored in the federal government grain elevator at Saskatoon, during the year 1949?
Orders for Returns
2.	Who were the owners of these cereals, seeds or other commodities?
3.	What amount of charges were assessed to these owners?
I am told some of the figures tabled were incorrect, and I am now tabling the correct answer.
1.	See statement below.
2.	It is not desirable to publish the name of the owner, as this would reveal the details of the individual's business to his competitors.
3.	See statement below.
1. CANADIAN GOVERNMENT ELEVATORS
Saskatoon Elevator
-	Wheat (bushels)	Oats (bushels)	Barley (bushels)	Flax (bushels)	Canada Rapeseed (lbs.)	Screenings (bushels)	ChargesStocks in store, January 1, 1949, for ac-	580	8,183	134	18,022	10,277,130% 883,045	S 8,005.00 206.17Received January 1, 1949- December 31, 1949, for account of 5	7,940	18,160	Total stored	8,520	8,183	134	18,022	11,160,175%	18,160	8,211.17Shipped January 1, 1949- December 31, 1919 for account of 9 owners, plus cleaning or drying loss, invisible loss, deficit at	7,270 1,250	7,998 185	7	17,830	11,160,175%	18,160	15,546.38127	192	Nil	Nil	23,757.55



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Was any money spent by the federal government, either directly or through the Canadian National Railways, in each year since 1939, in construction projects, the purpose of which was to assist in the mining or transport of iron ore at or from Steep Rock iron mines at Atikokan, Ontario? If so, what was the total amount in each year, and what was the original authority for such payments?
2.	Was any money spent by the federal government, in each year since 1939, by way of freight subsidies in connection with the transport of ore as noted above? If so, what was the total amount in each year; from what point to what point do such subsidies apply, and what was the original authority for such payments?
3.	Was any money spent by the federal government, in each year since 1939, by way of assistance to Steep Rock Iron Mines, Limited, either direct or indirect, in any other way than indicated in questions 1 and 2 above? If so, what was the total amount in each year; what are the details of such other payments, and what was the original authority for the same?
4.	Has Steep Rock Iron Mines, Limited, been granted any special tax concessions, having regard to income tax, corporation tax, excess profits tax, special depreciation or accelerated depreciation, at any time since January 1, 1939? If so, what are the details of such concessions?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Return tabled.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Diefenbaker:: What was the amount expended month by month since the first of April, 1949, to date in all departments of government for (a) travelling expenses; (b) living expenses and allowances?




Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	How many government officials or representatives of Canada have travelled beyond the confines of Canada in connection with government business month by month since the first day of April, 1949, and to date?
2.	What has been the total amount of expenditures for all travelling, living allowances and expenses incurred or expended by such persons since said date?



TELEVISION

Mr. Brown (Essex West):: 1.	Is there at present any fee chargeable for the operation of a television receiving set in Canada?
2.	If not, have any plans been made for the imposition of a fee for the operation of a television receiving set in Canada?
3.	When is it to be introduced with relation to the establishment of television broadcasting, and how much is each reception licence to cost?
4.	Have plans been made for the establishment of television broadcasting stations in Canada?

Orders for Returns
5.	If so, in what locations, and when are they expected to be in operation?
6.	Have plans been made to establish a television broadcasting station in Windsor, Ontario?
7.	If so, what is the estimated population within a radius of a hundred miles that would be served by such station?



PRINTING BUREAU


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	What is the hourly rate of wages now being paid to printers at the government printing bureau (a) for day work; (b) for night work?
2.	How many hours per week do printers work at the government printing bureau before overtime rates begin, and what are the overtime rates?
3.	What is the hourly rate of wages now being paid to printers working in commercial shops (a) for day work; (b) for night work, in (i) Ottawa;
(ii)	Montreal; (iii) Toronto?
4.	How many hours per week do printers work in commercial shops, in (i) Ottawa; (ii) Montreal;
(iii)	Toronto, before overtime rates begin, and what are such overtime rates?
5.	What is the hourly rate of wages now being paid to printers working in newspaper shops (a) for day work; (b) for night work, in (i) Ottawa;
(ii)	Montreal; (iii) Toronto?
6.	How many 'hours per week do printers work in newspaper shops, in (i) Ottawa; (ii) Montreal;
(iii)	Toronto, before overtime rates begin, and what are such overtime rates?



GOVERNMENT DEPARTM ENTS-ADVERTISING

Mr. Fraser:: 1.	What was the total cost to each department of the federal government for advertising (a) on the radio; (b) by motion pictures, during the year 1949?
2.	What is the estimated cost for the same this year?



VETERANS LAND ACT

Mr. McGregor:: 1.	In each province, how many veterans are settled under the Veterans Land Act?
2.	In each province, how many acres are now occupied under V.L.A.?
3.	In each province, how many acres now owned by the government are yet to be transferred to veterans?
4.	In each province, how many homes have been erected or are in the course of erection by veterans?
5.	What is the total value of the property occupied by veterans under the V.L.A. in each province?
6.	In each province, what is the number of resales of veterans property bought under the V.L.A.?
7. In each province, what is the number of inspectors or field men under the V.L.A.?
8.	In each province, what is the number of V.L.A. inspectors' cars operated at government expense?
9.	In each province, what is the total number of cars owned and operated by the Department of Veterans Affairs?
10.	In each province, what is the total number of employees and officials in all V.L.A. departments?
11. In each province, what is the number of parcels of government lands, with or without buildings sold to other than veterans?
12.	In each province, what was the total value of all parcels sold to other than veterans?
13.	In each province, other than under V.L.A., what real estate sales were concluded by the Department of Veterans Affairs?



NORTH CHANNEL SHIP AND YACHT REPAIR COMPANY

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Have contracts affecting H.M.C.S. Cataraqui been let to the North Channel Ship and Yacht Repair Company at any time since August 1, 1948? If so, how many such contracts have been let, and what is the amount of each?
2.	Has the North Channel Ship and Yacht Repair Company at any time since August 1, 1948, had contracts other than contracts affecting H.M.C.S. Cataraqui? If so, how many such contracts has it had, and what is the amount of each?
3.	Who are the members of this company? Is Mr. H. K. Hill connected therewith in any way?
4.	Who is the commanding officer of H.M.C.S. Cataraqui?
5.	Is the work under any contracts affecting H.M.C.S. Cataraqui, which have been let to the North Channel Ship and Yacht Repair Company, being done to the satisfaction of the commanding officer of H.M.C.S. Cataraqui?
6.	Does any one other than the commanding officer of H.M.C.S. Cataraqui check on these contracts, and on the satisfaction of the work done thereunder?



CROWN CORPORATIONS AND OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES


Mr. Argue:: 1.	What are the names of all crown corporations, boards or other government agencies engaged in commercial or business operations on behalf of the government, during 1949?
2.	What was the profit or loss incurred by each?
3.	How will the losses be met in each case?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. MacLean (Cape Breion North and Victoria):: For a copy of all correspondence between the federal government, any minister, department, branch or official thereof, and the Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation, or the Dominion Coal Company, in connection with loan of $7,500,000; also a copy of agreement between the federal government and the company.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is no objection to making the return, but I would call the attention of the hon. member to the fact that the agreement itself has not been signed. It is to be ratified by a general meeting of the shareholders to be held on May 12. I suggest that the motion pass with the understanding that the return will not be brought down until the agreement is signed.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried, subject to the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


John George Diefenbaker: For a copy of all cheques, and acknowledgments of or receipts therefor in respect of any allowance

or allowances made or paid to the chairman or president of the Canadian National Railways on retirement, since January 1, 1948.


Lionel Chevrier: There is objection to this
motion. If it passes, it is evident that the amount of the allowance will be revealed to the house. It has been the practice of the Canadian National Railways to refuse to give to the house salaries, payments and allowances of this kind.
I think, Mr. Speaker, I should add another word, because this very important matter was discussed at some length in the committee on railways and shipping a few days ago. At that time this very information was asked for. The president of the Canadian National Railways made the statement, of his own volition, that a retiring allowance had been paid to the expresident of the Canadian National Railways; that it had been made in conformity with a precedent of some years* duration, and further that it had been made with the full authority of and in conformity with the proceedings of the board of directors; and he asked the committee not to reveal the amount. I took the same position, supporting that of the president of the Canadian National Railways, and said that the information was available to the committee if it wanted it, but that I trusted the committee would uphold the position of the president of the Canadian National Railways, and it did.
The question now is whether the house should receive the information when the committee took the position that the amount should not be revealed. For these reasons 1 think we should follow the practice that we have always followed in this house, namely, that of not revealing the amount.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I desire to have a vote on this question, for the reason that the government at no time is averse to giving the number or the amounts of retirement allowances or pensions of employees who receive non-contributory service pensions. Indeed a question on today's order paper in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) asks:
"How many retired employees of the Canadian National Railways are in receipt of noncontributory service pensions" of stated amounts. When the question was called, the minister said: "Answered".
I have looked up debates of the past, and I can find no case analogous to this. About one year after Mr. Vaughan's retirement period he was granted an allowance additional to the ordinary pension. The amount has been variously estimated as running into many thousands of dollars. When the Canadian National Railways requires money to finance its operations it comes to parliament. Surely
Motions for Papers
parliament has a right to know what payments are gratuitously made to the retiring president or other officials; for, after all, when parliament is asked to put up the money it should have the right to know how the money is being disposed of. Sir, I wish to have this matter brought to vote.


Mr. Graydon:: May I ask the minister one question?


Mr. Speaker:: I will allow the question, but I should point out that these motions are not debatable.


Gordon Graydon: In view of the fact that the public pay for this, why should not the public know how much they are paying?


Lionel Chevrier: I think that is a fair question; perhaps I might be allowed a moment or two to answer it. The position the Canadian National Railways take is that they should not be asked to reveal information which, if it were possessed by their competitors-


Mr. Fraser:: Rot.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, whether it is rot or not, the position that has been taken in the past is that information of this kind should not be revealed before a committee of the house. And the very member who interrupted me a moment ago is a member of that committee, and did not insist that this information be revealed.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I did insist.


Lionel Chevrier: Furthermore, there are two members sitting in the house now, belonging to the same party as the hon. member, who, when they were given information by the present president of the Canadian National Railways, after demanding it, withdrew their objections and said they were perfectly satisfied.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: No, we did not. I never withdrew my objection at all; and I asked the question.


Lionel Chevrier: I said I would like to answer the question, and that it would only take a moment. The hon. member says his objection was not withdrawn. Let me read from the record.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Lionel Chevrier: Now, now!


John George Diefenbaker: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lake Centre is rising to a point of order.


John George Diefenbaker: Has the minister the right to quote from proceedings in committee, when there has been no report?


Mr. Speaker:: I might point out that the procedure has been somewhat irregular,

Motions for Papers
both in debating this issue and in referring to the report of a committee which has not yet reported. The procedure thus far has been irregular, but perhaps the house might like the minister to continue.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to read this.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: What is the number of the report?


Lionel Chevrier: I am reading from the proceedings of the sessional committee on railways and shipping, issue No. 4. At page 229 I find this:


Mr. Fulton:: As far as I am concerned, I am very happy with Mr. Gordon's statement because it clears up a point which particularly interested me, namely, whether it would be a charge against the pension fund1. He has said that it would not be.
As to Mr. Vaughan's service, I think we, as members of the committee, should go on record. I understand that Mr. Vaughan was actually given a year's extension; that the government requested him to serve an extra year: therefore there can be no question that his retirement was at the request of the government.
For my own part, the question of the pension fund has been cleared up. And I think, as to the amount of payment, while I would not care to say that I feel bound by that previous ruling, yet under the circumstances stated by Mr. Gordon, I would not press for disclosure of that amount.
That is the record. I can go on further and show the position taken by another hon. member at that time:


Mr. Gillis:: Personally, I never had any doubts
concerning the matter except the doubts which might have been created here. I am satisfied that Mr. Vaughan was retired in a normal way and, as in the case of every other president, that he was paid a lump sum, following established precedent.
And finally:


Gordon Knapman Fraser: -


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: The member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) said:
I said before that I thought Mr. Vaughan quite deserved anything he got; but coming out of that, now that we know that Mr. Vaughan did get something, may I ask a question? Do the directors also get a retiring allowance?
Then Mr. Gordon went on to answer the question.


Mr. Maclnnis:: How did he answer it?


Lionel Chevrier: I said, in answer to the hon. member for Peel, that it has not been the practice to reveal information of this kind. I said in committee that I intended to hold nothing from the committee, and if the committee wished to have this information it was free to get it. But hon. members did, not insist; and that being so I do not think the information should be given to the house.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Speaker-
'Mr. Speaker.]


Mr. Coldwell:: I rise to a point of order. We have before us a motion which is not debatable, but on which there has been considerable debate. Some of us would like to say why we are going to support the motion, and yet under the rules of the house we cannot do so. Either we should have a debate, or the rules of the house should be rigidly adhered to.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house that I put the question?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: As the name of the hon. member for Peterborough West has been brought into this discussion, I think he should have the right to speak.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The minister said the committee agreed. But they did not agree. He also quoted what I had said, but did not quote all I said. I said this:


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I do not think that the minister's
argument is sound; I do not think it covers the case at all. I think this committee should have that information.


Mr. Mitchell:: I was paired with the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. Huffman:: I was paired with the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Catherwood). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: I am still paired with the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Macdonald). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. Cardiff:: I was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.



FOREIGN EXCHANGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: 1 should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It arises out of a recent newspaper article indicating that European currency will become convertible in the not too distant future. Will the minister elaborate on the matter and indicate to the house when European currency will become convertible?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, an organization 55946-116
Inquiries of the Ministry known by the initials OEEC-organization for European economic co-operation-has been advancing a plan which is designed to bring about the interchangeability of currencies on the continent of Europe, including the United Kingdom. This plan is still under study and is being actively advocated. I think there is some hope that convertibility to the extent I have indicated will be brought about in the near future.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: The minister says he thinks there is some chance of convertibility of currency in Europe, including Great Britain. If it included Great Britain, would that in his opinion include the sterling area?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is only a proposal that is being considered. There has been no agreement, but it is my understanding that the proposal is to arrange convertibility for currencies used in Europe, including sterling, francs, lire, and so on.



QUESTION AS TO DOMESTIC PRICE FOR 1950-51 CROP YEAR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. E. Wrighf (Melfori):: On Thursday last the Minister of Trade and Commerce made a comprehensive statement in the house on the subject of wheat. We are not likely to have a further discussion of the question for some time, and there is one point on which I think there should be clarification. I should like to ask the minister if it is the intention of the government to continue the present domestic price on wheat of $2 per bushel plus carrying charges for the 1950-51 crop year.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No decision has been reached on that point.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, I wish to give an answer to a question asked on the 16th of March by the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser). The question was:
1.	What departments of the federal government have information or publicity divisions?
2.	How many employees are in each of these divisions as (a) permanent civil servants; (b) temporaries?
3.	What is the total cost of operating each of these divisions?

Inquiries of the Ministry
On Friday last the hon. member asked whether all departments had made returns to the order which was tabled on April 17, 1950. The return tabled included all the the departments which had given information. The departments which sent in "nil" reports were not included. There were seven such answers. There are five departments to which the order was not referred, as it was thought that these departments would not have any information to submit. These departments are the auditor general's office, office of the chief electoral officer, the governor general's office, the insurance department, and the privy council office. A circular has been sent to these departments, and when the replies are received all the "nil" replies will be tabled as a supplementary return.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I should like to direct the attention of the Minister of Public Works to the fact that the Department of Finance did not make a return. On page 122 of the details of the estimates there is an item of $30,000 for a public information program.


Alphonse Fournier: I will call the attention of the Minister of Finance to that.



INQUIRY WITH RESPECT TO FLOOR PRICES AFTER APRIL 30

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Percy Ellis Wright: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. As the present floor prices on butter expire on April 30, has the government reached a decision on the floors after that date, and what methods it intends to use in establishing them?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Representatives of the dairy producers across Canada are meeting in Ottawa today, and they will be making representations to me as Minister of Agriculture. The matter will not be finally discussed and considered by the government until those representations are made.



SIR BASIL BROOKE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. Ross Thatcher (Moose Jaw):: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. It is the same question that I directed to the government on Friday last. Is it the intention of the government to have any official reception for the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland?


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Sinclair:: Why not?


Right Hon. L. S. Si. Laurent (Prime Minister):: The matter has not yet been
considered.



TARIFFS AND TRADE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) asked whether Canada opposed the entry of Japan into the general agreement on tariffs and trade. The answer is that Canada did not oppose Japanese participation in GATT, but that we would only favour it conditional upon the existence of economic and political stability in Japan and satisfactory assurance of her observance of fair trading practices.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, April 4, consideration of the motion of Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood), and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, when I adjourned the debate on the 4th of April I was trying to explain to the hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Major) and the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Gour) that the high price of grain should not be laid at the door of the western farmer. The hon. gentlemen know quite well that all grains are handled by the wheat board, as announced in the house a few days ago by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe).
Farmers in the east are seriously annoyed because of the prices they have to pay for feed grains. Before going further into that matter I want to make it perfectly clear to all those using feed grains that the western farmer has no intention of exploiting this market by holding grain at ridiculously high levels. He has far more sense than to do anything like that. I should like to direct attention to the fact that the floor prices of wheat, oats and barley today are $1.40, 65 cents and 93 cents per bushel respectively. Of course those prices are in store at Fort William; but the producer in the prairie

provinces actually receives approximately $1.20 for wheat, 55 cents for oats and 79 cents for barley. Freight and handling charges amount to approximately 20 cents in the case of wheat, 10 cents in the case of oats and 14 cents in the case of barley. Of course the farmer is entitled to any profit that may accrue from the sale of the grain by the wheat board after the crop season is over, by means of participation certificates.
Since hon. members from the east are accustomed to deal with wheat, oats and barley by the ton; let me put it in that form. At these prices the producer in western Canada is getting $39.60 per ton for wheat, $32.35 for oats and $33.18 for barley. So I do not believe hon. members who understand the growing of grain will consider for a moment that the western producer is getting too much, having in mind what he must pay for his implements and the materials that enter into his production costs.
One of the principal things the western producer wanted was a steady price, which would not only give him confidence to produce but would also give the purchaser of his produce grain at steady prices. That is why the farmers favour having the wheat board handle all grain, so that steady prices may prevail for both the producer and the consumer. But we have fluctuations from day to day, and complaints from consumers. What are the reasons for these fluctuations in grain prices? I do not know whether the Minister of Trade and Commerce can tell us, but certainly these prices should not be changing as they do. Evidently someone, through the speculative market, has been able to place those who require cash grain in a position where they must pay premiums of as much as 10 cents per bushel for oats and 35 cents for barley, in order to obtain their immediate requirements.
This additional cost to the eastern feeders does not necessarily mean increased prices to the western producers. It is much more likely to represent profit taken by speculators on the Winnipeg grain exchange. This is why we in the C.C.F. have always believed in the abolition of the speculative market. Let us look at what was said by the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Gour) on April 4, as reported at page 1559 of Hansard:
Therefore I think it is my duty to urge our good friends, the grain growers of the western provinces, not to create such a bad situation for their friends, the farmers of the east, who after all are their best customers, because in the near future they will need them to buy their grain and it will be too late. Today the bulk car price for No. 3 C.W. oats is $76 a ton at stations in eastern Ontario less a subsidy of $6 per ton. Barley is about the same. At the present time farmers, dealers and co-operatives
The Budget-Mr. Bryce refuse to buy. It will mean less bacon, less cheese, less chickens, and so on. The quoted price for grain on July 31 last was $15 less per ton. Why do we not have the July price today? If we did, our farmers would buy, the western farmers would get their money more quickly, and the eastern farmers would keep on producing the food. It would not create this misunderstanding between eastern farmers who need the grain and western farmers. The western farmer needs the eastern farmer to buy his grain. We need the best friendship we can possibly have.
If you compare the amount the western farmer receives for his oats, about $32.35 a ton at the elevator, and the $76 a ton the hon. member says farmers in his constituency are paying, there is a big difference. To my way of thinking the difference is much too great. I agree that the eastern farmer is paying too much, but I am sure the hon. member will agree that the western producer is not receiving too much. The situation is much the same with respect to barley; but let us deal for a moment with oats, which at last week's prices would cost approximately $59 a ton at Fort William. The freight to points in the vicinity of Montreal or Ottawa would be an additional $2.40. Loading would cost $1.50. Bags would have to be provided, but, since they can be used several times, an allowance of $2 per ton for bags should be sufficient. This would give a total of $63.72 per ton at any point in my hon. friend's constituency. Taking the figure at an even $64, when my hon. friend pays $76 the difference is $12 a ton or $480 on a forty-ton car of oats. It would be a good thing if the eastern farmer would check into this and see if someone is not charging more than the traffic should have to bear. On Friday of last week I checked Ottawa prices and found that wheat, in bags to the farmer, was $74 a ton, oats were $70 and barley was $69. I also checked the Montreal figures and found that wheat was $71, oats $70 and barley $69.
Taking oats again as an example, the price at both Montreal and Ottawa was $70, which leaves a profit of $6 per ton for the handling of a ton of grain. In other words on a forty-ton car there would be an allowance of $240 for handling 800 bags of oats, which seems a good profit. I have known dealers in the west who were satisfied to handle oats at 10 cents a bag, and make money. Fluctuations in the market will also cause the dealer to charge the highest price in order to safeguard himself, but if we had steady set prices he could certainly cut down on his margin of profit.
As to the east and west being good friends, we just cannot afford to be anything else; we must be good friends. I think the

The Budget-Mr. Bryce Canadian Federation of Agriculture has done a wonderful job in getting both east and west to understand each other's problems, and I do hope that as the years go by we may understand those problems better and by doing so become better Canadians.
As reported at page 1560 of Hansard, referring to the farmers of the west, the member for Russell says:
I hope they will not ask again tor more money from the government or that they will not refuse to deliver their grain. Perhaps it is only natural to want to get another ten or twenty-five cents a bushel, but sometimes too much ambition is not good for you.
The farmers are not asking for more money from the government; far from it. What the farmer or producer has been doing is asking for steady prices based on his cost of production, which everyone will agree is fair. To the best of my knowledge he has not refused to sell his grain. But let us remember that barley and oats production is down about 70 million bushels from 1948-49, according to the figures of the Department of Agriculture, so there may not be much more oats to come, especially as hog production has increased by 20 per cent according to the latest agriculture figures. If the farmers are going to start feeding more hogs in the west, there will be less grain to come east-not because they do not want to send the feed, but because they intend to feed it themselves.
If the government, through the wheat board, can succeed in doing away with speculation in grain, feed can be sold more cheaply to the feeder in the east so that the poultry man or pig feeder would not need to pay $3.50 for a 100-pound bag of oats. Under order in council P.C. 5434, dated November 17, 1949, no dealer in eastern Canada needs to add any more than $2.40 per ton for freight to the price of feed grain. The order in council says:
The Minister of Agriculture is authorized to pay freight assistance . . .
Provided that such assistance shall be paid as follows:
(a) On all rail shipments from Fort William, Port Arthur or Armstrong, the payment shall be the sum of $6 per ton when the destination is within the Montreal freight rate zone, and the sum of $6 per ton plus the remainder of the actual through car lot rail freight charges to destinations beyond the Montreal freight zone, and the actual car lot rail freight charges, but not exceeding $6 per ton, to destinations in northern Ontario to which the local freight rate is less than the Montreal zone freight rate.
As a result of that concession by the government no dealer anywhere in eastern
'Mr. Bryce.]

Canada can charge up more than $2.40 for freight on the grain. The freight rate to Montreal is $8.40, but the Department of Agriculture pays $6 of that; so the dealer has only to add $2.40 to the price of feed, plus his expenses for handling.
Perhaps if I give a few points where feed is shipped, one will be able to understand how it works. Let us take the two points mentioned by the two gentlemen who complained about the expensive feed they had to buy. If we take Alexandria, Ontario, the freight rate from Fort William is 42 cents per hundredweight; that is $8.40 per ton. The government pays $6 of that. I have here, Mr. Speaker, a list of about ten points that I have taken. If we take Riviere du Loup, the freight rate is 60 cents per hundredweight, or $12 per ton; and the government pays $9.60. For St. John's, Newfoundland, the freight rate from Fort William is $1.31 per hundredweight, or $26.20 per ton; and the government pays $23.80. May I have your permission, Mr. Speaker, or the permission of the house to put on Hansard this table of rates for these ten points without reading it?


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member the consent of the house to have this document included in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Scottie Bryce: The table follows:
Freight Assistance Payable at Representative Points in Eastern Canada
	Freight	Freight	Freight
	rate from per ton		assistance
	FOrt William		payable
	(per cwt)		(per ton)
Alexandria, Ont	.. $0.42	$ 8.40	$ 6.00Casselman, Ont	.. .42	8.40	6.00Montreal, Que	.. .42	8.40	6.00Compton, Que	.. .58	11.60	9.20Riviere du Loup, Que.	.. .60	12.00	9.60Fredericton, N.B	.. .63	12.60	10.20Halifax, N.S	13.20	10.80Sydney, N.S	.. .70	14.00	11.60Charlottetown, P.E.I. .	.. .66	13.20	10.80Port-aux-Basques, Nfld. .96	19.20	16.80Corner Brook, Nfld. ..	.. 1.21	24.20	21.80St. John's, Nfld	.. 1.31	26.20	23.80
I have also a table showing, for the same ten points, the figures worked out on a per bushel basis which I think hon. members should have. May I have permisison to have that put in Hansard also?


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member permission to include this table in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Scottie Bryce: The table follows:
Freight Assistance Payable Per Bushel
Wheat	Oats	Barleycents	cents	centsAlexandria, Ont	
18	10-2	14-4Casselman, Ont	
18	10-2	14-4Montreal, Que	
18	10-2	14-4Compton, Que	
271	15-64	22-08Riviere du Loup, Que.	
28-8	16-32	23-04Fredericton, N.B	
30-6	17-34	24-48Halifax, N.S	
32-4	18-36	25-92Sydney, N.S	
34-8	19-72	27-84Charlottetown, P.E.I. ..	
32-4	18-36	25-92Port-aux-Basques, Nfld.	
50-4	28-56	40-32Corner Brook, Nfld. ...	
65-4	37-06	52-32St. John's, Nfld	
71-4	40-46	57-12I started out, Mr.	Speaker, to try to	showour eastern farmers and feeders that we	
farmers in the west are not charging them too much for our feed grains. The price is fair and reasonable. I have shown that there is a margin of $240 per car on Montreal and Ottawa prices. Surely grain could be handled more cheaply than that. If the dealers cannot do better than that, 1 suggest to them that they should set up a co-operative and get service at -cost; then if you pay too much for your feed, you will get it back in patronage dividends. That is the solution to the problem: get your co-operative to handle your feed.
In concluding, I want to assure hon. gentlemen who have spoken in this debate on this subject of feed grain prices that the western producer is anxious to have the eastern trade, but he does not like to be accused of charging too much for his grain when that is not the case; and I hope I have proved to them that the producers are not getting too much. Even if the west again increases her hog production, there will always be in the west more feed grains than we can use. We realize that the eastern market is our best outlet for our feed grains, and we do not want to lose it. By order in council P.C. 5435, passed on November 17, 1949, the government has power to check the distribution of feed grain. The last paragraph of section 2 reads as follows:
Provided that, on all grains and feeds shipped and distributed in accordance with provisions hereof, evidence satisfactory to the minister is produced to show that the sale price to consumers of such products has been reduced by and takes into account the payment of freight charges as herein prescribed.
Perhaps the best thing to do is to have the government check the eastern prices. They are paying $6 to $23.80 per ton at different points to enable the feeder to get grain at his local point at a reasonable price in order to compete in the production of hogs, poultry and cheese. I am sure that all western farmers will support the eastern farmers in a demand for an inquiry into eastern feed prices. It
The Budget-Mr. Dechene would clear the air and expose anyone who is taking more profit than he deserves for the services he renders in the feed situation.


Mr. J. M. Dechene (Aihabaska):: In asking you, Mr. Speaker, for the privilege of the floor this afternoon, I am speaking from your left:, for the first time in all these years, but it is, not because I have changed my political! allegiance.
I have no great message to bring to you, Mr;. Speaker, or to this house. I admit that I do not come into the arena to do battle with the great j ousters who have entered the debate already. I do not claim to have the qualifications or the ability to do so. I admit to you, sir, that I always hesitate to speak in this house, not from a false sense of humility but because I realize my weaknesses and my failings. But I do feel I am justified in seeking the attention of parliament for a short time this afternoon. I have that feeling after all these years, some thirty, as a representative of the people either in Alberta or here; and after nearly sixty years of residence in northwestern Canada, I cannot escape the conviction that I can bring to you and to the house a message from the pioneers who have done yeoman work in advancing the settlement of those great western plains and have created so much wealth for the rest of Canada.
A year ago we were asking the people of this, country to decide upon the government they wanted. No one was more pleased than I was,, sir, to witness the tremendous support that: the people of Canada gave to this government; and what a consolation it was, to those of us who felt that the Liberal party was the party that could give good government to this country, to see such an overwhelming, majority of the people give support to such a large number of representatives of that party. I was struck, sir, immediately by the ability displayed by those young and newer members, some of them not so young, but all new members in this house. I was greatly impressed by their knowledge, by their ability to express themselves as representing their constituencies and the people of Canada generally. I am prouder than ever to be a member of that group, almost two hundred, who are charged with the tremendous task of working for the welfare of the Canadian people.
Alberta, born lucky, Alberta, the best of all,
I believe, sir, is sitting as it were in the lap of the Rocky mountains, making "goo-goo" eyes at the man in the mountains but remaining true to the man on the plains, because he is such a good provider. Alberta has a lot to offer to the people of this country. It is as a pioneer in the province of Alberta that I

The Budget-Mr. Dechene again wish to bring to your attention, sir-and to ask for your support-the things that I believe we ought to do in order to bring more wealth out of that good country that God has made so rich.
I remember that at a convention I had the honour to address years ago-and, sir, will you let me repeat the thought that I had at that time-I spoke of the beauties, the possibilities, the wealth of the vast plains and the incredible amount of coal under our soil, the oil that I predicted thirty years ago would be found, as it is today, our great forests and magnificent rivers, our lakes teeming with fish, and our population, sir, still scant but coming from the best human stock that God has created. I said, and I repeat today, I thought that when the Lord, after having created the worlds, and thrown into space the suns, the planets and the comets, and all of those millions of worlds in limitless space, He decided on the seventh day to rest, and having cast a look upon the work that He had done He declared Himself satisfied. I am sure, sir, that at that moment He looked over the valleys of the province of Alberta, the great valleys of the Peace and the Athabasca rivers.
In speaking to you, sir, many years ago I said I believed that the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) was a coming man. After having spoken of the tremendous task .performed by the Right Hon. J. L. Ilsley, I [DOT]expressed the thought that the gentleman who succeeded him was one of the most brilliant ; young men in the political life of Canada 'itswSay. That prediction has been fully justified.
The Prime Minister of this country, following the precedent established by the ex-prime minister, has recently recruited some younger members to the strength of his cabinet. As an old-timer in the house I welcome them and wish them success. I know that the new Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Harris) will prove a great strength in this government. I have always admired him, ever since the first day I met him here after he had just come back from overseas bearing his glorious wounds received in battle on behalf of his king and country. I have always admired him as one of the typical, clever, able Ontario representatives, and I am pleased that the Prime Minister of this country saw fit to invite him to join the cabinet.
I wish the best to the hon. gentleman who has recently been called to the cabinet, the son of the man who made such an outstanding mark in the history of Canada, the late Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, who bore the mantle that Sir Wilfrid Laurier laid down in 1919. I know that he will occupy the position in the glorious tradition established in this house by
	|
his eminent father. I hope I shall be forgiven if I do not speak of any of the other members.
A moment ago I said I was pleased that Saskatchewan was again largely represented in this house by Liberals. I never could understand the attitude of the western farmers in 1945 toward the man who did more for them than any other man has done. In 1941, in the first bad year of the great war, when things were so gloomy and everything looked as if we might see for the first time in history the British commonwealth of nations and even the powerful United States defeated, when France had been knocked to its knees, I remember how satisfied we were, how proud we were, and how safe we felt in western Canada to have the business of agriculture in the hands of the Right Hon. James G. Gardiner who sits across from me this afternoon.
My statement to the people-there were only two of us from Alberta and two of us from Saskatchewan at that time-my statement to people of Alberta, to those who asked me questions, was: "Watch Jimmy Gardiner. You can't keep him down". And they did not, Mr. Speaker. He came back here with as good and as strong a following of first-class men to support him as he has ever had. My own province has sent down support in order to carry out the great public projects that are necessary to continue the development of this northern area for which I have worked all my life, sir, to the detriment of my own health, if I may speak of myself, and certainly to the detriment of my finances. Finances do not matter very much now; I shall not need them very long. In my speech this afternoon I hope I do not go over the time limit.
A few days ago I was reading the column of one of those columnists in Ottawa who know so much. I am always surprised by the tremendous knowledge they display- some of them concerning things they do not know much about. One of them proceeded to say that members of the House of Commons seem to feel that they have to take the full forty minutes allotted to them. There was nothing wrong with that statement -except that he should have noted that some members of the House of Commons, including the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Dechene), rarely speak more than once in a session, while others address the house hours and weeks. Indeed, I know some members of parliament, who do not sit far from me, who never miss an opportunity to speak in the house. They speak about everything they think about. They have not had one unuttered thought.

When I decided to take part in this debate I felt I could say something different, particularly after having witnessed the coal strike in the United States, which has led to the ruin-and I say this advisedly-of coal mining in my native province of Alberta. Do not forget that. We are hearing from the Labour-Progressive party and from others in protest against conditions in our coal mines, and this at a time when everything has been done to ruin coal mining in the United States. Today the people are turning to oil and other fuels. Can we blame them?
This is simply carrying on a policy which had its beginning during the last war, when thoughts nauseous and destructive came over from Russia to poison the minds of not only the people of Europe but those in this country. They are doing their work in this great free country, where there is so much to be done.
During holy week I attended church, as is my custom. On Good Friday I said to myself, "Here was a Man from Heaven, a Man who came to teach us how to live our lives, who suffered our suffering and offered His own life to redeem free men, and to open the door of the kingdom to the inhabitants of the earth, a kingdom from which otherwise they would be barred."
I am not a preacher, far from it. But my mind did turn to thoughts about this country and our people. This is the wealthiest country in the world, with more resources than we can dream of. It seems to me we have everything. And when the Creator had created that marvellous, that incredible thing, the human mind, He said that He had finished; and all those good things left were just scattered throughout North America, and particularly in Canada. We have blessings of all kinds-coal, forests, oil, everything we want.
What do we do with all this? Do we, sir, get together to enjoy them? Do we, sir, get together to develop them? Do we, sir, get together to do anything about these resources? No. We have witnessed people from other nations across the oceans come over with their prejudices. We have listened to appeals to greed, avarice, hatred, narrow-mindedness and intolerance. I am sick and tired of all these.
I was one of those few survivors of the Liberal party in my province in 1921. That is a long time ago. The whole campaign in those days was one of intolerance. I can remember a great preacher who came from
The Budget-Mr. Dechene across the line to tell us that this was a fight between autocracy and plutocracy; a fight with the masses.
We were told about capitalism, and to beware of the old parties. Yes, "Beware of the old parties!" Then later, in 1935, the new gospel was preached, when the United Farmers of Alberta had their turn. Then, in fifteen years they became an old party, and a new development came along. Again we heard, "Beware of the old parties", and the
U.F.A. was put out of office with that same cry. What things they promised; what things they said!
Is it proper for me to ask in this House of Commons today whether there is anything wrong with those things that are old? Religion is old, is it not? Yet, there is nothing wrong with it, is there? I said to the old and to the young in Alberta during that election campaign-and I make the same appeal today, regretting only that my voice is not loud enough to go all through this land -"No, do not despise the old." What lies beneath the white hair of those older members in the House of Commons? What lies in the breasts of all good people? The older ones have devoted their lives to their country to an extent greater than the younger. Those older people have had good experience.
What a wonderful book we have as our guide. Hon. members may send their sons and daughters to the best schools in the country-and there can be no doubt that we have great schools. We may send them to the best universities the country offers. They may come from those universities with enough degrees to fill a page. But they have not learned about that book. How often have we seen a boy come from his school, with all his knowledge and with the advantage of everything he has read, and with the intelligence to reach the heights, and to achieve success for himself, his family and his country, only to find himself faced with a situation he does not understand. He does not know how to face it because there was nothing in his books about it.
Where does he go? He goes to dad; the daughter goes to mother. His dad may not be able to read; but he and the mother have read that book. They have lived and struggled and they know what to do. They say, "My boy, go ahead; here is the way to fix it." Today I appeal to the young people to withstand those appeals to hatred, intolerance and prejudice, religious and otherwise. I detest and abhor such appeals. I appeal to the young homesteaders on the shores of Cold lake for instance in the northern part of my constituency who have been approached by these splinter parties, who are responsible for

The Budget-Mr. Dechene their present uncertain state of mind. They urge them to look at the big money being made in Montreal and elsewhere.
That is not the appeal I make to them. I say to the hon. members of the House of Commons and, through them, to the people of Canada, that a man developing a homestead away up there on the fringe of the northern section of our country is performing just as useful a task as is the president of the Bank of Montreal. The man up in the wilds attending his traps is just as useful, because he is part of the great machinery of democracy. We hear from these small parties appeals to shallowness and intolerance. But they should not monkey with the democratic machine; it is easily put out of order.
Every cog and every wheel is important.
I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that when you were a boy you did what I did: you took a clock apart to see what made it tick-and then you had some wheels left over, and the clock never worked again. In a great democracy every wheel and every cog has its place. The trapper, the fisherman, the farmer, the rancher, the small merchant, the coal miner, the labouring man, each has his place. He belongs and if you put him out of that place then the machine ceases to operate.
May I be allowed to take up the time of the house again in making an appeal I have made before. I am not at all satisfied with the results of my efforts in drawing attention to the need of railway construction in the northern parts of Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. I know it is not popular to advocate things of this kind and we shall be told by Montreal that there is no money. Let me place before the house some of the aspects of this situation. Let me say to the directorate of the Canadian National Railways that we are not asking for any branch lines. If there is any possible way of waking them up in Montreal, I want to do it. I ask the privilege of again taking up the time of this house because we are bound that something shall be done.
I can recall that plans were made for this construction when I was a local member. Many years ago the people in the north country thought they were going to get a new artery of transportation which would connect with Winnipeg and the head of the lakes at the east and with the Hudson Bay railway, thus giving them two routes over which to send their surpluses to the markets of Europe. There was also to be an outlet to the west coast through the country represented by the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Murray).
This is not a new plan. We are not asking for a branch line. What we are asking for will not cost the people of this country one


dollar because there are tremendous resources in this north country. I understand that the new president of the Canadian National Railways is soon going west and I hope he will find it possible to visit that part of the country and not just stay around Edmonton and the cities. He should see the vast possibilities that are in the north country, the great resources that will make this line pay a profit for the benefit of the people of the whole country.
I would not be taking up the time of this house if I were not absolutely convinced of the justice of the representations I am making this afternoon on behalf of these people. Let me say to the Canadian National Railways that it is not a question of money. We were told that there would be no money for the building of these branch lines, but it is not a question of money. It is a question of keeping a promise and paying a debt of honour. Surveys were made of a line from Battleford to the country which I represent, to be continued then by the Canadian Pacific along the north shore of the Beaver river. This was to be a joint undertaking of the two great transportation companies. The Peace river country was to be joined to the Northern Alberta railroads which have recently been acquired by the two companies.
Plans were prepared and tenders called for, at least for the construction in the part of the country which I represent. A beginning was made at both ends. The Canadian Pacific built west from Prince Albert and the Canadian National was building from Edmonton north-easterly, and they were to meet at a point some twenty miles east of the boundary of Saskatchewan. The Canadian Pacific had running rights over 55 miles of the Canadian National line until they reached Cold Lake.
As I say, contracts were let and millions of dollars were spent. As I stated before in this house, in 1932 the Canadian National paid a large sum to the contractor to be permitted to cancel his contracts. Thousands of men were looking for work along the line right through to the north.
The other day the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw), referring to what I said last fall, asked why the Liberal government had not done anything from 1935 until 1940. The hon. member is a schoolteacher and he should be possessed of some information. He knows that in 1935, 1936, 1937 and 1938 the government of Alberta defaulted on their obligations to the extent of over $20 million. A blot was placed on the escutcheon of Alberta which it has taken decades to erase.


An hon. Member:: Terrible.


Joseph Miville Dechene: If this schoolteacher knows anything at all he should be the last man to refer to that period when the chief whip of

his party went to jail. Then a gentleman was brought in from Great Britain to try to convince the people of Alberta that there were possibilities in the plan, and he also went to jail. He was wise enough to beat it immediately he got out. I was delighted to see that this government had taken steps to make him pay income tax on the money he got from the province of Alberta. It was real money he got, not Social Credit money or certificates.
These people went to jail because an article had been published in Edmonton which named the heads of certain large financial institutions and said that they were strangling the people. They named the late J. J. Duggan and the late Hon. Senator Griesbach, who served in this house, and others. They were said to be the alleged leaders of a great autocratic movement and therefore should be done away with. They actually counselled murder and liquidation of the financial leaders in Alberta.
I was right there and I know what I am talking about. I challenge any one to deny it when I say that when Mr. Unwin came out of jail to resume his seat in the legislature there was a snake dance on the floor of the chamber led by Aberhart.


Mr. Low:: On a point of order, the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Dechene) is now telling an absolute falsehood because it did not happen as he suggests. I was in the house at the time.


Joseph Miville Dechene: I want to make it clear to the hon. gentleman that I am not taking back anything that I saw myself. I sat in the gallery when the snake dance took place.


Solon Earl Low: On a point of order, I say that the hon. member for Athabaska is telling an absolute falsehood.


Joseph Miville Dechene: I am not retracting one single word. If the hon. gentleman wishes to go further with this I am ready to repeat it outside the house. I was present there and I saw what happened. I never spoke about this before and I would not, except that the hon. member for Red Deer, in his inimitable style of trying to substitute noise for argument, took me to task and asked why the Liberal government had done nothing from 1935 to 1940. He knew what happened when his government was defaulting.
In my own town of Bonnyville many of the merchants and citizens had a few dollars invested in provincial certificates. We tried to collect these funds to build a school and when these people tried to get their money they found that they could not even collect from the provincial government of Alberta.
The Budget-Mr. Dechene


Mr. Blackmore:: What is the Alberta government doing now?


Joseph Miville Dechene: I do not want to be unkind, Mr. Speaker. It is always easy to reply to any argument by saying that it is true or false. The hon. member for Red Deer is a fine gentleman and I like him. Nevertheless he reminds me of one of Aesop's fables. One has the impression of a first-class gentleman, and there is no doubt about that. He reminds me, however, of the Aesop fable of the ass which stole the lion skin and scared the countryside until he brayed.


Mr. Shaw:: We merely consider the source of such remarks.


Joseph Miville Dechene: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Red Deer went on to quote an editorial supposed to have been published in the Calgary Albertan, which he described as a great Liberal organ. It may be; I do not know because I never read it, but if the editorial contains what he says it did then it is just a rag. He quoted the editorial as stating:
It was during the Borden administration, when the Alberta government was Liberal and so was the Senate. The Alberta government, it seems, wanted to give the Shell Oil Company exclusive oil rights for the whole province in return for a payment of $5,000. But it didn't have the power to do so, so it asked1 the federal government to give it that power.
I was well acquainted with the premier of the province of those days, a man who later came to Ottawa and served as minister of the interior, a man who represented his country with dignity and with honour, a man whose honesty and integrity have never been questioned, a man who never heard about any such thing. Can you imagine men like the Hon. Archie McLean, the Hon. John R. Boyle, or the Hon. J. L. Cote, trying to sell the oil rights of Alberta for $5,000? The thing was so ridiculous that I did not reply to it at the time.
I know what happened at that time. Representations were made by representatives of the Shell Oil Company-I am sure the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) will remember the instance-to try to get the odd section or portions of land in the Northwest Territories. We had nothing whatsoever to do with it at Edmonton. Nobody else was ever consulted. Talk about a falsehood! There is one that the hon. member for Red Deer peddled on the floor of the house to try to soil the reputation of men who served in better years and who gave the best of their lives to their province and their country.


Mr. Pouliot:: The hon. member is perfectly right.

The Budget-Mr. Dechene


Joseph Miville Dechene: I know you know all about it. It was up in the Northwest Territories and we had no jurisdiction in Alberta. We could not do anything even if we had wanted to. Twice it was denied in this house when I said, Mr. Speaker, that at least a royalty should be paid to the owners of the surface rights when oil is found under their land. In that same speech the big voice from Red Deer proceeded to refer to what has been paid by way of damages to some farmers for entry on their land or compensation of it. That was not initiated by the government of Alberta. The law of recompense and reward or compensation for using surface rights for public works, roads, railways or any other communication is as old as this House of Commons. A man cannot stop a railway company from proceeding over his land, but if he is not satisfied with the price offered he goes to arbitration and the price is fixed for the land used. That is what is happening in Alberta in the oil game.
We are told that this or that man received $1,100. I may have said "land" last fall and of course that was picked up right away, but I meant oil rights. Just across the line from this certain man the oil rights were sold a few days later for $1,125,000 in cold cash. Who gets this money? Not the farmer. The hon. member quoted further from the editorial in that same Calgary rag as follows:
It is unfortunate that a man of the stature of Mr. J. M. Dechene, Liberal M.P. for Athabaska-
I thank him for the compliment.
-in northern Alberta, should be so far off the beam on this matter of oil royalties. In parliament, the other day, he said the oil belonged "to the people, not to the provincial government," . . .
Then the editorial went on to ask whether the provincial government was going to be deprived of revenue for the sake of a few farmers in the north country. This is great reading for the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), where oil can and is being found almost everywhere. It is great reading for the people of the constituency of Battle River (Mr. Fair), the people of the constituency of Wetaskiwin (Mr. Thomas), and for all the people from Red Deer north. The farmers are told that they are not going to get their rights, that they are not entitled to any benefit for the wealth that God has put under their soil, because a few people think the money should be spent to build roads around Banff and other parts of the province.
I stand on the most solid ground because I made a motion to that effect. Some thirty years ago before any oil was found I saw that there was great wealth in the province of Alberta and I made a motion asking that

we should return the mineral rights to the owners of the soil. So much has been alienated since that it cannot be done now. They are finding wealth worth $1 million, $500,000, $100,000 every day throughout that district and right up into the Northwest Territories. I want the farmers, the men who went there with their wives and children, the men who built the schools and conducted the municipalities, the men who built the roads, chopped down the timber and trees and developed the land, to receive a royalty. If they are not entitled to a royalty on the wealth that God has placed under their feet then there is something wrong with the mentality of the governments of this country.
I wish I were a younger man. I would be willing to wage a campaign on this issue, but not for political purposes. I have not much to do now with politics. I know my number will soon be up, and that is the reason why I thought I might take a little longer of your time. I have said before and I want to repeat that, with the exception of the holy orders, there is nothing more sacred than the life of a man who devotes his best to the service of his country. There is nothing more noble in a democracy than to represent the people and to do everything in one's power in order that the people may be more prosperous and that one may be of some benefit to them.
As I speak to you this afternoon my thoughts go to the farmers of northeastern Alberta for the reason that Providence has not smiled upon us in the last two years. If it were not for the beneficial laws administered by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) there would be actual suffering because last year's crop was extraordinarily bad. Yet our farmers can carry on. They are now preparing the seeds for another crop, and my last word is a prayer to Providence to bless their efforts and send the usually abundant rains of northern Alberta so that the land may smile again.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, in reviewing the budget for 1950 one cannot help being struck by two very remarkable features, particularly when comparing it with budgets which have gone before.
The first feature is the very material change in outlook on the part of the government with respect to tax reductions and revenue requirements for the future, as compared with the forecasts in the 1949 or election budget; and, secondly, the billion dollar complex that now dominates the thinking of the government and its ministers. As to the first, we remember the rosy optimism and sweeping generosity with which the tax cuts were

made in the budget of 1949, a generosity and optimism which seemed to take no thought for the future or, if it did, took thought only as far as June 27, and contained no suggestion that after that date there would be stern realities to be faced. Indeed, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) and the whole cabinet seemed like a man on a drunken spending spree. This is not such a far-fetched statement as it may seem, because in fact the government had been saving up for this election spree for some time. One has only to remember the budget presented by the same Minister of Finance in May, 1948. At that time employment and revenues were at approximately the same high levels as in 1949; yet the tax reductions were doled out, to say the least, with a cautious hand. Of course in 1948 the minister knew when the election was going to be held; and of course, in spite of his lip service to the theory of cyclical budgeting, he could not resist the temptation to save up one year, then give away what he had saved up for an election budget in the following year.
Therefore in 1948 we find him uttering words of caution; we find him referring to the heavy responsibility with which the people of Canada have entrusted him, and to the danger of approaching his budget problems in a short-sighted manner. If we look at page 4063 of Hansard for May 18, 1948, we see that he told us in very solemn tones, and I quote his words-
We must look further into the future than this year.
Most of us at that time thought the minister was looking into the future solely with concern for the fiscal policies of Canada as a whole. However, in the spring of 1949 we found that the future the minister had in mind was the future of the Liberal party, and the election requirements of that party. When we came to 1949 we found that the future requirements of Canada, which in 1948 had led him to adopt such a solemn and cautious tone, were thrown out the window in favour of the political requirements of the government. In 1948 the minister said, at the same page of Hansard:
Now is the time to lay the foundation for employment budgets in future, while fighting inflation at present.
At that time he should have been saying, as in fact he really had in mind, "Now is the time to lay the foundation for election budgets in future, while hiding the facts at present." So in 1948 the minister saved his funds for the election budget of the following year, and in 1949 the government went on its spree. Now, in 1950, it is nursing its sore head. We had a black budget in 1948; we had an election or spree budget in 1949;
The Budget-Mr. Fulton now in 1950 we have the hang-over budget. This year the government is like a man nursing a sore head, and the Minister of Finance is the solemn chemist behind the counter doling out the aspirins.
It is no wonder the government finds itself with this hang-over this year. All the ministers seem to have fallen into the habit of spending millions and billions, then waking up the next morning faced with the painful reality of having to raise the money to meet their expenditures. A man under the influence soon gets a billion dollar complex, only in this case the influence is not that of liquor but of power. The billion dollar complex is a serious matter, because unfortunately it is not their own but the country's money that the government is spending. So we have the Minister of Finance telling us this year that none of his successors will ever be able to contemplate a budget of less than approximately $2,400 million a year. We have the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) graduating from the million dollar mentality to the billion dollar mentality. It used to be "What's a million?" This year it is, "What's a billion?" The only people and the only industries that count with this government after its fifteen years in power apparently are those whose revenues run into the hundreds of millions. No longer is the little man or the little industry of any apparent importance to the government. We remember that the other day when the Minister of Trade and Commerce was presenting his review of affairs for the year and discussing the trade prospects of Canada, he brushed aside the whole apple industry because, he said, "We are talking billions and my hon. friend talks about apples." You see, Mr. Speaker, the total turn-over of the apple industry is less than $100 million, and apparently it does not count in the scheme of things of this government, which does not speak of anything less than billions.
Turning to a more detailed consideration of the budget as we find it this year, again two salient features emerge from an analysis of the minister's remarks. The first is that in the opinion of the Minister of Finance we have reached rock bottom in the reduction of expenditures. Arising out of this is his conclusion that the only way to obtain tax reductions at the present time is to eliminate some essential services. The minister said, at page 1215 of Hansard:
It is only by reducing government activities or social service payments that any major reductions can be made.
But the point of departure between the government side of the house and this side is that whereas this inescapable conclusion seems to produce an atmosphere of defeatism

The Budget-Mr. Fulton in the minister, we on this side are convinced that in fact reductions in expenditure are possible and thus tax reductions are possible without interfering with any vital service, such reductions being made by a pruning of non-essential and non-productive government activity. Indeed, it seems that the minister's defeatism in this respect is actually charged with most unfortunate consequences, because he has made it very clear in his budget speech that the official attitude is that expenditure cannot be further reduced. From now on, therefore, every minister, every government official will be encouraged to relax and conclude that no further inefficiency or duplication need be sought out and eliminated, that the seal of official government approval is placed upon swollen and top-heavy expenditures of $2,400 million a year. To the taxpayers of Canada who have to produce the money to meet those expenditures, however, such a defeatist attitude is entirely unacceptable; and it is certainly wholly rejected by the official opposition.
The other and even more alarming salient feature of the minister's budget address arises from the fact that if we accept his statement as final we must come to the inescapable conclusion that increases in taxes in the immediate future are inevitable. To a people suffering from a cost of government out of all proportion to the services the government renders and the productive value of those services, to a people labouring under a cost of living which has increased by six points in a year over a level already too high, such a conclusion and such a forecast are entirely unsupportable. Fortunately an analysis of the facts indicates that the conclusion and forecast are also totally inaccurate.
The Minister of Finance sees no room for leeway. He sees no possibility of allowing for tax reductions by a reduction in nonessential expenditures. To him the only prospect is increased taxation. At page 1216 of Hansard he said:
In considering proposals for further major increases in our expenditures . . . we must be ready to balance them with increased taxes.
And again:
If the expenditure is worth while, it should be provided for by new or increased taxes or charges . . .
I ask the house to consider the implication of those words in the light of the minister's earlier statement which appears on page 1215:
As already announced, there will be another conference with the provinces this fall, and whatever may be the eventual outcome of that conference, I think it is fair to assume that its decisions will not result in a lessening of the net burden on the federal budget.


There the minister very deliberately forecasts the possibility of substantially increased expenditures being agreed to this fall. The only and inescapable conclusion from this carefully-worded speech is that the minister regards higher taxes in the very near future as inevitable. It does not seem to the minister that we have arrived at the point where he should say to the house and to the country that the time has come when we have to choose between higher taxes or less government spending. He has said that we cannot have more spending without more taxes or a reduction of services, but he has not taken the other logical step and said that we cannot have less taxes without less spending and he has not taken the next step and said, "And we can have less spending."
We can, Mr. Speaker, have less spending. While I totally reject the minister's assumption that higher taxes are inevitable, I agree- as I think we all must-that the tremendous twofold problem facing this country and facing the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) is this:	How are we going to reduce taxes
at the present time; or, alternatively, how are we going to provide for increased expenditures which will arise out of the increased social services which the government is now contemplating, and for the increased activities in developing our resources, without a substantial and unacceptable increase in taxation?
A consideration of this problem prompts us further to agree with the minister that these things cannot be done and increased taxation cannot be avoided unless there is some reduction in expenditure. But that is as far as we can agree with the minister. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and I ask all members of the house to consider whether they can seriously support the proposition that, with expenses running ait the present time at the rate of $2,400 million a year, there is no room for reduction in expenditure without actually interfering with essential services.
The minister, of course, has taken the definite position that such reductions are impossible and he has in fact challenged the opposition to show where such reductions can be made. I am sure that he intended that challenge to be taken seriously. I at any rate take it extremely seriously because I believe that it is only by meeting that problem and finding where reductions can be made that we can reduce expenditures and thus relieve the tax burden on the Canadian people. For my part I assume in the same way that the minister himself will take seriously our efforts to show where reductions can be made and that, if the proof is given, or if concrete suggestions are made, he will take them in that spirit and that all

members of the house will take them in the same spirit so that we can, as members of parliament and as servants of the people of Canada, together and in co-operation, set about reducing this enormous burden which is placed on the people of raising the money to meet the current level of expenditures.
Unfortunately, we are denied one method by which we might be able to arrive at suggestions for economy. I refer of course to the requests which have been made for committees to consider the various activities of government departments. I really believe that such committees reviewing not so much- or at least not only-the policies of the various departments, but reviewing the details of the proposed expenditures of the departments, could not fail to find places where there is room for a substantial reduction in those expenditures. For the time being at any rate this method is denied to us, although I hope that the government will reconsider the matter before another session, because I believe the seriousness of the problem and the urgent necessity of reducing expenditures warrant the trial of this method.
Here perhaps one should just refer to the statements made recently by the Auditor General in the other place when he said that the volume of government business had grown to such an extent and is of such complexity that the public accounts-that is, the estimates of the current year-are now placed before parliament in such a way that it is impossible to get a clear and concise picture of just what we are about. If it is impossible to get that picture, then certainly one is greatly handicapped at the outset in trying to make any concrete suggestions for reduction in expenditures.


Mr. Abbott:: My hon. friend is aware of the fact that the public accounts and the estimates are completely separate.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am aware of that fact. I am using the phrase "public accounts" here in a general sense to describe the public accounts of Canada, the revenue and expenditures of the Dominion of Canada.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Those are in the public accounts; that is correct.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We must therefore at the present time find methods other than this committee method, and I intend to suggest certain specific methods by which expenditures can be reduced.
Here I should like to pay tribute to the work of the treasury board. Treasury board is not always popular, but I believe that the country owes a large debt to it because under the system which the government
The Budget-Mr. Fulton insists upon following at the present time, when committees to review estimates are denied, the treasury board is virtually the only watchdog with any inside knowledge which stands between the people of Canada and an even greater level of expenditure than that which we now have.
The minister has in the past described how treasury board does its best to keep expenditures to a minimum. We would not be grateful if we did not express our appreciation of this work. But under the present system and with the present volume of expenditure and the present competition between departments for funds, I do not believe that treasury board can do the job alone. One has only to consider the course of expenditures over the past few years. Each minister naturally enough believes that his own department is the most important one-and the same is true of deputy ministers-and that unless he gets all the money he possibly can for his department, he will not be doing a good job for his department and for the country. There is therefore tremendous competition for increases in grants to the departments when they are preparing and presenting their estimates. I am quite sure that the time arrives when the pressure is such that even with treasury board standing in the way as doggedly as it can, yet with the department pressing for the grant to be made or the expenditure to be authorized, treasury board goes as far as it can go but finally says, "All right; you can have what you had last year but no more."
That is probably a last-ditch stand and even that is a great service to the people. But we need a far more detailed analysis of our problem than that. We need an analysis not so much of how to prevent expenditures from rising as of how to bring expenditures down-how to reduce expenditures from their present level. What is needed is someone with authority to apply the axe; I do not mean someone to apply the axe indiscriminately but someone to say which expenditures are really essential and which are not.
I recall that in the budget debate of 1947 I suggested that such a method might be found in the setting up of a budget committee, a committee of experts whose recommendations would be of a substantial nature, with authority to examine the estimates before they are approved and presented to the house, to say which items are essential and which are not. I will not repeat at this time the details of the suggestion which I made then, but I repeat the suggestion; and
1824	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Fulton I believe that the advantages which were outlined at that time would still follow.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Will my hon. friend permit one question? I have forgotten his suggestion. What did he think should be the composition of such a budget, committee? Would it be made up of officials or members of parliament?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I suggested two or three
accountants, probably, and a couple of first-class engineers who might be drawn from outside the government service altogether.
I would suggest that it be kept within a small compass of people who are expert in their fields, such as expert accountants and expert engineers.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: More expense.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I want to be clear on this matter. Would you delegate the determination of questions of policy to such a committee?
Mr Fulton: No, indeed I would not. If the minister has heard what I said, he will know that I suggested that this committee would be a committee of experts to make recommendations, whose recommendations would carry substantial weight and whose job it would be to review the estimates before they were presented to this house for approval. If the minister is interested, and I hope his question is asked in that spirit-


Douglas Charles Abbott: I was asking for information.
I had forgotten the details of the suggestion.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am glad to have the minister's questions, but I do not think it is necessary to repeat the details here. They will be found in the budget debate of 1947. I do not intend to repeat the details, but I repeat that the advantages would still follow, namely, that such a committee would look into the question of what expenditures are really necessary bringing to this question the freshness of an outside viewpoint. It should probably be composed of men outside parliament so that the minister would not feel, "Well, here is the opposition getting a look-in in advance, and all they are asking for is that the opposition have some say in compiling the estimates". That is not the purpose of my suggestion at all. Such a committee would ascertain which expenditures are really necessary, would help to eradicate duplication, waste and extravagance, and would be in a position to recommend, as between proposed expenditures and proposed increases, which ones should be granted, which ones would be more advantageous to the country, in the long run, as revenue-producing projects with a view to the ultimate increase of our gross national revenue.

There are further concrete proposals which I wish to make now. An examination of the detail of the estimates cannot fail to suggest that we are spending far more than is absolutely necessary under certain headings. I have selected what-did I hear my hon. friend ask a question?


James Sinclair: Which one?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am glad he asked the question, which one, because I have selected three typical ones. I am not suggesting they are exclusive because in fact I think they are typical. I think that any further inquiries along this line could elicit other useful information and establish that there are other expenditures that could be reduced. The three that I have chosen are: first, publicity, advertising and public information services; second, sundries, and third, travelling expenses. Here, Mr. Speaker, again I emphasize that we are faced with the necessity of making a choice, and the choice, as I have said, is not between whether we are going to have increased expenditures or increased taxation, the choice as I see it is between, on the one hand, continuing to spend at the present rate with the absolute certainty that that rate will increase, and, on the other, reducing expenditures so that we can in fact reduce taxes. If we approach the problem with that choice in mind and if we make the choice, then I certainly suggest to hon. members, and I am sure they will agree with me, that the astounding figures which we are spending, or proposing to spend this year under these three headings, can be substantially reduced.
Under the first heading of publicity, advertising and information, we find that the government proposes to spend this year a total of $6,064,775, an increase of over $266,000 over last year. There are 62 separate items in the details of the estimates for government publicity and information services. And these are just the details that I have been able to pick out, the details which are shown in the estimates. I refer, for instance, to the Department of National Defence, where I could not find in my somewhat rapid survey of the estimates any separate items for publicity. And yet we all know, for it is an established fact, that that department spend large sums on public information services. In this and the following matters I am not suggesting that none of these expenditures is essential or necessary; but I am certainly suggesting that we do not need to spend $6 million on government advertising and publicity. I believe if we make the choice I referred to we can get along on half that amount. I believe if we carried further on to the next logical
tMr. Fulton.]

step we would say, we are going to get along with half that amount, and that is all we are going to give you to do the job with.
In this connection I would refer to the suggestion I made in 1947 in dealing with the same matter. If it is stated, as it has been stated, that some information with reference to what the departments are doing is essential-and I am prepared to accept that statement-I suggest that the government should consider setting up a bureau of publicity in connection with the work of the various departments to control that competition between departments which inevitably and invariably, in government, results in increasing expenditures. In exactly the same way as we formerly set up the bureau for translations and the bureau of printing, whose objects were to reduce the over-all expenditures under those headings, so I think we can set up a bureau of publicity, give it half the amount we are now being asked to vote, and tell it to do the job-and we would still have all the government publicity we need, and more.
Next we come to the heading of sundries. These are variously described in the items as "sundries", "miscellaneous" or "contingencies", or any one of a variety of equally delightful and vague general terms that one would care to mention. What they amount to, Mr. Speaker, is nothing more or less than a sort of grab bag or petty cash account for the various departments. It is the loosest and sloppiest method of accounting that I have ever seen. I know it is true that all bookkeeping systems, all office systems, require an item for petty cash; but you and I, Mr. Speaker, run our books on the basis of keeping the amount in the petty cash down to the very minimum. What the government does, however, amounts in a sense to an open-end or blank-cheque spending account. We find in the estimates for this current year that the government proposes to spend under this heading of sundries no less than $17,586,227. There are 281 separate items in the detail of the estimates for sundries. Again I am not suggesting that no sundry accounts or petty cash accounts, if you like, should be permitted, but I do say that it is the most careless method of bookkeeping, when it is totalled up to $17 million over-all, and we can do our accounting better than this. I suggest that we can get along with not more than half this amount for sundries.
I should like to refer Your Honour to some of these details in the departmental spending on sundries, as I have gathered them from the estimates. They are as follows: for the Department of Agriculture the total this year is $198,000. I am just giving the round figures
The Budget-Mr. Fulton at this time. Citizenship and Immigration, $242,000; Finance, $219,000, a nice petty cash amount for the Minister of Finance and his departmental officials without any necessity for accurate accounting-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Wait a minute; my hon. friend is going a little far there. He is making a pretty-


Mr, Fulton:: Without any necessity for accurate accounting to this House of Commons as to the heading under which-


Douglas Charles Abbott: The house is entitled to ask for every detail of that amount and to get every detail of it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And I can assure the minister that we certainly will ask for it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is what you should do. That is what I have been suggesting the opposition should do, and that is why I have been listening with a great deal of interest to my hon. friend's speech.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It will take a lot of explaining why we need to spend $17 million on sundries when we could get along with half of it. Remember, sundries is not the only general item in the estimates. There are such items as printing and stationery, telephone and telegraph, office equipment and all these other items. Then at the end we find this huge open petty cash account for sundries. Then we find other departments such as the Department of Transport with an item of $703,000 for sundries and so on.
The third heading to which I referred is that of travelling expenses. Again I should point out, Mr. Speaker, that in all these matters I have taken only the items which are revealed in the details of the estimates. From what I have been able to gather I would say that there are many other items under all these headings which are not shown as such in the estimates. I have taken only those that are shown. To come to the travelling expenses which are shown, one finds that there are 270 separate items in the details of the estimates for a total of $25,914,000, or nearly $26 million for travelling expenses. I should point out that one of the largest is in the Department of National Defence where you find that travel and transportation, freight and express are lumped together. Even assuming that only half of the total of $14 million shown in the Department of National Defence for this item-assuming that half of that-would be straight travelling expenses, that would still be $7 million, so that the total for travelling expenses on that assumption would still be about $18 million.

The Budget-Mr. Fulton
The total expenditure under these three headings alone-publicity, sundries and travel expenses-shown in this year's estimates amounts to $49,565,052. Again let me say that I am not suggesting immediately that this is all unnecessary. Unfortunately we have been refused committees, and we are therefore not in a position to know what is necessary and what is not. But I do say that it is not all necessary, and that the estimates will be subjected to the closest possible scrutiny in committee of the whole and unless satisfactory explanations are given in detail as to the necessity for these amounts then reductions will be moved.
I would also say without any hesitation that in the absence of explanations, which at the moment I cannot foresee, we could, if we were determined to do so, get along in this country with only half of that expenditure under these three headings alone. If we did that we would save a total of about $24,500,000. In connection with the publicity item, as I have said before, some may be necessary. A good deal of travelling may be necessary. Some discretion to the departments under the heading of sundries or contingencies is probably necessary. But in connection with publicity we could save money by setting up a publicity bureau, give it half of what we are spending now, and do the job with that half. We would have all the publicity we need. And so in connection with other items we could get along, if we made up our minds to do so, with about half of what we are spending now.
I should like to give the house some examples of departmental spending on travelling expenses. These are the figures:
Department of	Agriculture	 $2,148,000
Department of Citizenship and Immigration	 750,000
Department of	Fisheries	 676,000
Department of National Health and Welfare	 774,000
Department of	Transport	
1,038,000Department of	Veterans Affairs	
1,083,950
These are only some of the departments picked at random. So I put forward the suggestion, with the utmost seriousness, that we could reduce our expenditures this year by $24,500,000 if we only cut out half what is proposed to be spent on these three items. I hope the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) will not tell me that this is an insignificant saving when we are dealing with $2,400 million; I hope that even his billion-dollar mentality will appreciate the fact that a reduction of this amount, or indeed of one million dollars, will directly affect the amount of taxes paid by every Canadian.
A reduction of $24,500,000 is a most substantial item. I would point out that it is iMr. Fulton.]

as much as the total reduction given by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) in his 1948 budget, on the income tax and sales tax reductions combined. To put it another way, $24,500,000 is as much as the total reduction in the retail purchase tax, gasoline tax and amusement taxes combined in the 1948 budget. Those were substantial reductions- at least so the minister said when he made them in 1948; and a reduction of this amount this year would bring a very substantial measure of much-needed relief to every Canadian taxpayer.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me emphasize that we are not setting ourselves up in judgment in saying that this or that expenditure can be eliminated entirely. What I am saying is that here are three typical items the expenditure of which does not of itself and by itself produce revenues for the Canadian people. I am suggesting that substantial economies, at least 50 per cent, could in most cases be made if we decided that we must make them, without in fact hurting the national economy or producing inefficient government service.
I believe the time has come when we must choose: we must face the decision, do we want more publicity or more pensions? In fact we must face the decision: do we want to spend as much on travelling expenses as we are now for government officials, or do we want to reduce taxes? Do we want a $17 million petty cash account or sundry account or do we want to cut it substantially and leave leeway for some more productive expenditure, or for further reductions in income tax in the future?
I believe we should decide in favour of the reduction in expenditure and the things that it will make possible by way of tax reduction. I believe the estimates for this year should be reduced accordingly; and if the Minister of Finance is serious, as I am quite confident he is, in his suggestion that the time has come to make these decisions, then I hope that he will agree and will lend his support to our efforts to bring about these savings.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to follow the line pursued by the previous speaker, except to say that while I agree with him that we need to be careful about the money we spend in the country, I would say that it would be a good thing for him to give a little attention to this general question: Canada since 1938 has more than doubled her production. She now is producing by way of $16 billion worth of goods a year; and she expects to be able to produce $16,250 million this year.

Judging by Canadian resources, I find it difficult to believe that we cannot double our production in the next twelve years, as we did in the last twelve. If brilliant young men of the type represented by the hon. member who has just taken his seat would devote their attention to the question of how to turn that full production into well-being of the Canadian people, they would not be cheeseparing, cutting off a little here and a little there. They would really open their eyes as to what could be in the future in a country so abundantly blessed with resources and the ability to transform those resources into the goods and services necessary for mankind.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is another side of the same problem.


John Horne Blackmore: I am not finding fault with what the hon. member said, but I am urging that we do not fall into an attitude of blue ruin, such as afflicted the country in the days of the Conservative regime of R. B. Bennett. If you once start that, you never stop it. You just go down and down. Let us concentrate our attention on the tremendous productive capacity of this country.


Mr. Ferguson:: Why don't you blame him for all the world's ills?


John Horne Blackmore: I have said more to correct the world's ills than the hon. member has in all the time he has been here.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: You are always talking about money; that is all you talk about.


John Horne Blackmore: I talk common sense, while the hon. member never does.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: You would not recognize it if I did.


John Horne Blackmore: Having said that, in a friendly spirit, I should like to turn to another important matter. I hope the hon. member does not make any extravagant remarks he will not be able to back up, because I am pretty good at backing up what I say.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: In your own way.


John Horne Blackmore: Yes, in anybody's way, any kind of argument you want to use- intellectual, or anything else.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: We have heard you before.


John Horne Blackmore: Then, we shall turn to another subject.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Change your subject.


John Horne Blackmore: Widespread interest has developed in an event which took place about 8 p.m. on the night of April 12 in the Quebec city of Shawinigan Falls, with a population of about 25,000. All parties concerned will desire that the essential facts be
24. 1950
The Budget-Mr. Blackmore set down where they can be preserved for all to see, so as to avoid distortion of any point whatsoever in the future.
The implications and repercussions of this occurrence will disturb the peace of mind of any person anxious to make provision for peace, order and good government in Canada in time to come.
In order to set down these facts as dispassionately as possible, I believe it would be well to place on record the report appearing in the Montreal Daily Star of April 13, 1950. This newspaper is published in the same province, and not far from where the incident occurred. It states:
Shawinigan Mob Wrecks Christian Brethren
Chapel
1,500 Rioters Terrorize Protestant Sect Group And Tear Up Bibles and Prayer Books
An angry, gesticulating, taunting mob which ranged in size throughout the evening from 200 to 1,500, last night completely smashed the meeting place of a Christian Brethren group in Shawinigan Falls, keeping 27 persons penned up in an upstairs flat for two and a half hours.
Shawinigan Falls is 21 miles north of Three Rivers, Quebec, which is 76 miles east of Montreal.
All furniture, including the pulpit, was broken in the store which was used as a chapel by the small Protestant sect, and bibles and hymn books were taken into the street, torn to shreds and scattered in the gutters.
The mob was composed of men, women and children. Stones, empty bottles, ice and even eggs were thrown into the hall for an hour from 9 to 10 p.m. The plate glass windows of the store were smashed. At 10 p.m. part of the crowd made their way into the chapel and began to demolish everything they could lay their hands on, including the electric fixtures.
Building Was Used For Regular Services
The building which was assaulted is located at 32 Fourth street, and is used regularly for Sunday and week-day meetings by the eight families who compose the Christian Brethren Church in Shawinigan Falls.
An Evangelistic sect, the Christian Brethren have twenty congregations scattered throughout the province. They have no ordained ministers, but are led by "evangelists"-laymen who are called to the work but who are paid no salary.
According to Benoit Mongrain, a wheel-chair paralytic, who owns the building, about twenty brethren were in the "store" chapel when the stoning began. Several were women.
Although he is not a member of the sect himself, Mongrain invited the group to take shelter in his tenement home above the store. There the brethren group and the Mongrain family, composed of Mr. and Mrs. Mongrain and their five children, were held virtual prisoners from 9 to 11.30 p.m.
At that time a detachment of the Shawinigan police escorted the brethren out of the Mongrains* flat.
The brethren were led by Evangelist Paul Boeda, who could not be reached by telephone this morning at two locations where he is ordinarily available.
The night-shift squad of ten policemen of the Shawinigan force arrived on the scene early in the evening but made no arrests.
Mayor Frangois Roy said he was at a theatre performance and heard of the mob assault only

The Budget-Mr. Blackmore when he emerged at 11 p.m. He said he arrived on the scene at 11.30 p.m. when "everything was quiet."
He said that apparently the Shawinigan police had found that they "could do nothing" to stop the stoning of the building, but that they "protected those who were inside the flat."
Mayor Hoy stressed that none of the brethren suffered bodily harm.
While the stoning of the brethren meeting place was going on Mr. Boeda placed a telephone call from the Mongrain flat to Doctor Arthur C. Hill, of Sherbrooke, chairman of the executive committee of the Christian Brethren Church of Quebec.
The evangelist's first excited report was at 9 p.m., and he called again at 10 p.m. After that nothing was heard from Mr. Boeda, and even this morning when Doctor Hill arrived in Montreal, no success was obtained in reaching the pastor by telephone.
Doctor Hill immediately boarded a train for Shawinigan Falls to conduct a personal investigation.
He said that he also spoke on the telephone to chief of police Napoleon Longval last night while the assault was in progress, and that the chief assured him that everything was being done to keep order.
Doctor Hill also spoke to Mayor Roy late last night by telephone, and to Mongrain.
Pastor Boeda, said Doctor Hill, was the victim of a kidnapping on March 4 when a group of Shawinigan Falls people forced him into an automobile, drove him to Three Rivers and put him on a train to Montreal. However, Mr. Boeda returned to his Shawinigan Falls post shortly afterward.
Mongrain said that when the brethren were escorted from the house at 11.30 p.m. by Shawinigan police, there were still about 1,000 persons gathered in the street.
He said the crowd was composed of men, women and children throughout the evening, but that only part of them took an active part in the stoning.
Mr. Mongrain is paralyzed in both legs and is confined to a wheel chair.
Mayor Roy said that he had been told that as many as 2,000 persons comprised the mob at its largest.
The Shawinigan police force is composed of 34 men working in three shifts, but only the night shift, then on duty, was called to the scene.
It was reported an automobile parked nearby was damaged during the stoning. Window glass in the car was broken after several bystanders let the air out of the tires.
Chief of Police Longval said that there were about 2,000 people in the crowd at its largest. He said he supervised police operations throughout the evening but that "the crowd was too large for us to handle."	[DOT]
He said four or five taxis were called at 11.30 p.m. and the brethren were herded into them. He said there were "about 40" brethren, including children. He said some were from Three Rivers.
I have chosen that report because it seems to be calm, collected and factual. I think it gives the essential details in which people might be interested in times to come. I should like to read one other statement which I think will be of value in this connection, and I refer now to the Montreal Daily Star of April 14 where a report is headed, "Attack on brethren believed made by mob in error." This report contains a statement by Dr. Arthur C. Hill,

chairman of the executive committee of the Christian Brethren Church in Quebec. An excerpt from the report reads:
Doctor Hill estimated that out of the crowd of 1,500 who stood outside the store the night of the mob assault, about 1,400 took no part in the stoning.
But the one hundred or so who did-apparently mostly young men-did a terrific amount of damage in one hour.
Further down in the report is a quotation which I think is fitting in order to estimate what occurred. I quote:
Police Chief Napoleon Longval of Shawinigan Falls reiterated today that he and his ten constables who were on the scene when the rioting took place were unable to control the mob, which was made up of men, women and children. He said a full investigation was being made, but there had been no arrests and there were not likely to be any.
I should like now to read into the record two editorials which have a bearing on this event. The first appeared in the Montreal Daily Star of April 14, and I have chosen this for obvious reasons. It reads:
A Shameful Attack
The Shawinigan mob's attack on the place of worship of Christian Brethren is a shameful act that should be repudiated by the authorities. It reflects no credit on anyone and if the mob leaders-and there must have been leaders-are allowed to go unpunished, Quebec's reputation for tolerance and fairness will suffer. On these grounds alone, but more particularly on the ground that freedom of worship is guaranteed by the constitution of this province, a full inquiry should be made into the outbreak. It should cover not only the actions of the mob but also the failure of the local police to identify and arrest a single person in a crowd that by their own estimate numbered at least 1,000 persons.
It may not be generally known-certainly it was unknown to whoever led this mob-that freedom of religion in this province rests not only on wholesome custom but on law. This is one of the few provinces in the dominion where this fundamental right is guaranteed by statute.
The enacting clause of the statute is quoted here for the benefit not only of the public but of the police of Shawinigan who are clearly ignorant of its terms and of their obligation to act under it. The Act Respecting Freedom of Worship and the Maintenance of Good Order in and near Places of Public Worship (chapter 307, revised statutes of Quebec, 1941) has this to say:
"The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, provided the same be not made an excuse for acts of licentiousness, or a justification of practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the province, are by the constitution and laws of this province allowed to all His Majesty's subjects living within the same."
This act provides penalties by way of fine or imprisonment for violations. It also places upon the local police the obligation to protect worshippers in the use of their religious premises and to arrest anyone who disturbs them in their religious exercises.
By definition of the act the premises occupied by the Christian Brethren is a church. There is nothing in the record to show that they are a harmful or provocative sect. On the contrary, there is everything to suggest that the members of this very old sect are law-abiding, peaceable citizens.

Moreover, in this province they are incorporated as a religious body and by that token if by no other should be given the protection of the law.
I thought that that editorial would be of value to those who would wish to read a report of this incident. I also have an editorial which appeared in the Edmonton Journal of April 15, 1950, reading as follows:
The Right to Worship
Wednesday night's riot in Shawinigan Falls is the most ominous of the long series of religious disturbances in the province of Quebec. Earlier mob outbreaks were usually directed against the aggressive Jehovah's Witnesses sect; reprehensible as these affairs were, they had at least some provocation. But in Shawinigan Falls the victims were a small evangelical group who, as far as the news reports show, were not annoying or molesting anyone. There would seem to have been no excuse whatever for the action of the crowd in breaking up their services and wrecking their meeting place.
One cannot help wondering if the antagonism raised in predominantly Catholic Quebec by the "witness" controversy is not beginning to take the form, in some parts of the province, of a general intolerance of Protestantism-or at least of those denominations which are too small and uninfluential to defend themselves.
This would be a most disastrous development. Canada has always prided itself, and with justice, on her tradition of religious freedom. In few countries in the world have so many religious groups been able to live together in peace and harmony. But religious peace is a fragile thing and it would not take many incidents like the one on Wednesday to sow the seeds of nation-wide distrust and ill-will.
The Quebec government has a duty to act in this matter. It should lose no time in making clear to all its people that further outbreaks of this sort will not be tolerated and that all denominations will be protected in their right to meet and worship freely. That would be the best way of making sure that the trouble spreads no farther.
I thought that that editorial from the capital of my province would be a valuable contribution to the report. Just to show how factual the Edmonton Journal is in its estimate of what might happen across the country, I think it is well to quote from a report of a charitable and moderate sermon delivered by Rev. Arthur O. Lloyd in Bell Street United Church on April 23 last week in Ottawa. The report appears on page 10 of the Ottawa Citizen of April 24 and quotes Mr. Lloyd in part as follows:
In order to understand this I have gone back to the writings of Roman Catholic leaders. The Archbishop of Westminster says: "We Roman Catholics believe our church to be the only true church and, therefore, reunion means submission to the Holy See."
The article continues to quote Mr. Lloyd as follows:
On this side cf the Atlantic, Cardinal Spellman, in an article on the Catholic position as to freedom of worship, says;
"We believe the Catholic church is the only organization authorized by God to teach religious truth and to conduct public religious worship."
The Budget-Mr. Boucher
I would say, Mr. Speaker, that the Shawinigan Falls mobbing incident and all its implications will need to be borne in mind scrupulously by every provincial representative whose heavy responsibility it will be to meet next fall to assist in drafting a suitable revision of the British North America Act. Some have thought, written and said that the Ottawa government should intervene on behalf of religious freedom in Canada. Let us solemnly warn each of those tempted to that sort of thinking. Let me suggest that they reflect what might happen if some single organization of religious worshippers were to attain dominant control at Ottawa, some organization that might not hesitate to use that power to the disadvantage of other religious organizations.
The only hope of religious liberty for our Canadian children will, and must, lie in unchallengeable provincial discretion over matters of religion.
Shawinigan Falls is a grave and portentous warning, but if the warning is heeded no ill results need accrue.
Our unhappy age had worries enough already. One could have been excused for hoping that we might have been spared the distractions accompanying religious violence. I confess that I had hoped we might. It appears that I was rather too sanguine in this respect. I claim the privilege of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of my own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where or what they may. I had persuaded myself that all Canadians would agree with me as regards freedom of religious worship. May I most earnestly suggest that if all organizations of religious worshippers in Canada will adopt and live by a creed similar to mine in this respect, we in our generation will have least cause for regret. '


Mr. W. A. Boucher (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege and an honour for me to rise in this debate as the representative of the constituency of Rosthern. It has often been said that Canada is a difficult country to govern. In respect of no phase of our life is this more true than in the economic factors that have so much influence on our prosperity and happiness. Every province in our far-flung nation has its own particular economic issue, and even every electoral district within each province has its own economic factors. For this reason I want to congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) very warmly. I congratulate him, not only on the budget we are discussing today but also on the manner in which he has discharged the duties of his office ever since lie assumed that high position.

The Budget-Mr. Boucher
It is a matter of great satisfaction to Canadians that he has directed the fiscal policy of our country in such a way as to distribute prosperity to all parts of Canada more evenly than has ever been done before. For this great achievement the Minister of Finance has gained the confidence of the large majority of our people. He has given to his people a high order of service in war and in peace, and I am glad to be able to tell him that millions of Canadians appreciate it.
We in Canada have some reason to be proud as we review our accomplishments. There is much yet to be done. So long as we continue to make progress, so long as we live in a changing world, there will always be need for change and reform. Our people will continue to press for, and I am sure that this government will continue to enact, that which is needed to ensure the welfare of our people. In comparison with the other nations of the world, however-and it is a fair yardstick by which to judge-we have reason to congratulate our people on their industry and sound judgment, and to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and every other minister of the government on the policies under which the achievements of our people were made possible. Under the inspired leadership of the Prime Minister our country has gained a significant measure of unity, and that has been one of the important factors in our welfare.
Rosthern constituency is populated by Canadians of many racial origins. Coming from all parts of a troubled world the people of my constituency are more deeply aware than many, because of their experiences in the old land, that our continued welfare depends upon the maintenance of peace. I know I speak for everyone in my riding when I thank the Prime Minister and the government with my whole heart because they have made the preservation of peace the chief cornerstone of Liberal policy.
The people of my constituency-and indeed this can be said of the people of the whole province of Saskatchewan-depend upon agriculture for a livelihood. While we are perhaps more directly dependent upon agriculture than are the people of the other provinces, I think it is wise for all of us in the house to realize and remember the extent to which people in all parts of our country are directly or indirectly dependent on our farms. In these days of great industrial progress in Canada it is all too easy to lose sight of this fact. Because of our direct interest it is not surprising that we from Saskatchewan give a fair share of our attention to everything affecting our great primary industry.

I support the government wholeheartedly because it has always given the interests of agriculture a prominent place in its program. We have heard a great deal from several sources, principally from the two largest opposition parties in the house, that our trade channels are threatened. This is of great interest to our farmers who must have markets for an ever-increasing production. We know, of course, that in a world that continues to progress and change we shall never have, nor do we want, static markets. What our farmers want and expect, therefore, is a government that is continually finding new markets for their products. I am sure the great support accorded this government in all the rural areas of Canada was due in notable measure to the confidence our farmers had in its marketing and trade policies. When the leaders of the opposition parties told them their markets had been lost, the farmers of Canada turned to this government because they had confidence in the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner).
I have spoken of Canada's magnificent industrial achievements in the last fifteen years. All Canadians are proud of the high place we have attained in the industrial world. Everyone recognizes how much of this we owe to the guidance, vision and courage of the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce. But the farmers of western Canada appreciate him for another reason. They appreciate him because he is not only a great believer in trade but puts his beliefs into active practice. Not only does he hold proper theories in regard to trade; he is practical, in the best sense of that word. Our farmers know that while the opposition parties are predicting blue ruin the Minister of Trade and Commerce is finding markets for our goods at fair prices. The minister is able to predict favourable conditions under this government, and his administration of the department does a great deal to make those predictions come true. The world wheat agreement and the Geneva trade agreements are important steps that indicate the road we must continue to follow, and I find that the farmers of Canada appreciate this.
The great majority of the people of Saskatchewan are proud of the fact that the Minister of Agriculture comes from our province; but, like the Minister of Trade and Commerce, he is not a provincial but a great national figure. The agricultural policies of this government are designed to encourage

every segment of this industry from Newfoundland to British Columbia. The minister's record of fifteen years of service in provincial affairs and fifteen years in the federal government speaks for itself.
In my constituency and my province we greatly appreciate the gradual improvement in the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. The amendments of this session will extend its benefits to many more farmers in Rosthern and other constituencies in what is known as the park area of our province. The Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, first passed by a Conservative government under Right Hon. R. B. Bennett and greatly extended by succeeding Liberal governments, has already improved farming in our province. The benefits of this legislation should be extended to all Canada. It would mean a great improvement in farm income and in the amenities of farm life. Within a few years the treasury would be repaid ten times over for the amounts we might spend under it.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
William Albert Boucher: When the house rose at six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I was about to speak of grain marketing. There is now in progress a powerful campaign pretending to ask for open markets for our grain. Those conducting this campaign put it in an extremely nice way. They claim to be the champions of the farmer's right to sell his grain at the price he wishes and to sell it to whom he wishes. What they advocate would, of course, not give the farmer anything of the kind. Those conducting this campaign centre their attacks particularly on the two senior members of our government, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). What they actually aim at is the destruction of the wheat board. This campaign must not and will not succeed.
The farmers of the prairie provinces remember too well the days' when they had what these campaigners call "the open market". You cannot tell any farmer of that day that he could1 then sell his product for what he liked and to whom he wished. The farmer remembers when he had to sell his wheat on the Winnipeg grain exchange and receive as little as 23 cents per bushel. He does not remember any of the interests who now claim to work for him fighting for him at that time. He is satisfied to take his
The Budget-Mr. Boucher chance with the agricultural marketing policies of this government. He now has a chance to succeed.
Our farmers know that we live in a changing world and that we have to sell our surpluses to the rest of the world. They also know that other countries are having a difficult time to pay fair prices for the food products they need. Every effort must be made to keep our cost of production low. The prices of manufactured goods required to work our farms must come down, particularly the prices of farm machinery of all kinds. Whatever the reason for the high prices of today, they must be brought down. The farmers must not be asked to bear all the burden of meeting the world need for food at prices it can pay.
There is another campaign being waged today that must be resisted in the interests of Canada. That is the campaign of the railroad companies to take away from this parliament the control of the statutory freight rates on grain known as the Crowsnest rates. Not only are these rates statutory but they were rates which were originally set by contract, rates for which the Canadian Pacific Railway received great payment from the people of Canada, largely from the resources of western Canada. We now have the spectacle of this large corporation, which has on so many occasions insisted on the sanctity of contracts, seeking in effect to disavow its obligations and at the same time retain the payments it received in return.
The great grain-growing industry of the prairie provinces has been built upon these freight rates, which are rates bought and paid for. It must not be deprived of them now. While the prairie provinces are more directly concerned than others, it is not a western fight alone. A study of the economic history of Canada shows that the great prosperity of our central provinces, Ontario and Quebec, dated from the opening up of the prairies. It also shows that the prosperity of the central provinces has been continually stimulated by the development of grain-growing in the prairie provinces. All the people of the central provinces have a stake in the Crowsnest grain rates, and I call upon all the members of this house to see that these rates are retained. The prairie provinces are without the protection of competitive water rates and require and deserve this measure of statutory justice and equity.
As I have watched the actions of this government both from a distance and at close range, I am happy to know that it is concerned not only with the material things of the life of our people. No other government in the world has shown a greater interest in


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Mr. Speaker, before commencing my remarks on the budget tonight I should like to refer to an incident which took place in the house earlier today. On the orders of the day I directed to the Prime Minister a question which I had already asked on Friday last of the government. 1 asked him whether or not it was the government's intention to give the customary official welcome or official reception to Sir Basil Brooke, the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland. Perhaps I was wrong, but it did seem to me that the Prime Minister was just a little brusque in answering me when he said:	"It has not been considered." I think
most Canadians have known for at least a month that this visitor was coming. I want to say that I have no axe to grind with the Irish, whether it be in the north or in the south. I do not come from Northern Ireland, and Sir Basil Brooke certainly does not share my politics. Nevertheless, I believe that the head of any country, regardless of who he is, and particularly the head of a sister nation of the commonwealth, should be given an official and friendly reception by the government of Canada.
The Prime Minister has always been known for his broad-mindedness and for his tolerance. I certainly hope that he will not disappoint many Canadians in this connection, because I am sure that many would be disappointed if this particular representative were not given a proper reception.
Getting back to the subject before the house. The budget, which was introduced on March 28 last by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), was certainly a very different affair from the tax-slashing pre-election document which he introduced a year ago. Some people at that time described the 1949 affair as the "sunshine budget". The 1950 document, with its rather nervous recognition of more difficult times ahead, reflects anything but sunshine so far as I can see. Apparently, as somebody put it, an era has ended. Apparently the lush post-war years are behind us. Gone are the periods of heavy surpluses, of substantial debt reduction and of heavy tax cuts. On the other hand, so far as I can see there is evidence everywhere of mounting costs. I think it is conceivable that in the coming year, expenditures will reach a peacetime high. The present Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott)
The Budget-Mr. Thatcher has held his position now for approximately four years, and in that time he has brought down, I believe, four budgets.
In the first three of those budgets the minister laid down a series of principles or precepts which he described as sound tax policy or sound budget policy for Canadians. Tonight, as we look at this budget I am reminded of some words from Shakespeare's Hamlet-
This above all: to thine own self he true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
In analysing the current budget I propose to see whether the minister has been true to himself and to the principles which he enunciated in his first three budgets. In other words, I think it is appropriate to compare the words of the minister in 1947, 1948 and 1949 with his actions in 1950.
Principle No. 1 which was advocated in former years by the minister was this, as it is set out at page 2553 of Hansard for 1947: -we should1 aim at a surplus in times of prosperity-
And again at page 4063 of Hansard for 1948:
We should deliberately budget, as a matter of policy, for substantial surpluses in times like these.
Over the past four years, in parliament and out of parliament, the Minister of Finance has reiterated his belief time and again that in times of prosperity the budget should show a substantial surplus. Are we still in prosperous times? Most member agree, I suggest, that we are. Last year I believe the national income reached a peacetime high. I believe the forecast is that during the coming year it will be even higher.
Therefore, according to the cyclical theory of budgeting, and according to the minister's oft-expressed belief, most Canadians would have expected that the surplus in the last year would have been one of the greatest in all history. They would have expected that the surplus forecast for the coming year would also be very substantial.
What are the facts? The facts are that last year the minister did show a surplus of $111 million, but this compares with $676 million two years ago, and $595 million last year. For the ensuing year the minister forecasts only a small surplus of $20 million. Surely by the minister's own standards, that is a small, paltry surplus for a very prosperous year. And what is more, the minister knows better than anyone else in the House of Commons that probably even that amount of surplus will not be achieved, because the huge revenues are based upon a boom which is as fragile as it is unique. Then,

The Budget-Mr. Thatcher moreover, suppose that Ontario and Quebec should suddenly decide to sign a dominion-provincial tax agreement. Overnight the government would need another $120 million -six times the amount of surplus forecast.
I say, then, that in this budget, and in the one he is forecasting for the coming year, the minister has not complied with what he himself described was the first requisite of a good budget in prosperous times. He has not and is not budgeting for substantial surpluses.
Principle No. 2, as enunciated by the Minister of Finance, pertained to debt reduction. There can be no doubt as to his views in this connection. At page 2553 of Hansard for 1947 he said:
It is a sensible and far-sighted policy to reduce the national debt in good times.
He repeated that in 1948. During the past year the national debt was reduced by $111 million. But that was only a very small figure when compared with the debt reduction of the two preceding years. And next year, if we can accept the forecast and the estimates of the minister, we shall be indeed fortunate if we reduce the national debt at all. In fact, there is a very good chance that we shall probably have a deficit and increase it.
As a member of parliament I ask the minister this question: If in 1948 and 1949 it was sound budget policy to reduce the national debt substantially, why is it not sound budget policy to reduce it similarly in 1950?
Everyone knows why the minister is not doing this. Everyone knows why he is not budgeting for heavy surpluses and substantial debt reduction this year. He allowed his economic beliefs to be overridden by political concessions made to help the Liberal party win the last election. As a result of those concessions, the government today is heading straight and surely for budget trouble, the oldest and most familiar disease of governments everywhere. Despite relatively prosperous times we face, as I said a moment ago, the very real danger of a deficit in the coming year. Because last year the government sacrificed sound economic principles to party politics, Canadians today, on the verge of a recession or economic difficulties, find themselves in much the same position as an army which has shot off its ammunition before the battle. I suggest the Minister of Finance must accept a good deal of the responsibility for that dilemma.
In past budgets the minister enunciated a third principle, namely the need to bring down expenditures and practise economy. Only last October, in his 1949 budget, the

minister stated that the government was practising-and I am using his words-"the most careful economy and efficiency in all departments." He went on to say that the government "had decided on the general policy of limiting expenditures." Many Canadians wish the minister would reveal where, in particular, economy has been practised. Certainly there is not very much sign of it in the present budget.
In looking over the estimates I see that the expenditures in most departments are still mounting, and spending appears to be going on unabated. Defence expenditures, for instance, are up to the extent of $42 million; health and welfare, $45 million; the post office $3 million; resources $19 million; and labour $2,300,000. A few departments were able to cut expenses, but I think even Liberal members will admit that the over-all picture is not promising.
Speaking at Montreal a few days ago, according to a Canadian Press dispatch, the minister was rather pessimistic, when he said-
Even if further economies are achieved in administrative costs they cannot possibly alter in any significant way the scale of the budget.
I say that statement is a gesture of futility by the minister. No Canadian who examines this almost unbelievable federal budget of $2.4 billion can doubt that in this vast and unwieldy machine of administration there is a great deal of money being wasted on duplication, overlapping and inefficiency.
When Mr. Hoover in the United States investigated the affairs of the United States government he reported that two or three billion dollars could be saved without impairing public efficiency in any way. In Canada the government is making no effort at all to see whether a similar saving could be made.
The fourth principle set out by the Minister of Finance in former budgets was perhaps the most important of all. It had to do with full employment, a policy which was formulated throughout the war years. It was enunciated in this house by Mr. Ilsley, the former minister of finance, and also by the present minister. As reported in Hansard for 1948 at page 4071 the present minister said this:
All political parties and the public generally take it for granted now that governments must bear some responsibility for maintaining employment when large-scale unemployment threatens.
Year in and year out for the last five years the government has given the people of Canada to understand that now it had methods of controlling or at least alleviating an economic recession if or when it should

set in. I have heard many government supporters, whether they be from Newfoundland or from away out in British Columbia, refer glibly to a shelf of public works which would be available if or when unemployment should come. Canadians have been repeatedly assured that this time it would be different, that the government had learned its lesson from its experience during the war.
But during the last winter many Canadians received a severe shock because, overnight, upwards of 400,000 people were out of work. Overnight Canada was facing an unemployment emergency; overnight the crisis was upon us. In my perhaps biased opinion the government did not measure up to that crisis. Suddenly the large shelf of public works disappeared. Conveniently forgotten were the so-called "timing grants". Gone was any mention of the public investment program. When asked for action the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) told the people not to be pessimistic; he said that pessimism might lead us into another recession. Almost 400,000 unemployed, and the only action that parliament took was to rtiodify the unemployment regulations. Those things were necessary, but at best they were only a palliative.
Today the unemployment situation is improving and it is conceivable that during the spring and summer it may get better, but how can the people of Canada have any confidence in a government which has failed to deal with the minor recession of a few years ago? How can they have confidence that it can deal with a major recession if it comes?
The figures look even blacker when we compare them with our sister dominions of New Zealand, Australia and Great Britain. On the day when we had almost 400,000 people out of work, Australia had 748 and at the same time had 107,000 jobs open for people which they could not fill. On top of that they had had a substantial immigration in the past year. In New Zealand there were less than 100 people looking for work. The record in Great Britain is almost as good. On the same date that we had almost 400,000 people out of work Great Britain had a labour force of 23 million, five times that of Canada, but had only 330,000 unemployed. In other words, where we had [DOT]! out of 100 unemployed, Great Britain had only one out of 100. I think that is a striking contrast.
What reason did the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) give in his budget for the unemployment that existed? On page 1210 of Hansard he is reported as having said:
While the decline in employment as a whole has been small, the increase in unemployment has been greater, due, ol course, to the fact that the total labour force continues to grow.
The Budget-Mr. Thatcher
The labour force in Australia was growing much more rapidly than the labour force in Canada. The labour force in Great Britain was growing, but still in both those countries they were able to keep full employment. That was not used as an excuse for unemployment.
What did the minister suggest in his budget as a solution for unemployment? He had a kind of fourfold program. As reported on page 1210 of Hansard he said, first, that the government should create a favourable climate for expansion and development; second, that it should plan for the best timing of its own expenditures; third, it should take the responsibility for the development of primary industries; and, fourth, it should cooperate with the provincial governments. When we boil those four points down what do they mean to the average workingman in Canada? I do not know whether the words are parliamentary, but I think it means nothing less than sweet "beggar-all".
The minister reiterated his belief that the Liberal party today was depending on private enterprise to keep full employment. In other words, the basic philosophy of the Liberal party today is back where it was in the depression years of 1934, 1935 and 1936; it is depending on private business. I wish private business could provide full employment, but I have no confidence that by itself it can.
In Great Britain, rightly or wrongly, depending upon whether we agree with their methods, the Labour government has gone a good deal further toward creating a right climate and a right atmosphere. It has met the problem of providing full employment as a matter of policy. It has met the problem with a good deal of vigour and determination and by means of taxes, government expenditures and subsidies. By directing capital investment and allocating scarce materials it has been able to stimulate industrial activity. The result of these policies is that today Great Britain has a higher ratio of employment than any nation, at least any industrial nation in the world.
In my opinion Great Britain has demonstrated that unemployment can be beaten, but it can be beaten only if there is a degree of government intervention. Surely the government must realize by this time that private business by itself cannot deal with this serious problem. I have always believed that the state owes every man the right to earn a living at fair wages. If he does not want to work, it is his privilege to starve, but the right to work is a fundamental Canadian right.

The Budget-Mr. Weaver
The Liberal party failed to subscribe to that belief in the depression and I am afraid it is failing once again to subscribe to it.
On page 1219 of Hansard the minister said:
___jf	we have to face serious difficulties we
shall find that we have never been better equipped and prepared to resolve them.
At the very moment the minister was making that boast in the House of Commons officially there were 373,000 people not working. I have heard experienced parliamentarians and newsmen say that this session of parliament has been one of the most tedious since confederation. Perhaps it is, but to me the most significant fact which has come out of this session is not to be found in the headlines, is not to be found in Hansard, is not to be found in the legislation passed. Rather it is to be found in the fact that the Liberal party has once again made a right turn. For the first time since the war the government came face to face with unemployment and the only solution was direct government intervention. But the government weighed the risks involved, and turned its back on such intervention. Not only did it fail to meet the crisis, not only did it fail to come to grips with the problem, it retreated at the first minor skirmish.
It seems to me that this budget will be remembered for two main reasons. First, because we have witnessed the death of a myth-the cyclical budget has disappeared. Secondly, it will be remembered because the Liberal party has refused to accept government responsibility for employment. The people of Canada for the time being have no choice but to await the consequences.


Mr. G. D. Weaver (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of hesitation that I rise to take part in this debate. This House of Commons is the embodiment of the heart and mind of Canada and it is the realization that it is my job to speak for 40,000 inhabitants of this great dominion that gives me the confidence to do so.
I have sat in this seat throughout one session and the major part of a second one carefully observing proceedings. I have observed the government and I have observed all three groups of the opposition. I have been most fortunate in the seating arrangement for by virtue of my name commencing with "W" I am one of the most junior members of the assembly and when the seats were distributed I found myself in the fortunate position of being close to the official opposition and a part of that distinguished body of government supporters sitting on your left, sir, known as the rump and directly opposite


the group of gentlemen who guide our destinies. Thus when I speak, I speak directly to them.
In these observations I have been both pleased and disappointed, pleased to find my distant impressions of the government borne out by closer observations and disappointed in the calibre of the opposition. I am one of those who believe that democracy functions best when the government is opposed by a strong opposition, strong not necessarily in numbers but strong in the insight of its criticism. Because a group small in numbers can provide effective opposition to a government strong in numbers. However, I have found that that is not the case here. Within our own ranks that informed criticism is available so that the calibre of government that the country enjoys is surpassed by no country in this world. No doubt the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) will say, "What selfadulation." Well, self-adulation or not, it is a fact. Speakers on my immediate left have risen and decried the danger of one-party government. If there were any danger, and there is not, the blame would be theirs because of their own shortcomings. They would be hurrying the introduction of such a state by the ineffectiveness of their criticism.
In his speech on the budget the financial critic of the Progressive Conservative party came up with the old cry of convertibility of currencies. He refuses to face reality. He refuses to see that exchange control did not make world conditions but that world conditions made exchange control. He insists on putting the cart in front of the horse. Let us suppose for a moment that this country, so small in numbers, should declare the pound convertible, as both the C.C.F. and Progressive Conservative parties have advocated. Our country, small in numbers, would be attempting to underwrite the economy of the whole sterling area. Not only would our mythical surpluses disappear but all the inventories from our warehouses, our stockpiles and our shelves would vanish into the sterling areas as fast as ships could transport them. Because of the United States dollar content in such a large part of the goods we make, our United States dollar and gold reserves would vanish overnight, our United States credit would be cut off and we would be bankrupt. The government would be hurled from office, and rightly so, if it were so foolish as to follow that policy. The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) or the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) would probably be sitting where the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) now sits, and would then fasten on us a

measure of control that would no doubt rival that of Joe Stalin. It is pure guff to talk convertibility.
The United States, with an economy thirteen times the size of ours, is the only country that is physically capable of making any currency convertible at the present time, and as soon as they fully awake to their responsibility in the world, currencies will be freed of exchange controls, and not before. In the meantime this country of only thirteen and a half million people, under the leadership of the group of gentlemen opposite me, have done wonders in interpreting the economic facts of life to the western world. Canada has been in the position of the little girl in the circus driving two huge horses, Great Britain and the United States, with one foot on the back of each. Either could hurl her to destruction, but under her skilful guidance they come safely through, and all the mumbo-jumbo about convertibility will not alter the course of events.
What I am most proud of is that the Canadian people in general and the people of Churchill constituency understand these fundamental economic facts. The proof of this is to be found in the majority that supports the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), and the fact that it is my privilege to occupy a seat in this body and to have the honour of speaking here today.	'
Opposition speakers have called Liberal private members rubber stamps and suggested that we should show our independence by voting against the government on occasion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Dyer Weaver: This puts me in mind of the young fellow on his wedding night. His father told him that to make a success of marriage he must show his authority, his manhood and his independence. The opposition would ask us to show our authority by placing the government in power, our manhood by telling them they are no good, and our independence by hurling from office the best government we have had, thus exposing the country to the tender mercies of the opposition.


Arthur Leroy Smith: What did his wife say?


George Dyer Weaver: I suppose it has never
occurred to them that private members on the government side might approve of the actions of the government, and that of our own free will and accord we desire to vote with the government. We will continue to do so while they continue to give us the good government we have been enjoying, but if
The Budget-Mr. Weaver they were foolish enough to do most of the things advocated by the opposition we would rise in our wrath and vote solidly against them.


Mr. Knowles:: No wonder you are laughing.


George Dyer Weaver: This afternoon the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) spoke of the budget presented by the Minister of Finance as a hang-over budget. I think it is the opposition that has the hang-over and not the Minister of Finance.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: You know what a hang-over is, all right.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Very clever.


George Dyer Weaver: The hon. member for Kamloops spoke of the Minister of Finance as having a billion dollar mentality. I thank God we have some men opposite me who have billion dollar mentalities and not the pennywise and pound-foolish mentalities of some of those who speak from the opposition benches.


Arthur Leroy Smith: That is a good one.


George Dyer Weaver: I have examined very carefully the budget of the Minister of Finance, and particularly the budget papers and charts of our economic activities. At first I was a little disappointed that some projects had been cut back, but on more careful examination I found that as to the amount of public money allotted to capital expenditure or development in the various departments there was an increase of approximately $74 million over the previous year. I am prepared to admit that perhaps this is sufficient for one year, having in view the large program of private expansion announced. If anything, the government has been conservative in its estimates of production for the coming year.
I also observed that in terms of our production and income we are better able to carry the national debt today than at any time since the 1920's. In addition the interest load on that debt has been progressively and substantially reduced. I would draw to your attention the most important fact that the percentage of the gross national product taken in taxation has not increased in the last twenty years. That is directly opposite to what the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) would have led you to believe when he was speaking a few minutes ago. He spoke of an unwieldy budget, but it is not unwieldy at all when the government is not taking a larger percentage of the gross national product in taxation than it was twenty years ago.

The Budget-Mr. Weaver
In his speech the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) discussed again the creation of money. It was my good fortune or bad fortune, whichever way you want to look at it, to be in Alberta in the year 1933, and like many others at that time I was without a plentiful supply of money. The late William Aberhart was travelling about the province holding meetings and collecting signatures on a petition to have the then government of Alberta investigate the feasibility of inaugurating social credit theories. I attended one of those meetings, and I can remember Mr. Aberhart telling the story of Pat and Mike. Between them they had brewed a barrel of beer and they were in the business of selling it. They only had a dime in cash between them, and apparently business was very bad. They had no customers. During the course of the day Pat got thirsty. He was the one who had the dime so he passed it over to Mike and helped himself to a glass of beer. Mike then having the dime passed it back to Pat, and Mike had a glass of beer. The dime went back and forth until the barrel was empty and Pat ended up with the dime he started with.


An hon. Member:: And tight.


George Dyer Weaver: Mr. Aberhart did not mention that but my imagination led me to believe the same thing. Mr. Aberhart left the story at this point. What he did not say was that Pat and Mike had just as much purchasing power between them as there was beer and no more. Money had nothing to do with it. My point is that the Social Credit theorists lead themselves down the garden path by focusing their attention on money and not on production. Without production money is worthless. The hon. member for Peace River presents his argument at page 1537 of Hansard, where he says:
On many occasions my colleagues and I have reminded hon. members that during the war of 1939-1945 spokesmen for the government time and again declared to this chamber that they would let no financial restrictions interfere with the war effort. The only thing we had to consider during wartime was whether we had the manpower and the material resources necessary for an all-out war effort. Canada did not hesitate to produce ships and guns and planes and tanks and shells to the utmost of our physical capacity; and for what? For destruction. Financial cost was of little or no concern. The government saw to it that what was physically possible was made financially possible...
Then he went on to quote Professor A. F. W. Plumptre of Toronto university:
''The government can always 'get money' because it may, as an alternative to borrowing or even taxation, create the required funds. This it can easily do riowadays through the leadership of the central bank and the co-operation of the chartered banks. In this way $200 million was created in this fashion last autumn."

Then the hon. member for Peace River went on:
What for? For the war effort; not to take care of the unemployed, not to offer social security, not to close the gap between the national product and the national income, but for destructive purposes. Well, I claim that this statement . . . should serve to silence those critics of ours who are constantly making the assertion that the government can get money only from taxation or borrowing.
This statement does not silence those critics. The creation of money as advocated by the hon. member can be done, but it is only another form of hidden taxation, and the most extreme and insidious form of all. Let us assume that we have $10 worth of production, and that there is $9 of purchasing power available. Then assume that the government listens to our Social Credit friends and creates an additional $9 of purchasing power. We now have $18 of purchasing power and still only $10 worth of goods to back it up. By this indirect method the government will have taken in taxation half the goods. This type of hidden taxation has been used by unscrupulous governments many times in history; it is called inflation.
As the hon. member for Peace River indicated, it happened automatically during the war because we were destroying our production, uselessly from a peacetime point of view in that we were creating a vacuum of useful goods, but most necessarily from a wartime point of view.


An hon. Member:: What are you quoting from now?


George Dyer Weaver: These are my own thoughts. No government could do that unless the people desired it. I would like to see the largest possible proportion of our revenues taken in direct taxation, so we would know where it came from. Money is only goods and services produced. Our savings are the difference between what we produce and what we consume. This applies at all levels from the individual to the national. Savings take many forms. They may be stocks of grain; they may be herds of cattle; they may be homes, or stockpiles of metal; industrial plant; goods on store shelves; the surpluses that our friends of the opposition speak of, a little bit of butter, a little bit of cheese and some honey. These things are our savings; our bank accounts are only claims against these goods. It is for us to say, as citizens, what we will do with these savings. If we try to pile them up without using them they lose their value, because all but gold are perishable and deteriorate. Moths and rust will destroy them.
During the war under the leadership of our government, we as citizens said, "Let us use

these surpluses; let us produce to preserve our freedom, for if we do not preserve our freedom these savings will have no value." We wholeheartedly supported the government in that policy. In the same way, if we want what we speak of as social security, as citizens we must be willing to have the government tax our production and use it for that purpose. In that way there will be a market for our productive capacity and, as individuals, the possibility of saving will be greatly increased. We can place a proportion of our savings to the government account to be used now to provide the services we ask for, and take a claim on future production in return. This implies faith in the future and confidence in ourselves. Our savings are thus stored where moth or rust can do no damage, and where they will not lose their value.
This is the theory that was adopted by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) in western Canada during the war, when he told the farmers to store their wheat in summer fallow. It is exactly the same thing. We are fortunate in having a Prime Minister and a government with the wisdom, the vision and the desire to do this in spite of the difficulties facing them in the world as we find it today.
Now let us examine what I have just said in the light of the individual. As a citizen I may hesitate to cut down my standard of living. Therefore I must increase my production to provide for those who are unable to produce because of various disabilities, including old age. This is where the government comes in; and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would speak directly to the ministers. Before doing that, however, this evening the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) said the present budget was the end of an era. Let us suppose that is so; but if it is the end of an era it is also the beginning of a new era. Speaking to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), as an average citizen I would say, "I expect you by your fiscal policies to maintain a healthy economy which will, enable me as a citizen to develop and produce to the utmost of my capacity." This I was glad to see was the announced policy of the minister, and with minor exceptions his budget supports it. A few moments ago the hon. member for Moose Jaw used some words which he doubted were parliamentary. I suggest that the words he used applied to what he was saying.
Having in mind what I just said to the Minister of Finance, I ask him to lend a sympathetic ear to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and his plans for the development of the west under P.F.R.A., because
The Budget-Mr. Weaver I believe those plans to be in line with what I have been saying. I also ask him to lend a sympathetic ear to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) and any plans he may bring forward respecting railway development in our great northland. The same would apply to the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters). I ask the Minister of Finance to take as his yardstick in government spending the words of an eastern farmer: "Break the back forty acres before you build a new front porch." I would ask the minister to move in this direction as far and as fast as our resources will permit. Only in this way can we supply the money for which the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) will be asking, with my blessing. In return I shall undertake to be responsible for explaining and justifying to my constituents the necessary taxation, even if it should call for an increase, because I believe we shall be better off under such a program.
Now, Mr. Speaker, with your permission I turn to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), even though he is not in his place. Without him the program I have outlined would be useless. I ask him, in his absence, to continue the outstanding job he has been doing in finding markets for our increased production. The Department of Trade and Commerce, which has been built up by his predecessors and added to by the present minister, is second to none in any country in the world; and I am confident that under his direction the task is within the capacity of that department. I hear the odd snicker on my left, but those words are just as true as the fact that I am standing here tonight.
I am sorry the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) is absent at the moment, but if he were here I would say: In 1896 his illustrious predecessor Sir Wilfrid Laurier figuratively stood in Winnipeg and looked westward at the possibilities of that tremendous store of potential wealth. Under his inspired leadership this nation experienced unprecedented development. In 1911 a different viewpoint gained control, to be followed by two world wars and the terrible depression of the thirties. In 1935 the immediate predecessor of the present Prime Minister, Mr. King, took over the helm of this country and guided it back on to an even keel and successfully steered it through the war and post-war years.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Sir Robert
Borden started both wars, did he?


Stanley Howard Knowles: He is not here either.


George Dyer Weaver: You, sir, stand figuratively in Swan River, in Prince Albert and in Edmonton looking northward at a treasure

The Budget-Mr. Weaver house beside which the fabulous wealth, to which the genii of Aladdin's lamp had access, was peanuts. You cannot help but feel that your destiny is to follow in the footsteps of your great French-speaking Canadian predecessor, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in developing this northland. The Canadian northwest is your oyster.
Let me tell you what lies in northern Manitoba. From Cumberland House in Saskatchewan to the north end of lake Winnipeg lies what is known as the Saskatchewan river flood plain. It was in this area that the first wheat was grown in western Canada. I should like to read to you a short quotation from a treatise on the early exploration in this area:
Whether the Saskatchewan river was reached from Lake Winnipeg or by way of Lake Manitoba and Winnipegosis is not definitely known.
The la Verendryes were followed by Louis Chevalier de la Corne who started westward in 1753 to take over the western forts which had been established by the la Verendryes. He reached the Saskatchewan river and spent time at The Pas, then Fort Paskoyac. Later he went further up the Saskatchewan and established Fort a la Corne. The same year (1753) he explored the Carrot river and the following spring (1754) seeded a few acres of land in the adjacent area, thereby deserving to be called the first agriculturist of the Canadian west. His crop gave a good yield and when he returned eastward he spoke of the excellent crop returns he had obtained in that area.
These early French pioneers were followed by the English who came into Lake Winnipeg from Hudson bay by way of the Hayes and other rivers.
For centuries the flood waters of the Saskatchewan river have been carrying the silt of the prairies to this area. At places it is 40 feet deep. It has been estimated by qualified persons that an expenditure of $20 million in drainage and flood control will bring 4,000,000 acres under the plow. The town of The Pas, Manitoba, will be in the heart of this development. This amount of land in southern Manitoba now supports a farming population of 60,000 persons. This does not take into account the secondary population that draws its wealth from those who produce the primary production. Many times this amount of $20 million is required to rehabilitate a fraction of this acreage in southern Saskatchewan. Southern Saskatchewan, of course, must be done first because when you start to harness a great river it must be done from the source; but some day this river will be harnessed.
The Nelson river, running out of lake Winnipeg, will be controlled; water that is now wasted will be diverted from the south end of lake Winnipeg into the great lakes system, and when that day comes nearly every drop of water that now falls in the Saskatchewan watershed will be used in the mid-continent. Western Canada is still in
the embryonic stage. North of the area of which I speak lies the great Pre-Cambrian shield, dotted with mines.
I have heard many suggestions since I came here, Mr. Speaker. I sometimes think that if we had a map of Canada some place in this auditorium where we could see it, it would be something that would benefit us all. When a flag for Canada is advocated, I would say that that map of Canada is sufficient flag for me. If you look at the map of northern Canada in your mind's eye, put a pencil in the midst of northern Manitoba and draw an arc around Reindeer lake and lake Athabasca and up to Prince George in British Columbia, you will be practically tracing out the route of a future railroad. I would call this to the attention of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), because it could have significance for the defence of the continent.
I have already mentioned that the west was still in the embryonic stage. I remember once reading an article describing how a portion of the shell of an egg was removed and replaced by glass, and the egg incubated. What happened hour by hour and day by day was recorded:	how first the heart, and then
the brain formed, followed by the various organs, then blood vessels and bones, until finally the chicken emerged.
The railways and transportation routes of the country are like the blood vessels forming in the development of the country. When Providence laid down the great bodies of ore that have now become our mines, He did not place them beside the cities of Montreal, Toronto and Hamilton. Those of us connected with mining who have spent so many years of our lives far from the comforts of civilization are keenly aware of this fact. These rich ore bodies call for railways which in turn bring about settlements that are not even connected with the mines, and the complete developed country finally emerges.
At Trail, British Columbia, as the ore becomes exhausted, the power that has been developed because of the ore is used in the development of a chemical industry that has become permanent. So will it be with Flin Flori in the future, drawing its power from the Churchill river at Island falls. But that time is still far in the future. In the meantime another steppingstone in this northern development is appearing at Lynn lake, pushing the frontier ever further north.
I want to take a few minutes to bring to your attention exactly what I mean when I speak of treasure in the north. The Flin Flon mine went into production in 1930 with ore reserves at that time of 19,000,000 tons. Today Flin Flon is a town of 10,000 persons.

In 1949 it produced $37 million worth of metals. It paid directly into the treasury of the people of Canada, in income taxes and ore royalties, more than $5,500,000, and indirectly another $1,500,000. Considering the 10,000 people who derive their livelihood from that mine, they have contributed from five to seven and a half times the national average towards the revenues of $2,500 million collected last year by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). In the last 20 years this mine has produced directly in metals approximately $450 million worth. This type of operation, in secondary jobs entirely away from the seat of operation, contributes about two and a half times its primary production towards the gross national product, which would raise the $450 million to over $1 billion attributable to it.
In the last 20 years that one mine has paid, directly and indirectly, almost $75 million to the federal treasury, or approximately five times the national average, based on the copulation of Flin Flon. If anyone is inclined to think that this figure of $75 million is exaggerated, I would point out these facts gleaned from the minister's budget papers. Over the last 20 years the revenue of the dominion has been approximately 15 per cent of the gross national product. It has varied little except for the war years. I have just pointed out that this one mine has been directly and indirectly responsible for over $1 billion of the gross national product, and 15 per cent of $1 billion is $150 million. That is twice the $75 million that I mentioned previously.
That $150 million is ten times the national average. In the last 20 years the gross national product was approximately $150 billion. If all the people of Canada had produced wealth at the same rate for the past 20 years, the gross national product would have been approximately $600 billion or four times what it has been; and I have not taken into account the secondary drive of primary production which would more than double the figure.
I leave it to you, Mr. Speaker, whether this is treasure or not. It is figures like these that gladden the heart of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). This is just one mine in Churchill constituency. Although it is the largest, there are other large ones such as Sherritt Gordon and the Howe Sound at Snow lake, besides other small ones; and I have already mentioned Lynn lake where some millions of dollars have already been spent on development. Now, sir, when the Minister of Transport asks you for funds to enable the Canadian National Railways to extend another artery into the northern treasure house let these figures lighten your heart and say:
The Budget-Mr. Weaver "Yes, I'll ask parliament for the money", and you will do it in the knowledge that it will be bread upon the waters returning manyfold.
There is so much to say, Mr. Speaker, about this northern constituency with its Hudson Bay railway, its ocean port, its inland fisheries, its huge lumbering industry and the rich Swan river valley that I cannot do it justice. It will be sufficient to say that this is the territory spoken of in a quotation I am about to read from an address delivered by Mr. S. W. Fairweather, vice-president, research and development, Canadian National Railways, Montreal, before the Engineering Institute of Canada and the Association of Professional Engineers of the province of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Thursday, January 12, 1950. He said:
The subject which I intend to discuss is of particular interest to those who are developing what I have elsewhere termed the "frontier fringe of Canada." In many countries the word "frontier" has a grim significance but the frontier of which I speak is not a dividing line between nations, it is a dividing line between the developed and the undeveloped. Beyond it lies opportunity, a challenge to the venturesome and a sure hope of reward to industry, intelligence and perseverance. By the definition of my term, the frontier of which I speak is not static. It is being pushed back year by year. It has receded far beyond the position it occupied along the coast and the St. Lawrence river 200 years ago. Only one life-span ago this city of Winnipeg, with all its present amenities of civilization, was on the frontier fringe. Development pressed westward from the east and eastward from the west until from ocean to ocean the natural resources of Canada were made available in a belt of varying width. Now the path of development lies northward and much of what we regarded not many decades ago as a hostile, barren waste is proving to be a storehouse of wealth-the reward of the hardy, modern pioneer. The rock drill and the mine shaft may have replaced the plow and the grain elevator as symbols of development; but whether the development is of the forest, the fisheries, agriculture or mining, the end objective must be profit to the individual and an increase in national wealth.
Suffice it to say that I once heard Mr. R. A. C. Henry, former deputy minister of railways and one of the greatest authorities on transportation in Canada today, in enumerating the goods transported over the railways of the different provinces stop when he came to Manitoba and say: "You know, I never realized before how rich Manitoba was." So, hon. gentlemen, when the government asks you for funds for the north, vote them, in the sure knowledge that you are making no mistake. In speaking of this treasure house and this wealth that has come out of the north in recent years I would mention that it was not trundled out in a wheelbarrow, as the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) mentioned once before when another member was speaking of northern possibilities.
1842	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Fraser
I will not take much longer, Mr. Speaker, but in closing I want to refer to the remarks made by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) in this debate. In this connection I want to congratulate the government and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), not on cutting the melon a year ago, as the member for Greenwood is so anxious to point out, but on the preparing of the melon for the cutting.


Arthur Leroy Smith: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the hon. member take his eraser and erase the reference to me from his speech which he read just now.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to apologize for speaking, because it is the privilege of every hon. member in this debate to rise in his place and criticize the government for its management or mismanagement of the affairs of the country, whichever it may be.
I have never hesitated in this house at any time since 1940 to rise in my place and criticize the government when I thought it should be criticized, and I am going to do it at this time. During those years I have also made a number of suggestions to the government, and I am very glad that some of the suggestions have been carried out, and very successfully, too.	.
When the budget was brought down last year an industrial worker in Peterborough, a union man, stopped me on the street and said: "Mr. Fraser, you know them down at Ottawa pretty well. Tell me this: Did these birds down there work very hard to try and reduce the income tax so that we working people could have a few more dollars to spend?" I said: "Your guess is as good as mine." He said: "Well, I do not think they worked very hard; in fact the reduction that they have made in the income tax to me is not worth any more than the value of the hole in a doughnut, because although they did reduce the income tax a fraction at the same time they are so extravagant in spending that they have increased the cost of living, and it has taken away every bit of good that the reduction in the income tax should have given us."
I met that same man last week, and he said: "Well, the budget this year is not any better, and certainly Mr. Abbott, the Minister of Finance, is trying to keep up with the Joneses with the $2,400 million budget. That man certainly cannot realize the fact that Canada is only a country of about 14 million people and we are taxed $2,400 million. You cannot expect anything else when the government or its agents hand out to people who are retiring, such as Mr. Vaughan, former


president of the C.N.R. $50,000 as an honorarium, just as a present." The same man said: "What can the average workingman on a daily or hourly wage expect?" He said: "Nothing but what we are getting, and that is just two things, high taxes and high cost of living." That is the opinion of a workingman.
In order to keep up with the Joneses this government, with the taxpayers' cash, is paying over 280 publicity agents to glorify the ministers of the crown and to build up this government. They did that before the election and they have kept at it since. They are doing it in newspaper, magazine and streetcar advertisements, and that does not include radio or films that the different departments are using. This is a fact, because I had a return tabled in my name this week, No. 102B, which showed that over $120 per hour was spent by the Canadian government on publicity, $2 a minute, and that does not cover the situation by far. This $2 a minute, or $120 an hour, goes on for every hour of every day of the week including Sundays, or 365 days of the year. As I said, this does not cover the whole story. It does not cover the offices or the cost of the rent of the offices that these people occupy. It does not cover the telephones they use, the upkeep of the offices or anything of that nature. Nor does it cover their travelling expenses. I shall have to put another question on the order paper to try to get an answer.
Then, there was a dandy on the order paper in my name today! This was just a simple little question in regard to a radio program heard over the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I asked if it was a C.B.C. program and the reply is, "No information." Then, to two other questions the answers are "No information"; "no information." I shall have to put another question on the order paper on that subject, also.
Last year in a new department of government they spent $229,138 for publicity alone. As I said before, this does not cover office space, telephones and things like that. If we were to dig into that figure we would find that the department spent at least a quarter of a million dollars on publicity-and that is a new department.
I acknowledge that we do need information and publicity, and that some of the money spent for this purpose is properly spent. I want that thoroughly understood. But at the same time even government members will have to acknowledge that a great deal of this literature is nothing but a buildup for the government-political propaganda. A great deal of this stuff comes into members'

offices and is spread around the country. It just reaches wastepaper baskets and does not go any further.
All this reminds me of an election advertisement which must sound very funny to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) today. This ad, issued during the campaign, is headed, "A Word to Housewives and Homemakers", and says:
You are Canada's biggest spenders. Every week you lay out your housekeeping money on food for your families and clothes for your children.
The Conservative party has pledged itself to devalue the Canadian dollar if it gets into power on Monday, June 27. That devaluation will help a few Canadian industrialists, but it will not help you.
It will mean that a Canadian dollar will buy only 90 cents worth of goods in the United States, and that all imported goods will therefore go up in price.
All your tropical fruits-oranges, bananas, grapefruit, and so on-and your imported vegetables, will go up in price.
Your cotton goods will go up in price.
Your sugar and dozens of other foods that you use every day in your kitchens will go up in price.
Can you afford to lose ten cents on every dollar of your housekeeping money?
If you cannot, vote for the Liberal party, which gave you family allowances and has done its level best to keep living costs down.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The highest cost of living we have ever had.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: And just a few short weeks after that the dollar was devaluated.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: They saw the light.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: And a lot of this publicity is no more reliable than that advertisement.


James Sinclair: If you want some real laughs just look at some of the old Tory ads in the last election.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Look at the Liberal ads in Vancouver Centre. They take the cake.


James Sinclair: Not in Vancouver North.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: This ad, in view of the manner in which the dollar has been devaluated, just shows what kind of things the government ' did during the election campaign.
The minister has said that not much can be done to reduce extravagance in government spending. Unless business methods are employed by the government in the different departments, this is true. At the present time there are really no business methods in government. I wish I could quote what was said in a certain committee today; but of course it is not proper for me to quote anything that takes place in a committee of the house. Only the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) can do that, and get away with it.
The Budget-Mr. Fraser


Lionel Chevrier: You asked for it, and you got it.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: And you got it right back.
I said a moment ago that all departments of government were not covered in the return tabled in my name, in connection with publicity. Therefore, on April 21 I asked the Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley) if he would get a full return for me. Today the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) said something would be done.
I have here the list tabled in my name on April 17. This, remember, is for a nation of only 14 million people. It does not cover, as I said before, radio or film advertising. Believe me, that would run into a considerable sum. I have a question on the order paper in that connection at the moment.
What I now have is a condensed report of the return. Remember, there are 80 press gallery reporters in the parliamentary press gallery. They are there from all over the world but most of them are Canadians. These are men paid by their own newspapers and magazines to report what takes place in parliament, and to keep abreast of government business. Yet the government is trying to duplicate what those press reporters are doing-and doing well.
In a nation-wide hook-up early in April Mr. Abbott asked: Where can we save? Mr. Abbott ought to be able to answer that question himself, without appealing to the nation for the answer. During the war we had an information office which did good work.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes, it did good work.


Mr. Cote (Malapedia-Malane):: At long last you admit it.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: But when the war was over the Department of External Affairs was supposed to take over that information office. Now it seems that every department of government has its own information bureau. I look at it this way: if I had a dog and it had fleas I would scrub it and wash it and put it by itself. But the government seems to clean up one little thing; they put the dog with the other dogs that are flea-infested. Every department is stuck with the same bug. There are no business methods in any of the departments. Believe me, that condition has spread to every department of government, and it is multiplying all the time, at the expense of the taxpayers.
This is where a business consulting firm should be brought in so as to check the advertising and publicity departments of the government.
1844

The Budget-Mr. Fraser


An hon. Member:: They would spend more money than ever.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: But if that business firm were brought in and made a report and then if a committee were set up to study the report and to make a survey of the different departments, I feel sure great savings could be made in this publicity.


Douglas Charles Abbott: We do not need an outside committee when you have the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser).


Mr. Fleming:: Give him a chance.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I am glad the minister said that. If he will look back he will find that he has acted on some of my suggestions. I thank him very much.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And the budget has gone up since.


James Sinclair: I am worrying about my job, now.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I shall read this publicity list from the Montreal Gazette, because it seems to be complete. It states:
In all, the return tabled . . showed that 19 government departments and branches were incurring publicity expenditures amounting to $1,046,000 each year. Government employees engaged in publicity work was set at 280-113 permanent civil servants and the remainder "temporaries."
Biggest spender for publicity was the Department of External Affairs-
That is where the information bureau was supposed to go:
-which admitted to employing 51 civil servants for the work, at a total cost of $226,000 yearly. Of this total $124,000 was listed in salaries.
The Department of Agriculture is running in second position, with annual publicity expenditures of $172,000. The Post Office Department rates third, with items totalling $150,000.
Publicity expenditures listed for the various government departments were as follows:
Department	Empl. Expen.
Agriculture	
64	$172,400Citizenship and Immigration	
4	11,340Civil Service Commission	
2	4,320External Affairs	
51	226,400Fisheries	
11	74,600Labour	
11	31,120Unemployment Insurance	
11	32,160Mines and Technical Surveys_____	1 No estimateNational Defence	
19	62,470Health and Welfare	
28	77,880National Revenue	
2	7,000Post Office	
28	150,500Film Board	
12	44,700Secretary of State	
10	30,200Trade and Commerce	
17	52,600Transport	
4	13,300Veterans Affairs	
12	44,700Prices Board	
3	10,500
In the case of the Department of National Revenue' I know that they also have radio advertising because this was revealed in a return tabled in my name.

The article continues:
These figures, while substantial ones, are not sufficiently complete to furnish much evidence of the extent of the dominion government's publicity operations.
The Department of Justice turned in no figures whatever. Nor did the Department of Finance, or public works. Also missing were returns from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the Dominion Coal Board, the National Research Council, the Atomic Energy Control Board, the Canadian Maritime Commission, the Board of Transport Commissioners, the Air Transport Board, and other government agencies which also turn a hand to publicity work to some extent or degree.
The Foreign Exchange Control Board, which submitted no list of publicity expenses on its own or through its parent Department of Finance, has an item listed in the current estimates of $30,000 for a "public information program." During 1949-50, the estimated expenditure under this heading amounted to $68,700.
The Canadian Tariff Board, which also uses publicity releases fairly frequently, turned in no estimates whatever. It also comes under the Department of Finance.
From the figures given above, it will be seen that the Wartime Prices and Trade Board gives its total publicity outlay at $10,000 per year. Yet the 1949-50 estimates provide for an "advertising" account by the board with an estimated cost of $50,000.
The new Department of Citizenship and Immigration puts in a modest claim to spending a little more than $10,000 per year on public relations purposes.
I shall not go through the rest of it as I think I have given enough to show just what we are spending on publicity. A business firm was engaged to look into the operations of the national film board and they brought in a most comprehensive report which I hope will be acted upon. They showed that the accounting system was not what it should be because it required a chief treasury officer and a staff of twenty-one employees to keep the accounts of that one small organ of the government, the national film board. On more than one occasion I have said that business methods should be adopted in the departments of government and I mentioned particularly the national film board. In this instance it has taken the white light of publicity plus an independent business examination to disclose waste and inefficiency such as could scarcely exist in any properly managed business concern.
There are all kinds of press releases put out by the different government publicity agencies. I received one the other day from the information division of the Department of External Affairs dealing with the implications of the cold war for Canada. This particular release contained the text of a speech by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) to the Canadian Club and is eleven pages long. The press covered that meeting quite fully, but there is one paragraph in this release which surely takes the cake. It reminds me of the story of Red Riding Hood where the

wolf puts on the grandmother's clothing and pretends that it is quite meek and mild. When I read this paragraph I know that a great number of hon. members will agree with me when I say that these press releases are not all they should be. This paragraph appears on page 4 and reads as follows:
One aspect of that responsibility, one contribution we can make to ultimate success in the cold war is to maintain right here in Canada a strong and healthy free community in which the state remains our servant and does not become our master;
I know that every hon. member in this house, after witnessing the exhibition we had the other day, will agree that that is not so, that the government with its overwhelming majority is acting as master of the situation while the opposition has little chance of putting across what it should be allowed to do. The fact that the government will put through things against strong objection, not only by the opposition but by the country as a whole, shows that the state is the master and dictator and not the servant of the people.
That fact was brought out in a committee of this house when a Newfoundland member wanted to ask some questions. The chairman thinking that the Liberal member who wanted to ask the questions might embarrass the government suggested that the questions be placed in his hands, and the hon. member did that. There was another attempt by the same member to get his questions answered, but it was put down again by the chairman.


James Sinclair: On a question of privilege, the hon. member should name the chairman, otherwise he will be unfair to the chairmen of all committees of this house.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It was the chairman of the committee on railways and shipping and it was the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter) who was sat upon. We have not heard anything about those questions although they may be in the report.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not want to interrupt the hon. member, but he is inaccurate when he says, "We have not heard anything about those questions." It was suggested to the hon. member that he put his questions in writing and they were answered by the president of the Canadian National Railways and form part of the report. I am sure the hon. member does not want to be unfair.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I am not unfair because they were not answered verbally.


Lionel Chevrier: They were not answered verbally.
55946-118J
The Budget-Mr. Fraser


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is what I am getting at. They were not answered verbally; they were covered up in the report.


Lionel Chevrier: If they were not answered verbally it was in order to allow the hon. member to put them all in writing so that it would save the time of the committee. They are in the report as it is now.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: They might be in the report, but they did not want the member to get up on his feet and put those questions. You could see that, and it is an absolute fact. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) could curtail more of this publicity. He has a responsibility to the taxpayers. It is easy enough for him to dodge his responsibility but he cannot dodge the consequences of dodging that responsibility. I think that is something every cabinet minister should take into account. The Minister of Finance knows that every business firm in Canada at the present time is doing the accounting and collecting of income tax for the Department of National Revenue. I feel that this department should ascertain what it costs each business to collect these taxes for the government, and that portion should be deductible from business income taxes.
The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) is not in his place in the house, but I should like to bring it to his attention again that the people of Peterborough feel we should have an income tax office there and not just a branch office with only a little place


James Sinclair: More expense.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It might be more expense to begin with but in the long run it would save the government a lot of money. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) long ago promised me that we would have a new federal building in Peterborough.


Alphonse Fournier: If I promised it you will get it.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is fine. I appreciate that very much, and I hope we shall get it soon.


James Sinclair: He didn't say when, though.
Mr. F raser:	There is no reason why
provision could not be made in that federal building for an income tax office.


James Sinclair: More expense.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The Peterborough district
supplies more than one-third of the total income taxes collected in the Belleville district, and Peterborough is the logical place for such an income tax office.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Especially now that the highway is going that way.

The Budget-Mr. Hetland


James Sinclair: That is more expense, too.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Peterborough is one of the very few places in Canada that have branch income tax offices. As the Minister of National Revenue is in his place now I should like to point out that I brought to his attention the condition of fifty or more people standing in line on a Saturday morning waiting for one income tax man to do the job.


Mr. McCann:: How many are at the
vendor's?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: On the following Monday they put four people in there. They are handling the job well and every person seems to be satisfied with what they are doing. I thought I should tell the minister that because on that one Saturday there was only one man in the office. He told me he had not expected there would be such a rush that day on the income tax office, and in order to save the other three employees he thought he would try to handle it himself. He said that he made a mistake and would never make it again. If we do not get a permanent income tax office in Peterborough I suggest that next year, and until we do get one, the branch office be opened some time in March and not just from the first of April. Then there will be more time in which to check returns. It is on Saturdays when there is a rush of farmers coming in from outside the city and also workingmen from the city itself. I think it would help a great deal. It would not mean extra expense because the people in the branch office are employees of the department anyway. Trouble would be avoided in looking after income tax returns at the Belleville office and the government would save money thereby instead of wasting it.
I have mentioned the fact that different departments of the government have not used businesslike methods in their accounting. They have not at any time. It might have been right when our budgets only called for $200 million or $300 million, but now that we are running up to $2,400 million we must have business methods in government because at the present time the government of Canada is big business.


Mr. J. I. Heiland (Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, listening to all parties in the house I have come to one conclusion, that we are all interested in more immigration. In fact the government seems to have clear sailing in the matter of amending the immigration laws. I should like to say a few words about German nationals. It is now five years since the war ended. Some say that the subject of German nationals is a ticklish question. Why should it be? We are trying to be friendly with the western part of Germany


and are also trying to keep them from joining the communist group. How can we stop them if at this late date we call them enemies? There are a great many people in Canada of German descent, and it must be galling to them that we are still barring people of their nationality from this country.
Germans are good workers; they are honest and highly intelligent. By barring them we are losing a type of immigrant that we cannot afford to lose. Other countries are benefiting because of our immigration laws. These people are going to South America and elsewhere. German people assimilate very easily with other Canadians and take part in all our activities in the districts where they settle. If we brought them here they would not clutter up the labour market because they are mostly agriculturists. They also take pride in fending for themselves and rarely go on relief. Most Germans are religious and certainly are not communistic in their beliefs. They would be an asset to Canada. Furthermore our citizens of German origin are proud of Canada and would not easily turn to other beliefs and other ways of life. Other countries, especially the eastern block, are trying to tell them that they have something that we have not. There are great numbers of Germans in my constituency, and I have lived with them. I know what they are able to do. They have helped build up this country of ours, and most of them take pride in their work. They follow good farming practices, and intend to leave their farms to their sons in better shape than when they took them over. So let us offer them our hand in friendship and welcome them here, because we need them and they need us.
With respect to surpluses, often the opposition come up with suggestions which they think may help. I do not believe the government should throw out all those suggestions without giving them due consideration, because they may invite other suggestions, out of which we may get some solution to this problem. When an hon. member is sincere he should be given a fair hearing. With millions of underfed people in the world today, we should try in some way to help them. I have spoken with people who have been in China when famine struck that land. They have told of men going about the streets in the morning picking up the bodies of those who had died during the night, throwing them in carts and taking them to incinerators to be burned or to be buried. When we hear of such things we should be thankful that we live in a country like Canada; but we shall never be able to live in peace on this continent as long as there are hungry

people in the world. There are some things here we would like to make better, but on the whole our governments have steered the ship of state through all kinds of seas and brought it through in pretty good shape. We may still run into a few storms, but if we have faith and common sense I believe we can retain our high standard of living.
Now I should bring a matter to the attention of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson); that is the problem of drunken drivers on our highways, which is becoming almost our No. 1 problem. I know that to some extent it is a provincial matter, but they seem to be afraid to start anything that may have some effect on tourists coming to this country. I do not believe that would be the case, because I know a great many people today are very nervous when driving along our highways because they are afraid of meeting one of these drunken drivers. So I believe the federal government should step in and see that all the provinces have the same law. It seems that many drunken drivers get off because they are able to hire lawyers who find loopholes in the law so convictions cannot be obtained. If this parliament would bring in legislation that would permit our police to take an alcohol test, convictions would be obtained in almost all cases where drivers are under the influence of liquor. When I take my family out for a drive I do not think I should be in danger at all times because of these drunks. If they would only do away with themselves I would not worry or care, because the sooner we get rid of them the better; but they have no right to endanger the lives of others and deprive them of the pleasure of driving on our highways.
There is also another matter I should like to mention at this time; that is, pensions for the widows of members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I know of a case in my own constituency of a sergeant who retired after serving on the force for thirty years and 250 days. His pension was $1,593 per annum. After retiring he came west to live in a small town because of the high cost of living. One day he suffered a stroke and died. The widow was left without a cent, and never received a nickel after her husband's death. He also left a few debts, and she had to sell some of her furniture in order to get clear. She had been under the doctor's care for most of her life, and spent considerable time in sanitariums in Ontario. She now has to work to support herself; and in order to supplement her wages a certain lodge-I do not think it would be parliamentary to mention the lodge, nor do I think I should do so-is giving her $30 per month.
The Budget

Mr. Hetland
Surely this country should give her at least what this lodge is giving her. Surely that organization should not be called upon to help support her. Hers must be a needy case for the lodge to take a hand. As it now stands, the law does not give this widow anything. I believe laws should be changed when they do not provide for cases of this kind. That law has been changed now to take care of the widows of future pensioners, but it does not provide for the widows of members who served on the force prior to March 1, 1949. According to the unwritten law I believe this widow should be entitled to one-third of her husband's pension.
There is a good deal of discussion at the present time about social security, and I believe the government is sincere in its intention to bring in such legislation after receiving the recommendations of the committee that has been set up. It has been suggested that a contributory system should be adopted. This, as everyone admits, presents many difficulties. How are we going to get everyone to contribute? How are we going to enforce payment by certain classes? It is easy to collect from the labouring people as long as the employers are willing to make the collections, but many classes do not receive wages. I believe the easiest way to obtain money for such a scheme would be through a special tax, which might be called a social security tax. This tax would not apply to food, but would apply to almost all other articles. All these things have to be paid for in one way or another. If a man wants to buy a car or a yacht he can always pay a little more by way of social security tax. In my opinion this would be the fairest kind of tax, and would reach most people able to pay. I believe a majority of our people would welcome a tax of this kind, as long as they knew it meant security and hospitalization when they needed it. Further, they would realize that we cannot get something for nothing, and that the more security they wanted the more it would cost them. There would be less criticism of the government in power, and much less work in administration.
With respect to the international situation, I believe that as soon as possible we should recognize communist China, and I believe this government will do that when it sees fit. If we showed the people of China that we wish to be friendly it would not necessarily be a sign of weakness. It might well be a sign of strength and confidence. For ages the Chinese people have been living under governments that have been corrupt in every way. Can we blame them when they accept
1848	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. A. Gauthier doctrines that promise them a certain standard of living? If we show a friendly hand, surely it will do more good than harm; and we have nothing to lose.
China with her millions of people could be a wonderful market for our products, and no effort should be spared to gain her confidence. China has a great many things that we could exchange for our goods, and thus avoid currency difficulties. India is another country that we should help. Otherwise, communism has a good chance of getting a foothold there.
In conclusion I might say that the future does not look too dark. I believe that we shall be able to cross our bridges when we come to them. We certainly are going to make mistakes, because no government is infallible. I believe, however, that the people of Canada have confidence in this government and that, whatever problems arise in the future, we shall be able to meet them with courage and fortitude so that we shall be able to continue our high standard of living and also to retain the friendship of other lands so that we can talk more of peace and less of war.
I do not believe that the people of any country want war. We in Canada certainly do not. We should at all times try to show the people of the world that we are only too glad to extend to them the hand of friendship and love.
(Translation):


Mr. Andre Gauthier (Lake St. John):: I deem it my duty to take part in this debate. Since my last speech in the house, important events have happened. I am pleased to congratulate the government on the wise measures they have adopted particularly with regard to unemployment insurance for lumbermen. At the very beginning of this session, the government extended the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act to this class of workers. They even went one step further and made these provisions retroactive.
The lumbermen need some protection against the hazards of an industry which remains unstable and seasonal in character, in spite of certain tendencies in the opposite direction. In extending the provisions of the act to lumbermen, the government has shouldered its responsibilities and protected an impressive number of workers in my riding. I am happy, on behalf of this class of worker, to thank the government for this measure of justice and foresight.
[Mr. Hetland.l

The various amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act have attained their aim in partially decreasing seasonal unemployment, which hits more severely the lumbering industry.
The Aluminum Company intends to undertake in the near future important projects in the Chute au Diable district, which will solve for the present the problems of the working class.
But the farming class also has its problems. Since the government is keeping aware of the needs of every section of the Canadian people, and in view of the favourable way in which my requests have been received in the past, I am again confident in pleading the cause of our farming people.
Dairy farming is the basic industry in the constituency of Lake St. John and the most important one to the farmers. It is therefore not surprising that they should be highly interested in the price of milk, butter and cheese. In the past, owing to the excellent agricultural policies of the government, they have obtained a fair price for these products. The present instability of the market and a decline in the price of these products have brought about some degree of uneasiness among farmers. The price of feed and fertilizers remains high. It is easy to understand why the possibility of price gaps and the prospect of producing without profit, if not at a loss, should worry our farmers. I bring the matter of feed and fertilizers more particularly to the attention of the government so that every possible means may be taken to put these products within the reach of our farmers.
Through clubs in each parish of my constituency, the Union catholique des cultivateurs have asked me to urge the government to maintain floor prices on agricultural products, and on cheese in particular, at last year's level.
I take pleasure in acting as mouthpiece for the agricultural groups of the U.C.C. Agriculture is the Canadian economy's most stable industry. By helping to maintain the prosperity of the farmers, the government ensures the prosperity of the Canadian nation.
During the last session, Mr. Chairman, I urged old age pensions for all at age 65, without a means test. I am happy to note that the hon. the Minister of National Health and Welfare has moved that a committee be set up to make a complete investigation of the situation and to advise the government on

the policy to be followed. This committee will be given an excellent opportunity to suggest to the Minister of National Health and Welfare that steps be taken to protect those citizens who are invalids and those who suffer from some congenital or accidental infirmity. That is one social security measure that deserves to be carried out in the near future and the government would be well advised to give the matter its closest attention.
May I be permitted now,-and at this stage of my speech I am happy to see that the hon. the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) is in his seat,-to deal with a matter close to the heart of the people of the Saguenay-Lake St. John district, namely, the building of a railway between Chibougamau and Lake St. John. As a matter of fact, it is our duty, as Canadians, to encourage the development of our natural resources and the building of a railway between Chibougamau and Lake St. John. The government can make no mistake, since this mining area is already, without any doubt whatsoever, one of the most promising mining centres in Canada.
The natural economic outlet for the Chibougamau district is lake St. John. Historical rights, geographical reasons and economic interests all justify the building of a railway line up to lake St. John. Since 1897 explorers have always reached Chibougamau through lake St. John. As a matter of fact, even before the Abitibi district had been heavily settled, a proposal for a railway had been studied at lake St. John and submitted to the proper authorities. All those who are in good faith- and that is the case of everybody in the Abitibi district-admit the soundness of the demands made by the people from the Saguenay.
Hydroelectric power, the means of transportation such as planes, good roads and the water route of the Saguenay, all these reasons favour the selection of lake St. John as the natural outlet for the rich Chibougamau district. The wealth of a province should serve that province first, and those who suggest the building of a railroad to northern Ontario have surely forgotten that it would be wiser to keep for the lake St. John workers, and therefore, for the province of Quebec, the handling and processing of ore, the development of which has been made possible by the natural resources of the lake St. John district and the initiative of its people.
The Budget-Mr. A. Gauthier
This project would also help agriculture, colonization and the lumber industry in the district between St. Felicien and Chibougamau. In the interest of the district, of the province of Quebec and of the country I would request the authorities concerned, that is the government, the hon. Minister of Transport and the Canadian National Railways, to give careful consideration to the building of a railroad between Chibougamau and lake St. John and to carry out this project in the near future.
I was speaking a moment ago on the subject of the Canadian nation. I would like before concluding to speak of one of its most essential characteristics, namely its sovereign rights.
During the last electoral campaign, I stood, like the Prime Minister himself, for a really and truly independent Canada, a Canada owned and governed by Canadians at all levels of authority. What I was saying then was not the result of political expediencies, but the expression of a deeply-rooted conviction.
The results of the federal-provincial conference of January filled me with pride and confidence in the future. It is to be hoped that the interested parties will continue to work in the same constructive spirit and with the same understanding of the various points of view of the different parts of the country. This moderation, understanding and enlightened patriotism will continue, I hope, to govern the future negotiations so that we may have a truly Canadian constitution which will be acceptable to all Canadians.
I regret that I was not in this house on April 17 when the hon. member for Ottawa East suggested that a committee be set up in order to select a distinctive national flag. I am glad however that the budget debate is flexible enough for me to deal with this question. We are at a momentous period of Canada's constitutional development and this is a most opportune time to give our country a distinctive Canadian flag.
The nationals of a truly sovereign country are duty bound to insist upon a symbol of their common ideals.
Our national unity, our people's aspirations, our past history, our soldiers' sacrifices on the battlefields, our political freedom, won at the price of heavy sacrifices, our national prestige, our genuine patriotism, are many reasons, Mr. Speaker, which call for an immediate and final decision about a truly Canadian flag.
Much has been said about national unity. In my opinion nothing is better calculated to cement national unity than a flag which can

The Budget-Mr. Fulford truly and upon occasion serve as a rallying standard tor all Canadians. The citizens of this country are proud to belong to this happy and fortunate Canadian nation. The best way to show this common pride is to see to it that it takes shape in an exclusively Canadian symbol.
What I have just said of the flag may be applied also to the national anthem. "O Canada" by Calixa Lavallee, in its English and French versions, would certainly be the happiest and most logical choice. It is now accepted in every part of this country and all that is required now to ensure its definite acceptance and confirmation is an official declaration by the government.
Mr. Chairman, this spirit of Canadianism and enlightened patriotism shown by the Prime Minister and his cabinet colleagues give me reason to expect, in the not too remote future, a complete and unrestricted national sovereignty. A natural and indispensable complement to this sovereignty logically and sensibly calls for the prompt adoption of a truly Canadian flag and a national anthem. Around this flag we shall build together, in a spirit of unity and brotherhood, a prosperous, independent Canada, a true world power.
(Text):


Mr. G. T. Fulford (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, so much has already been written and said about the budget that it is not my intention in this debate to criticize nor to applaud the efforts of our genial and very capable Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott); but I would like to remind hon. members to compare our financial position with that of any of the other western democracies. When we observe our great neighbour to the south piling up annual deficits running into billions of dollars each successive year we can be quite satisfied with the amounts that have been written off our national debt in spite of considerable tax reductions since the war; and, furthermore, that Canada's budget again anticipates a surplus of some $20 million of revenue over expenditure with virtually no change in the tax structure.
What interested me particularly in the minister's carefully prepared presentation were two remarks pertaining to our foreign trade, and I shall quote him as reported in Hansard of March 28, 1950, at page 1208:
Frankly we have been a little disappointed in the apparent inability of overseas countries to resume their traditional share of our import market during the past year.

Later on the same page appears this statement:
Our overseas exports as a whole, however, were down by more than $100 million in these four months, and our overseas imports down by $12 million.
The four-month period referred to was November, 1949, to February, 1950, inclusive. Considering the quota and monetary restrictions so prevalent throughout the western world, but especially with regard to our traditionally best customers within the British commonwealth of nations, it is really a glorious achievement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), and Canadian industry that our foreign trade is being maintained at such a high level.
The fact that our exports to the United States are ever increasing should be most gratifying, because the goal may soon be reached which we have been striving to attain for so many yars, where the balance of trade may be equal or even in Canada's favour.
No one who saw the motion pictures shown in the railway committee room last month of the stupendous development in the iron ore areas of Labrador, or read of the great potential oil fields of Alberta and Saskatchewan, could help being impressed with the glorious future that lies ahead of us. We must never let ourselves become satisfied, however, because self-satisfaction leads to complacency, and real progress can only be attained by continually striving to expand our domestic and foreign markets.
Private enterprise has done a magnificent job in Canada, and private enterprise will continue to serve our best interests. While I am on the subject of private enterprise, Mr. Speaker, may I ask how these 13 members of the Conservative party are going to explain their position of having voted for the amendment of the C.C.F. leader to the resolution of the Minister of Trade and Commerce on April 18, an amendment which would have reimposed wartime controls on industry? In fact, one of the interesting features of this session has been the number of times the Conservative party has upheld motions and amendments of the C.C.F. party. Sometimes you would almost think that they were one.


Mr. Hodgson:: How about your vote this afternoon?


George Taylor Fulford: I am beginning to believe that some of my Conservative friends are like the Irish immigrant. When he was asked his politics he replied: "Faith, I don't know, but I'm agin the government."


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: So are we.


George Taylor Fulford: I see you are.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: You know it, too.


George Taylor Fulford: I believe our government can assist both farmers and industrialists by negotiating more multilateral trade agreements, by granting further reciprocal arrangements, and even by barter with certain nations if the occasion should warrant such action.
At this point I should like to pay special tribute to the personnel of our diplomatic corps and of our trade commissioners, and to urge the government to increase the number of our Canadian offices abroad. I have been associated with a business that has connections in practically all democracies of the world, and I can assure all hon. members through you, Mr. Speaker, that it is impossible to calculate the aid that Canadian firms have received from our trade commissioners. The diplomatic prestige of Canada is out of all proportion to our population, and too much credit cannot be given to our Department of External Affairs for the calibre of the men chosen and trained to represent us in our embassies and legations. I should like to offer as a suggestion that Canada's trade commissioners and diplomatic corps be more closely integrated even to the point of complete amalgamation so that promotions can be made from one branch of the service to the other.
I should now like to point out a certain area where latent markets do exist that have not as yet been fully realized, or perhaps I should say where our trade is being severely curtailed. We must bear in mind that Marshall aid money to Europe will end in two years, and as a result a large source of United States dollars now supplying Canada will then cease to exist. We must be prepared for this eventuality, and therefore any latent markets must be surveyed and developed. I refer to the possibility and advisability of greatly improving our trade relations with the British American territories from Bermuda in the north to British Guiana in the south.
I shall now digress for a moment to explain the financial position of other dominions within the commonwealth. At the conclusion of the first world war there were vast German possessions in Africa and the south Pacific which were surrendered under the terms of the peace treaty. The Union of South Africa gained a mandate over South West Africa which embraces an area of over 317,000 square miles with a population of 318,000, of which nearly 31,000 are of European
The Budget-Mr. Fulford extraction. Although certain local administrative and legislative powers were granted this territory, the Union of South Africa under article 2 of the mandate-
-shall have full power of administration and legislation over the territory subject to the present mandate as an integral portion of the Union of South Africa and may apply the laws of the Union of South Africa to the territory, subject to such local modifications as circumstances may require.
Thus, our sister nation within the commonwealth obtained not only a great additional territory but also a tremendous potential market in which to buy and sell.
New Zealand first obtained territorial expansion in 1901 when Great Britain under the Boundaries Act of 1895 allowed another sister dominion to annex the Cook islands, a group of fifteen islands in the south Pacific and Niue with a total area of about 200 square miles and a combined population of over 18,000.
When western Samoa was surrendered by Germany after the first world war, New Zealand was given the administration of this territory which consists of two main islands and several smaller ones with a combined area of about 1,200 square miles and an estimated population of over 71,000 according to the 1947 census.
Trade with these territories has shown a consistent upward trend with exports showing a favourable balance over imports for some years. This trade is strictly regulated by the New Zealand government and the importation and exportation of goods is permitted only under licence with countries other than New Zealand.
Ross dependency was granted New Zealand in 1923. This territory in Antarctica has an area of 175,000 square miles but is completely uninhabited. It affords land bases for whaling operations where an annual fee of 200 pounds is charged for each expedition and a royalty of 2s. 6d. for each barrel of whale oil produced.
Of all the commonwealth nations Australia has gained the most in additional territories being brought under the federal administration. Norfolk, a tiny island between Australia and New Zealand, was created a distinct and separate settlement in 1856 under the jurisdiction of New South Wales, and in 1913 was accepted as a federal territory of Australia. Small as the island is, with an area of only 8,500 acres and a total population of 938, it has proven to be a valuable tourist resort and land station for the "All Red Cable" from Great Britain to Australia and New Zealand via Vancouver.
Papua was the first territory of treaty importance to come under the authority of

The Budget

Mr. Fulford the Australian commonwealth, when in 1906 it was accepted by proclamation by the government. It has an area of over 90,000 square miles comprising 87,000 on the main island and 2,800 on adjacent islands. The official population is estimated at 300,000, of whom only 3,000 are whites. Much of the revenue of the territory is raised from import duties and Australia grants free entry into Australia of certain goods produced and imported direct from Papua. The trade statement of 1941 shows imports exceeding exports but Papua has large mineral deposits and potential natural resources which remain to be developed and which include gold and copper.
In September 1914 the acting governor of German New Guinea capitulated to the officer commanding a naval and military expedition sent from Australia, and thereafter the territory was under military administration until the establishment of civil government in 1921.
The territory has an area of about 93,000 square miles comprising northeast New Guinea, the Bismarck Archipelago and the Solomon islands. The total population is over
680,000	of whom only 3,400 are white.
The territory is rich in natural resources and the ratio of exports to imports averages over three to one with Australia obtaining the vast bulk of both exports and imports.
Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand have joint jurisdiction over Nauru, formerly part of the protectorate of German New Guinea. The island has only an area of 5,200 acres with a total population of 2,800 but valuable deposits of phosphates are worked with the entire normal annual production of over one million tons going to Australia and New Zealand. It may be of interest to note that although the territory is under a joint administration the complete authority is vested in the federal government of Australia.
Mr. Speaker, at no time has Canada sought or been offered additional territory beyond the confines of British North America; nor do I suggest for a moment that we should even make such a demand. I do feel very strongly on the subject, however, that we are being deliberately refused the right to trade with the British West Indies on an equitable basis and I am .assured many West Indies business firms resent the fact that their markets are being denied us. What good are the preferential tariffs granted us if import and export restrictions are created against us under the guise of currency controls? As I have pointed out South Africa, New Zealand and Australia have all been
ceded territory which virtually amount to colonial possessions and from which they derive no uncertain trade advantages.
No one could conceive of Canada having any ambitions of colonial expansion, although from time to time one hears the suggestion that the British West Indies come into our confederation as the eleventh province. The difficulties in this are so manifold that I am afraid such a suggestion is impractical but by no means impossible should the colonies themselves express such a desire.
At present there are no less than nine separate territorial administrations each charging customs duties against the others, so trade between them is carried on in a most uneconomical way. Of the nine colonial groups British Guiana and British Honduras with a total area of nearly 92,000 square miles are on the mainland of South America and Central America respectively.	The
other seven are islands or groups of islands consisting of Bermuda, Bahamas, Jamaica-including the Turks, Caicos and Cayman islands, -Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados, Leeward islands and Windward islands with a total area of about 12,500 square miles. The combined estimated population in 1946 of all nine administrations was nearly 3 million of whom the vast majority are of African origin. In fact living conditions are exceedingly low in the British West Indies compared to our standards, and purchasing power is correspondingly meagre. An examination of the West Indies Year Book for 1947-48 shows that imports exceed exports in almost every colony, which is not a healthy condition and one which must be remedied by the building up of local enterprises.
I might say at this point that in the case of trade with Canada at the present time our imports from the British West Indies exceed our exports. I have been told by travellers and others that much must be done to modernize plant equipment and that modern electric power plants are a vital necessity. The Canadian Department of Trade and Commerce is fully cognizant of the trade possibilities existing in the British West Indies and has accomplished a great feat in increasing our trade to the extent shown by the figures published by that department.
I shall not give the annual figures, but it is interesting to compare 1938 with 1948. In the former year our total trade with the British West Indies amounted to approximately $34 million of which $14 million were exports and $20 million imports. In 1948 this trade figure had increased to $100 million, of which $58 million were exports and $42 million imports. In 1949, when Great Britain severely restricted imports from Canada, the

total trade figure had increased to $105 million, but the trend was completely reversed as regards exports, which had fallen to $43 million, whereas our imports had increased to $62 million, a difference of nearly $20 million in favour of the British West Indies.
An honest effort is being made by Canada to increase purchases from the British West Indies as is evidenced by the fact that virtually all our sugar requirements for 1950 are to be purchased from that source. We have further increased our imports of canned citrus fruit juice and I believe there are still more products that we could buy from the same source, such as cotton, coffee, coconut oils and petroleum, but in return positive guarantee must be given that Canadian dollars so earned will be used to acquire Canadian agricultural products, machines of production, and electrical equipment. At present all dollars earned in the Caribbean area are transmitted to London to be put in a general pool for the entire sterling area of the commonwealth, a policy which our government should use pressure to see is abolished or greatly modified by the British colonial office.
Canada and Canadians are popular with the people of the West Indies. For the last two years of the second world war the Brockville Rifles were garrisoned on the island of Jamaica where the battalion was treated with respect and held in high esteem in spite of the fact that our men were there to maintain law and order. There is undoubtedly unrest in many parts of the colonies which is natural where people are forced to live in poverty and want. That this unrest is real can be best shown in the editorials and news stories appearing in the leading papers of the various colonies. I have a number of editorials right here on my desk, but I do not intend to quote them all. However, I should like to quote in its entirety an editorial from the Sunday Guardian, Port of Spain, Trinidad, of January 15, 1950, which summarizes the general trend of thought in the colonies. This editorial reads:
Give us Economic Union With Canada
The West Indies sugar talks in London have ended on a note of pessimism contrasting strangely with the buoyant hopes aroused by the United Kingdom government's August, 1949, statement. It seemed then that we were assured a long-term agreement and special consideration with regard to quantities in view of the vital place the United Kingdom government acknowledged sugar to hold in the West Indian economy. These hopes have been *crushed and the B.W.I. deputation are leaving the mother country today without an agreement. What is more, the ministry of food has demurred about the talks being postponed to allow time for consultations in the West Indies before acceptance of the United Kingdom terms.
Much could be written about this inglorious ending to the sugar talks, whereby the West Indies
The Budget-Mr. Fulford are confronted with a cut in their export quota after the existing contract expires in 1952, while Britain in effect is offering Cuba and Santo Domingo a market for 500,000 tons a year. But invective can be kept for another occasion. The big question is, what are the West Indies going to do about the sugar situation? It is evident we can no longer rely on the mother country for reciprocal treatment of our major agricultural product, in spite of the high prices and marketing monopoly we are forced to concede to British goods. From now on the West Indies must depend less on Britain and turn their eyes to another quarter. Where better than to the Dominion of Canada, with which we have had long and cordial economic and cultural relations?
In view of the failure of the sugar talks, the Hon. Dr. P. V. J. Solomon has given notice in the Trinidad legislative council of a motion urging that trade negotiations be instituted for disposal of our exportable products in countries other than the United Kingdom, and asking for a larger allocation of hard currency for purchases outside the sterling area. While we are in full sympathy with the motion, it should be clear that more dollar exchange would make little difference to the West Indies today because of devaluation. The suggestion for trade discussions with other countries, however, ought to be acted upon.
The possibility of an agreement with Venezuela for the purchase of Trinidad sugar is already being canvassed, and the consul general for that country in Port of Spain seems hopeful that a contract will be negotiated. This might indicate a line of action which could profitably be pursued. Much more than this is needed, however, if Trinidad and the other British Caribbean colonies are to achieve the economic stability which can only come from assured export markets and reasonable financial returns. Instead of asking at this stage for more dollars, the B.W.I. should unite in sending a strong representative deputation to Canada to sound out the prospects for some form of economic union with that dominion.
This idea, in fact, is inexorably taking shape as an imperative necessity for the British Caribbean. The benefits of having our security linked with the Canadian dollar are evident, and Canada has shown an interest in these colonies which leads us to hope she may be willing to consider such an arrangement. The West Indies offer a sizeable market for Canadian goods, and these colonies have products to sell in which the dominion is interested. Then let the West Indies act at once and together in this matter. Let there be a vigorous stir throughout the British Caribbean to go to Canada and place our cards on the table, face up. There is nothing to prevent our doing this; on the contrary, the sugar ultimatum from London drives us to it as a means of simple self-preservation.
As you will see, the present trend oi thought is for closer economic unity with Canada and I know of no better time than now to press for this aim. I understand that the Canadian-British West Indies trade treaty is soon to come up for renewal and certainly the best reciprocal terms should be arranged along with the demand that the British West Indies be allowed to purchase at least as much from us as we have been buying from them. An unfortunate economic situation exists amongst the nine different colonial administrations whereby each has its own customs duties- and separate income taxes as well-which are levied not only against nations outside the Caribbean but also against each other.

The Budget-Mr. Fulford A system of uniform tariffs must be adopted if the West Indies are to achieve the greatest economic stability and at the same time create equal opportunities for Canada's trade with each colonial administration.
That a substantial market for our agricultural products exists is evidenced by the fact of our exports to the British West Indies during the war, and that these imports into the West Indies area are being seriously curtailed now there can be no doubt. Because of the currency restrictions many articles such as wheat flour, potatoes, butter, cheese, dried fish and evaporated milk are now being replaced by similar products from New Zealand, Australia and other soft currency countries. In the particular case of evaporated milk I know positively that importers have been issued instructions to buy this product from Holland. Naturally this is resulting in the loss of a valuable market to the farmers and manufacturers of this Canadian commodity. Butter is another dairy product which Canada could supply but it is now shipped halfway around the world from New Zealand to the markets of the British West Indies.
That the West Indian himself is not in accord with the British policy is forcibly expressed in a recent prize winning calypso song. I might explain that the calypso song is a method by which the West Indian expresses his thoughts and political views, and I should like to quote one of these songs taken from page 27 of the Canadian edition of Time of February 27, 1950. There are prizes given each year for the best calypso song, and I now wish to quote the one that won the prize for 1950 in the island of Trinidad. The title is:
Give up the West Indies, Britain The text of the song is:
In England the people live happily They get doctor, medicine and dentist free . . . While down here three-quarters of the population . . .
Dying out from disease and malnutrition . . .
I'm warning Great Britain, don't leave us for long
Or they'll wake up one morning and find these islands gone.
If they won't help us in our difficulties Why don't they give up the West Indies? f don't think I am so loyal today,
I don't mind this island being taken by the U.S.A., For one thing at least I feel confidentially,
We would sing our native songs in tranquillity.
The thoughts contained in this song are worthy of most serious consideration not only by the British but particularly by Canadians. We have proven that we are ready and willing to furnish what is most needed to help the British West Indies in supplying them with those commodities which will do much 
to give them economic stability. We definitely do not wish territorial expansion but in all justice we should be given the right to trade with those who wish to trade with us. It is a known fact that we have much to offer them and if we can help them by our efforts we shall do much to raise their standards of living, thus increase their purchasing power, and at the same time quiet the unrest that seems to be becoming so general throughout the colonies.
I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that these are unfair questions to ponder. What would be the reactions of the Afrikaans if South West Africa were forced by the colonial office to restrict its imports from the Union of South Africa? How would Australia feel if she were suddenly cut off from Papua and New Guinea? Would New Zealand stand idly by if trade privileges were curtailed with the Cook islands and western Samoa, or if she could no longer collect fees from the whaling expeditions in the Ross dependency? I am sure the answers to all these questions would be the same, and I am equally certain violent dissension would result. True, the matter of Canadian dollars versus pounds sterling is involved. But, Mr. Speaker, we are at the moment buying more from the West Indies than we are selling, and I repeat that we should be allowed to balance our trade on a fair and equitable basis.
I can only say in conclusion that I feel great mutual benefit will result if we can attain the right of freer trade relations with all sections of these territories comprising the British West Indies and stretching right from Bermuda to British Guiana.


Mr. Frank T. Stanfield (Colchesler-Hanls):: Mr. Speaker, I thought I should take part in the debate tonight because two or three times lately I have been taken for a senator, and I do not think any harm will be done if I get a few lines on Hansard. About two weeks ago I had to visit one of the departments, and I was talking with a gentleman there who persisted in calling me "senator". He kept referring to me as "senator", and when I was leaving he said, "I will write you and let you know about that, senator." I said, "I am sorry, but I am not a senator and I hope I shall never be." I thought perhaps it would be just as well for me to get a few more speeches in Hansard and then I would not be taken for a senator. The only reason I know of why I might be taken for a senator is that my uncle was a member of the Senate some twenty years ago. I believe he was there around 1934.
There are two or three observations I should like to make with regard to the budget.

The first is that the minister gave us a figure of 12 per cent representing salaries and wages that the government pays. I take it that refers to the salaries and wages of permanent and non-permanent civil servants. I thought it was a fairly reasonable figure, and I came to the conclusion that the civil service was giving the taxpayers pretty good value for their money, provided that the figure of 12 per cent is what I think it is. It would be very interesting to take the budget of 1938 and see how it compares with today as to that figure. I would think it would likely represent more than 12 per cent of the budget in those days.
We often hear civil servants referred to as people who do not work very hard, that they are a leisurely crew and all the rest of it. Personally I think that just the opposite is the case. I have found these ladies and gentlemen to be most courteous and I believe they are a hard-working lot. Some of them work a lot harder than I would care to. Therefore I do not think we are overpaying our civil servants at all. I do not think it is the civil servant who is wasting the taxpayers' money. It is our Liberal politicians. I do not say that the cost of government could not be cut down even lower than 12 per cent. Goodness knows we have a lot more departments of government and ministers now than we ever had before. If you go back to the year 1911, we had seven million people in Canada at that time. It is now 1950, and I do not believe we have more than thirteen million people today. Yet we have many more departments and ministers to govern the country now than we had then, and how much better are we being governed? I do not think the average citizen is getting any more help from the government than he did in 1911. It is time that a lot of the departments that are not absolutely necessary should be done away with in the interests of economy. I do not want to lay any blame on the civil servants. I think the figure of 12 per cent of the budget for the payroll which the minister gave us is not out of the way for everything that civil servants are called upon to do today.
There is another point the minister mentioned that I did not like at all. He did not think the cost of running the government could be cut below the $2,400 million he has estimated for the coming year. He said he thought expenditures had been pretty well pared, and did not see how they could get under that figure. Most of us do not want to have to go on paying the heavy taxes we pay today, so that statement by the minister was not very promising. I am not
The Budget-Mr. Stanfield saying we are going to have a recession, but if we should our revenues will fall off materially, both from corporation and income taxes. If that should happen we would be faced with two alternatives, either deficit financing or increased taxes; and, as I have said, most of us are tired of paying high taxes. After all, who pay most of the taxes? It is the men with incomes of $3,000, $4,000, $5,000, $6,000 or $7,000 a year, and today those men are having a pretty hard time to get along. Any thought of having to pay higher taxes certainly does not make them very happy; so if the minister is right it seems to me our only hope for lower taxation is through a greater inflation or an expanded economy. That may be pretty hard to bring about, because we are pretty well up the ladder at the present time, so I certainly hope the government can find ways of reducing its expenditures rather than raise taxes any higher.
I see the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is in his place; and speaking for my province of Nova Scotia I want to thank him for the interest he has taken in our marshlands. He set up a commission headed by engineers which has outlined a program to reclaim our marshes. That will be of great help to us in Nova Scotia because, as I have said many times, we have not too much land suitable for farming. Much of it is submarginal and good only for growing spruce trees and things of that kind. The farmland that was always the most profitable is in the counties of Cumberland, Colchester, Hants and Kings, where there is a great deal of marshland. When you drive through those sections of the province it is easy to see that they are much more prosperous than the inland or upland farms. Really I do not know how many of the people on the upland farms have been able to live all these years. Certainly they have had a very hard time. We in Nova Scotia do not produce nearly enough to meet our own needs, and we hope the minister may be able to bring in a few Danish and Dutch farmers for settlement in these new areas, because they are accustomed to working that kind of land.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) is not in his place, but I am going to mention the matter of the Canso bridge. I see the government has said that this bridge cannot be built because the trans-Canada highway requires a 24-foot roadway across it. To me that excuse seems pretty lame. I think that Canso bridge was just an election promise for last year, and I do not believe the government ever had any intention of building it. Anyone taking the trouble to study the tides and currents and ice and other hazards in the
1856	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Stanfield strait of Canso can easily understand why a low level bridge fourteen or fifteen feet above high water level cannot be built. The ice would pile up on the piers and take out that bridge the first spring it was there. They built a bridge something like that out in Vancouver and have had a great deal of trouble with it ever since. If they had that much trouble out there, how much more trouble would they have in the strait of Canso? Some day a bridge will be built, but I am afraid it will cost a great deal more than the proposal put forth by the government. Personally I never looked for the bridge to be commenced under the plans outlined in the house by the minister.

The next thing I want to talk about is the matter of freight rates. I do not know whether we are allowed to speak about freight rates at this time; but in any case it is eleven o'clock, Mr. Speaker, and I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we shall continue this debate.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, April 25, 1950