1953-03-06

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: On Monday last the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) asked me whether orders in council had been passed in connection with salaries of the governor or deputy governor of the Bank of Canada, of the chairman of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the president and vicepresident of the Canadian National Railways. I had been having the information looked up and copies prepared when I noticed in Votes and Proceedings of yesterday a notice of motion which the hon. member intended for next Monday asking for production of those orders in council. As it will not be possible for me to be in the house then, perhaps he would not mind if I anticipated the motion and tabled the orders in council at this time.
Orders in council have been passed since January 1, 1951, in the case of the president of the Canadian National Railways, the governor and deputy governor of the Bank of Canada, and the chairman of the board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
The vice-presidents of the Canadian National Railways, the president of Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited, and the president of Polymer Corporation are not appointed or confirmed by the governor in council. All relevant orders in council have been listed in the summaries of orders in council which I lay on the table from time to time as a result of the request of the hon. member for Lake Centre, except the latest order which was passed on February 12 last and which is included in the summary for February, 1953, that I have just tabled.
There were three orders relating to the present president of the Canadian National Railways, listed in the summaries as follows:
1.	Appointment-Donald Gordon as president, member and chairman of board of directors, Canadian National Railways. (Summary tabled November 30, 1949).
2.	Railways, Canadian National-Appointment, Donald Gordon, as director and chairman of board of directors-terms amended. (Summary tabled December 9, 1949.)
3.	Reappointment Donald Gordon as director and chairman of board of directors, Canadian National Railway Company. (Summary tabled October 9, 1951.)
The order relating to the chairman of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was listed in the summary tabled November 20, 1952, as follows:
Salary increase A. Davidson Dunton, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
The order relating to chairman and assistant chief commissioner of the Canadian wheat board was listed in the summary tabled August 30, 1950, as follows:
Increases in salaries of members of Canadian wheat board.
The house was informed of the salary of the president of the Canadian National Railways in answer to a question by the hon. member for Victoria, Ont.

see Hansard, page 1131, March 27, 1950.
As hon. members have been informed on many occasions, orders in council of a regulatory nature and orders imposing a penalty are tabled in accordance with the terms of the Regulations Act, but it is not and never has been the custom to table purely administrative orders unless there is some special reason for doing so, or some request; but they are listed in the summary.
I am tabling the orders which are now in effect relating to the positions referred to in the hon. gentleman's notice of motion.


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Cenire):: I
might ask the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) whether in so far as crown corporations are concerned, other than the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the salaries of officials of those corporations are known to the government or are required to be confirmed by the government.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Companies which come
under the Government Companies Operation Act, chapter 24 of the statutes of Canada for 1946, are governed by the following provisions:
(1) Every company may, notwithstanding the Civil Service Act or any other statute or law, employ such officers or servants as it deems necessary to conduct its operations and may determine

Crown Corporations
their conditions of employment and their remuneration which shall be paid by the company.
(2) Every company has the control and supervision of the officers and servants employed by the company.


John George Diefenbaker: I possibly did not follow the Prime Minister as closely as I should have. My question is simple, and put in simple form it is this. Are crown corporations in a position where they may determine any salary that they decide to pay these officials, and in no way be subject to government or to parliament? Does the government know what these officials receive? Is there any approval or have these companies got carte blanche in determining what their officials shall receive?


Mr. Sf. Laurent:: The boards are appointed by the government, and if they do anything that the government feels that they should not do, then the government is in the position of a body of shareholders in a company and can replace the board; that is the effective way in which control can be exercised.


Mr. Drew:: Then, in response to that, I would take it that the government is aware of the salaries that are paid, and would be able to express an opinion as to the nature of the salaries?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Well, I would not want to assert that I know at the present time what the salaries are. I do not. But there are reports that are prepared from time to time by these crown companies, and they are required to disclose to the government, as representing the Canadian people who are the shareholders, the way in which they are discharging responsibilities with which they are charged by their appointment as directors.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, surely there is
one simple question. Does the government, in respect of the supervision which is exercised in this way, know the salaries, or is it able to know the salaries that are decided upon by those who are operating these companies?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: As the minister responsible for several crown companies, I may say that the budget of the crown companies is submitted to the government, and has to obtain the approval of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) and the minister responsible for that particular operation.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, this is quite a
simple thing that can be answered in a simple way. Does that budget include the exact salaries paid officials of that company when it is submitted to the government?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.



POST OFFICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. T. Fulford (Leeds):: I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Does the Post Office Department contemplate issuing a special stamp or series of stamps commemorating the coronation of Her Most Gracious Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II?


Hon. Alcide  Cole@Postmaster General: The
answer is yes. A specially designed four-cent stamp will be issued to commemorate the coronation of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, and it will be offered for sale on June 1, 1953.


Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Nanaimo):: May I ask
the Postmaster General a supplementary question? What will be the design of the special coronation stamp which has just been announced?


Mr.   Cole@St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville: do not now remember all the details of the full description of the artistic design, but after I receive full information I shall be glad to give it to my hon. friend.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. Earl Catherwood (Haldimand):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Owing to the great influx of refugees from East Germany, causing a most disturbing situation in western Europe, will the minister state whether the government is planning to open the immigration doors a little wider to allow a greater number of these people entry to this country?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: The government is aware of the heavy load that is presently imposed upon the government of the federal republic of Germany because of the influx of refugees from eastern Germany. We are also aware of the fact that many of these people will not have been adherents to communist policy. In other words, they will have lived in. eastern Germany and have accepted the rule of that regime. I do not think, however, there is any doubt whatever but that a considerable number of those who are now seeking refuge in western Germany have been, until the date of their flight, active leaders in the communist party. Because of

these circumstances, we feel that we should not offer any special arrangements for immigration facilities, other than those that we have always offered to refugees.
In other words, if the refugees can meet the requirements of the Immigration Act and our regulations, then they may be admitted to Canada in due course. On the other hand, we recognize the load, as I said, and we shall do our best to examine these people as quickly as we can.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: May I
ask the Minister of National Revenue if he has discussed with the Minister of Finance this question of contributions to the Quebec education fund.


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Not as yet, but I shall be able
to make an answer early next week.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: On Wednesday, March 4, 1953, the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) asked me whether the applications for television stations as reported in the press were such as, under government policy, would permit private television stations to be established in those centres. I have inquired from the controller of radio, and I am informed by him that completed applications have been made to the Department of Transport for television stations at Hamilton, London, Kitchener, Sudbury, Windsor, Saint John, New Brunswick, and Sydney, Nova Scotia. These applications have been referred to the board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for their recommendation as required by section 24(1) of the Canadian Broadcasting Act.
These applications are in accord with the government policy, as announced by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and as explained in the house by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) some time ago.


John George Diefenbaker: In
connection with the reply just given by the Minister of Transport, does he mean by the
The Budget-Mr. Argue latter part of his answer that those are areas in which private television stations may be established?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, that is my understanding.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, March 5, 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. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that during this session there has been increasing evidence that this government is disintegrating before the very eyes of members of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, Oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have been dealing with the mess in regard to floor prices in the Department of Agriculture. The effect of a floor price providing 38 cents a dozen for grade A large eggs, and 5 cents for storage, has been that the farmers in western Canada are receiving 18 cents a dozen for their eggs. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is in trouble over something more than floor prices. He made a forty-minute speech yesterday and never mentioned the South Saskatchewan river dam. Apparently, so far as the minister is concerned, it is a dead issue. Now, he is away telling us he is going to build a railway from Churchill to Prince Rupert, apparently to take the place of the South Saskatchewan dam.
During the whole of the debate the minister did not make a statement to the house. He did interrupt, and he did answer some questions, but he decided to sit it out and ride it out. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) is not able to say what the government's plans really are in regard to the South Saskatchewan. He says he is waiting for more information. Well, the information is coming.


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: I shall be glad to receive it. I was informed it was coming from the government of Saskatchewan, and I hope it is on its way.


Hazen Robert Argue: Well, it is coming. It will be here. But the thing we are waiting to see is what action this government takes after that report gets here. The Prime Minister sat it out, he rode it out. When the Prime Minister had a motion on the order paper
2686	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Argue [DOT]dealing with emergency powers legislation, Ire sat that debate out too. He turned it over-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think the hon. member can refer to that debate.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, there are a great many things to which one could refer and which I know would make hon. members opposite exceedingly uncomfortable. There is another example of the Prime Minister sitting something out, riding something out, not touching it at all, turning it over and allowing the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) to handle the hot potato. Then it came to the mess in the Department of National Defence. The Prime Minister again said something about it but not much. Instead of taking action with regard to the minister, the deputy minister and high army officials, the Prime Minister followed his earlier policy and said, "I will ride this one out too; I will take a chance. I will stay with the boys in the cabinet even if they have proved themselves to be inefficient and incompetent." We had the Currie report. We had the Auditor General's report. We had the MacNab report that was printed or published .some years ago in the department. It has all come to light. As the days go by it is shown that there is more and more inefficiency and extravagance in that department, but the Prime Minister is riding it out.
Then we come to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). He was supposed to bring them all together. His budget was to take all of them off the hook. All I have to say is that it failed miserably. I am told that the Minister of Finance discusses his budget with the Prime Minister. The Minister of Finance must have been under the misapprehension that corporations have a vote in the election because it looks to me as though the budget was designed to get the support of corporations rather than the support and the good will of the mass of the Canadian people. I have no doubt, however, that such a good budget for corporations will result in improvement in the coffers of the party opposite and may assist them in fighting the election campaign.
I should like to hear from the Prime Minister about this budget. Maybe the budget is so unpopular with the people of Canada that he is going to ride it out and sit out the budget debate. The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) made a speech during the budget debate and one would have expected that the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair)-one of the big guns of the government when it comes to rough and tumble debate-would have been saved for a forty-minute speech defending the budget and 

attempting to prove the advantages of it. Instead of that, he followed the example that is often set by the Minister of Justice. He began to interrupt the hon. member for Moose Jaw and to question him; and before he realized what had happened he had-


An hon. Member:: Made a speech.


Hazen Robert Argue: -used his place in the budget debate and had made an ineffective speech of about five minutes, consisting mainly of interruptions.
The budget has been a sad disappointment to the people of Canada. I do not know where the budget was drafted but it bears all the earmarks of "Made in St. James Street".


An hon. Member:: Very cheap.


Hazen Robert Argue: Because if the boys down there-


Mr. Abbott:: A nice demagogic appeal.


Hazen Robert Argue: Call it what you like.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have.


Hazen Robert Argue: But the minister knows very well that 70 per cent of this budget is for big business and wealthy individuals.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Rubbish!


Hazen Robert Argue: This is a millionaire's budget. The public of Canada will deal with the rubbish contained in the budget speech.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The hon. member will be dealt with too.


Hazen Robert Argue: 
Mr. Prudham:: He did not steal it, anyway.


Hazen Robert Argue: I also note that the purchase
was made not by tender but by negotiation. I am certainly not going to question the legal implications of this transaction. As far as I am concerned and as far as I know the transaction was perfectly legal. Neither am I going to question the integrity of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys; but I question the propriety of such a transaction. I question whether a cabinet 68108-171
The Budget-Mr. Argue minister who controls a corporation should allow that corporation to enter into such negotiations with a crown company which is an emanation of the crown. I think a mistake was made. I think it would have been far better to have advertised for tenders. Surely nothing could have been lost because, according to the press report, the minister has made a statement that he paid more than it was worth; it was an inflated price that he paid. That being so, what was there to lose in advertising for tenders, having them submitted, and having the transaction fair and above board in every respect?
I understand that in the United States Mr. Charles Wilson sold all his stock in General Motors when he joined the Eisenhower administration. If I remember correctly the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) has disposed of any interest he had in the company that bears his own name. I do not go so far as to say that any member of the government should get rid of any company in which he may have a controlling interest, but certainly it is very unwise indeed for any minister of the government to have a company owned by him entering into a business transaction to purchase the equipment owned by a crown corporation. It certainly would have been much better if tenders had been asked for, and if, in the ordinary course of the way business is done, on that basis it went to the person or the company who had submitted the highest tender.
I turn now to deal with some aspects of another department. I hold in my hand a table showing the income tax collected from farmers by provinces in 1950. It was taken from the government's own publication, taxation statistics. If the house has no objection I should like to have it printed in Hansard.


Mr. Sinnoii:: Read it out.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Read it out.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, if I have not the consent of the house, I shall of course have to deal with the table as best I can, without having it printed in Hansard, in the time that I have at my disposal.


Mr. Speaker:: A question arose a few days ago with respect to this matter and I required the hon. member to read his table in full. Objection was raised by one member only to having the table placed in Hansard. It occurs to me that where there is general consent to the printing of the table in Hansard the house might wish me to allow it to be done. Or do the members feel that one hon. member should be allowed to hold up the printing of a table?

The Budget-Mr. Argue


James Joseph McCann: May I inquire, what is the nature of the table?


Douglas Charles Abbott: And the use?


Hazen Robert Argue: The table shows income tax paid by farmers on 1950 income. This information is all taken from the dominion bureau of statistics and other official publications.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Who prepared it?


Hazen Robert Argue: It is information on the net income of farm operators from farm operations; number of farmers, 1951 census; net income per farmer; income tax paid per farmer.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is important we should
know who prepared the table.


Hazen Robert Argue: I prepared them myself.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Charles Abbott: As long as that is clear I willingly consent.


Hazen Robert Argue: I took the official statistics from the various publications, and there are certain calculations in this table that I made myself. I have checked them very carefully. I hope they are correct; I believe they are correct.


Douglas Charles Abbott: As long as it is clear that the table was prepared by the hon. member who is making the speech I would be very happy to have it printed in Hansard, but I think the use must be made clear.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Mr. Speaker, that privilege was denied me last evening, but not by this member.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: A new beginning today.


Mr. Speaker:: I was not in the chair at the time, but probably there was not general consent.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: One man.


Mr. Speaker:: With the approval of the house I could make a practice, starting today, that one member of the house cannot prevent a table being included in Hansard if there is general approval for doing so.


Douglas Charles Abbott: With the greatest deference to your ruling, does the rule not require unanimous consent?


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: While we are on this point may I make an observation? A few moments ago I believe the Minister of Finance laid down the right principle when he said that if the hon. gentleman has prepared the table himself, and vouches for it, then it should go into Hansard.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No; I said I had personally no objection to its going into Hansard.


William Joseph Browne: Is that not a principle?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think the rule does require unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The rule does require
unanimous consent, but it has occurred to me that when one member only objects to placing a table in Hansard and all the other hon. members want the table included, the one member-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Why not two, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: -'should not prevent the others from having the table included.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, I can see that the
suggestion of general consent does not meet with the approval of the house at this time. I may suggest it on another occasion. It occurred to me that by the strict enforcement of this rule one member could thwart the wishes of 260 other members. However, in accordance with the wishes of the house, I shall enforce the rule strictly.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I thank you
very much for the consideration you have given to my request. Since one member, at any rate, objects to the table being printed in Hansard I certainly-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Hazen Robert Argue: -take no exception to that. That is the right of any hon. member. But the table does show the income tax that has been collected from farmers in the year 1950, the last year for which the statistics are available, in each of the various provinces.
I have noticed that the matter of collection of farm income tax has been given some considerable attention in this debate already. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) referred to teams of assessors in the province of Alberta that went around and used very questionable methods, rather strong arm methods was the statement made by the hon. member for Red Deer. The hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. Smith), a member on the government side of the house, made a very revealing speech in parliament the other day. He spoke of government income tax inspectors as hounds, going around hounding the farmers in that part of Saskatchewan. Then he related an incident that took place in the income tax office in the city of Winnipeg where a certain farmer was put through almost torture methods; the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings (Mr. MARCH 6, 1953
Nowlan) referred to the way in which income tax was being collected in the province of Nova Scotia and said that the farmers there had been put through the wringer. Therefore there has been considerable criticism of the method that has been used by income tax officials in the collecting of farm income tax.
I am not anxious to deal with that aspect this afternoon, but I think the results, as shown by this table, will indicate that what the hon. member for Moose Mountain has said in that regard must be correct, and what the hon. member for Red Deer has said must be correct, because certainly in Saskatchewan and Alberta there are efficient collectors of income tax.
In Ontario in 1950 the farmers made an average net income of $3,065, the highest net income earned by farmers in any province in Canada. On that $3,065 there was paid an average income tax of $12.60. In Saskatchewan in 1950 the average farm net income was $2,367, some $700 less than the income of the average farmer in the province of Ontario. The Saskatchewan farmer paid over twice as much in income tax. The Ontario farmer as compared with the Saskatchewan farmer paid only 40 per cent of the amount in income tax. The Saskatchewan farmer paid, on the average, $30.95, while the farmer in Ontario paid $12.60. Then let us look at Quebec. The Quebec farmer in 1950 made an average net income of $1,876. The British Columbia farmer did not do quite so well in that year, having an average net income of $1,598, or almost $300 less than the Quebec farmer. Well, the British Columbia farmer with his average net income of nearly $1,600 paid more than $26 in income tax. The Quebec farmer, with $300 more net income than the British Columbia farmer paid, on an average, 37 cents income tax.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Not so many bachelors in Quebec.


Hazen Robert Argue: Oh, the minister means the size of families? I will come to that. I have here another column showing the size of families. But I do not imagine the minister thinks that families in Quebec are 72 times larger than families in British Columbia, does he? Because I would point out to him that there was 72 times as much collected from British Columbia farmers in income tax in 1950, despite the fact that on the average British Columbia farmers earned $300 a year less in net income than did the farmers of Quebec.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not trust my hon. friend's figures; that is the trouble.
The Budget-Mr. Argue


Hazen Robert Argue: Then I would appreciate having the Minister of Finance deal with those figures. If he had them on the record he could check them easily; and if they are wrong I would appreciate his pointing out just where they are wrong, or having someone else do it for him.


An hon. Member:: Get Sinnott.


Hazen Robert Argue: But so far as I am concerned, I believe those figures are correct. When I put a similar table on the record more than a year ago there was no challenge of any of the figures I tabled at that time. They were right then, and I believe they are right today.
Then, let us take a look at the size of families-if the minister wants us to take note of the number of bachelors, and the numbers of dependent children. The figures indicate that the average dependents in British Columbia showed a figure of 1-8, while Quebec has a figure of 3 [DOT] 3-or 1 [DOT] 5 more in Quebec.


Douglas Charles Abbott: About 100 per cent higher.


Hazen Robert Argue: Oh, the minister says it is about 100 per cent higher. The difference in the size of families would place them in about the same net income position for taxation purposes. And with that same position we see that they collect 72 times as much income tax from farmers in British Columbia as from those in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, you can almost tell where the Liberal party is strong in Canada by taking a look at that table. Out in Alberta the Liberal party scarcely exists and the income tax inspectors are highly efficient. The Alberta farmer paid the highest net income tax. Even though on an average he earned less than the Ontario farmer, he paid over four times as much income tax.
Then, in Saskatchewan the Liberal party is weaker than in most provinces, but perhaps a little stronger than in Alberta. However, the Liberals have not been in office in Saskatchewan for some time. The income tax inspectors out there are right on their toes; they are efficient.
Out in British Columbia it would seem that the income tax inspectors may have been too good, because the Liberal coalition government of 1950 no longer exists. Certainly the income tax inspectors were very efficient in that province.
In Ontario they do a little, but not much. Even though the Ontario farmer has the highest net income, on the average-percentagewise or any other way that the mathematician, who is the Minister of Finance, may wish to employ-they pay, on a average' a very small amount of income tax.

The Budget-Mr. Pouliot
Then, of course, when you come to Quebec -why, they hardly know what it is to pay income tax. It costs them, roughly, the price of a package of cigarettes-just 37 cents, on the average. Yet the net income, per farmer, in Quebec for that year shows up favourably when compared with the net incomes of farmers in many other provinces.
When I began speaking this afternoon I said that this government has been showing .signs of disintegration. The Minister of Justice has run into trouble. The Minister [DOT]of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) would not enforce his floor prices. Then the Minister of Finance has brought in a sour budget. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) Js not collecting much income tax in some .provinces, while his income tax inspectors *are using methods that almost amount to torture, according to a Liberal member, in dealing with farmers in certain other provinces.
Then, of course, the department of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) is the prize of them all-waste, extravagance and corruption. I say this government reeks of scandal and the cabinet is loaded with reckless men.


Mr. Jean Francois Pouliot (Temiscouata):: Mr. Speaker, I am under the impression that the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) prepared his speech with the aid of a dictionary of synonymous words, instead of official statistics from the Department of Trade and Commerce. He would surely interest the house if he would tell how he arrived at his figures. It would be a mystery novel that would surely become a best-seller.
I shall brush aside what he has said about the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). The work of the cabinet is too big to be done by one man. It is equally divided among all the ministers.
Today I must tell the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) that the suggestion that his budget is a rich man's budget is untrue. Travelling to and fro on the trains I have met many people, and they all seem to be .satisfied. The morning after the budget was delivered I went to a store, and the clerk told me that even Conservative clerks in the store were all elated about the budget .brought down by the Minister of Finance.
But I understand of course that hon. members in the opposition feel that they must express dissatisfaction; it is only natural. The hon. member for Assiniboia is young and impetuous; he will mellow with age and will be the first to regret the way he has spoken about the Prime Minister this afternoon.
Well, sir, I should like this afternoon to offer some constructive criticism. We hear
[Mr. Argued
from some members suggestions about waste and extravagance. It is so much in their minds that I am sure if the South Saskatchewan river dam were built, the hon. member who has just spoken would call it extravagance and waste, and would be very bitter about it. It has not been done. He has asked that it be done.
Well, that is the depth of human nature. I noticed when listening to the speech of the Minister of Finance that he was very cautious in trying to do what Jim Robb did- to reduce debt and at the same time to reduce taxation. When hon. members are always asking for expenditures they cannot be surprised when taxes are not further reduced.
My constructive criticism has to do with preventing future expenditures of enormous sums of money by Canada and the United States, and to register a solemn protest against the perpetration of a thing that should not be done. Everyone spoke very well, even those who made wrong statements. I do not intend to disagree with anybody because I am going to deal with an entirely different matter. There may be those who will disagree with me afterwards, although I hope not.
My credentials are in the form of resolutions which have been passed by the county council of Temiscouata and by other municipal bodies in my constituency. His Excellency the Archbishop of Rimouski wrote me that he was giving me his entire support in this matter. I intend to refer to the possible flooding of 4,500 square miles in the province of Quebec, with a similar area in the state of Maine. That represents quite an area. Instructions were given to the international joint commission on September 28, 1950, to make a survey of the southern part of the province of Quebec, which included part of my constituency and neighbouring constituencies. Many civil servants and officials from various departments were sent there. One cabinet minister wrote me on August 19 last as follows:
You will note from the terms of the reference that it does not constitute a commitment on the part of either government to conserve and regulate the waters of the basin or to act on the recommendations of the commission. The surveys and studies are being made in order that the commission may advise the two governments as to what projects for the conservation and regulation of the waters of the Saint John river system, in its judgment, would be practical in the public interest. It is understood that in addition to studying the findings of the engineering and technical investigations the commission will conduct public hearings in the area in order to obtain the views of all persons concerned prior to formulating its recommendations.
According to the report of the New Brunswick Electric Power Commission for 1951

their revenue was approximately $475,000 per month. During the last provincial elections the premier of New Brunswick put out ten articles in his program with regard to hydroelectric power. Those were published in the form of full-page advertisements in the New Brunswick newspapers. Another full page advertisement contained the following:
Power development. Harnessed power of Tobi-que river electric power. Liberals fought for public ownership. Electric power blessing to farmers.
The question of hydroelectric development was submitted by the former government of New Brunswick to the electorate by way of the printed word and word of mouth. Everyone spoke about it, but what was the result? That government had a majority of 40 members in a house totalling 52 members but as a result of the election they now hold only 16 seats whereas the former opposition party now hold 35. A majority of 40 was turned into a minority of 20. I should like to quote some of the reports by members of the press gallery to their papers following the New Brunswick election. The correspondent of La Presse had this to say:
(Translation):
An error of strategy and a political mistake.
(Text):
Then Le Canada had this to say: (Translation):
The federal vote and the provincial vote are becoming more and more two quite distinct matters in our country. This fact has already been demonstrated; it will be even more so before very long.
(Text):
Then Le Soleil, the Quebec daily, contained this article:
If Mr. J. B. McNair had tried to have the Conservative party elected in New Brunswick, he could not have succeeded any better, it is said in Ottawa.
Those are the reports that appeared. I have met members of the government of New Brunswick and they have told me that parishes in Temiscouata county would not be flooded. A national subscription is being taken up in connection with natural floods in Europe and I am wondering if we should permit artificial Canadian floods that will cause just as much damage.
To indicate what has been done already by civil servants in various departments, I might say that they conducted aerial photography and ground control surveys at Squat-teck lake, Long lake, Boundary lake, Lac de l'Est and Daaquam. Ground surveys were also carried out at Jerry lake, Cabano, les Straits, Riviere Bleue, Estcourt, lac Enoutiere and Junction Sabine. I believe that is in Dorchester county. They also carried out drilling
The Budget-Mr. Pouliot operations, plowage surveys, and made real estate valuations. I got in touch with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), under whose jurisdiction the international joint commission comes, and asked for an opportunity to meet the commission when they were making an inspection of the reservoir sites. The date was set for July 8. I was there but no representative of the then provincial government of New Brunswick appeared. There were three or four officials of the government, one of whom looked so wicked that he made me think of a hound that was possessed. They did not want to give any information. General McNaughton was there, representatives of the county council were there, and the accredited representative of the Archbishop of Rimouski was there. They asked me to ask a few questions.
There was a gentleman in the civil service -natural resources and development-from Halifax, who was described by General McNaughton as one expert who knew everything about it. The name of the project that would affect one part of my county-there are others-is Morrill. There was a map on the wall and I said to the gentleman: By how-many feet will you raise the level of the water in my county? He said: Nine feet. Then General McNaughton intervened and said: No, no, no; it is seven feet. The expert had not passed his examination before the great general and the information was stopped then.
Then, I told the commission what it was about and what were the objections of the county to see so many people coming from Ottawa, various parts of the maritimes, three or four from New Brunswick and many from the United States. They were there and I wanted to tell them at the start what were our objections to any flooding of our part of the country.
I have the honour to express the feelings of the county council and of the gentleman who was the representative of the archbishop.
Then, I understand these gentlemen were in a hurry because they had accepted an invitation from the premier of New Brunswick to a two-week party on the lakes there-on the lakes that belonged to the province. They were to be the guests of the New Brunswick government.
I wrote to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) on July 31 this letter:
I am told that the whole group has been invited to a fishing party by Premier McNair. I would like to know how many of the people above referred to attended that party, where it took place, and how long it lasted.
It was not fair. When the council solicitor argues a case in court and he sees the judge
2692	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Pouliot go away with the other party, he finds it strange. That was my position.
Some Americans, who were much more decent than the members of the international joint commission, told me there was another big party that had been given in Quebec. It had been given toy the late provincial government of New Brunswick.
But I did not get the information. I was told by the Secretary of State for External Affairs:
I am afraid I have no information about the fishing party given by Mr. McNair, or, indeed, about any of the guests who were invited.
Perhaps the best way to obtain these details would be through Mr. McNair's office direct.
I have no objection to anyone going fishing but in such circumstances I find it rather queer.


Mr. Brooks:: Could I ask the hon. member the date of that meeting?


Jean-François Pouliot: July 8.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: 1952?


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, last summer. And I hope the hon. gentleman will get that information from the present government of New Brunswick and I hope he will pass it over to me -for the two parties: the one in Quebec city, and the one on the lakes.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I am ashamed of the discourtesy of the former government.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, well. It is always the same story. I find it a lack of ethics, and I do not see why those men who have to decide on the request of the government of New Brunswick could accept an invitation and rush to the party before giving the information asked for. It is the same thing. The same thing was said by Maxime Raymond, the member for Beauharnois-Laprairie, when he asked for the amount of liquor that had been bought by the government of Canada for the Quebec conference. They said it was not ethical. We have the right to know the amount that was spent. However, it is difficult for me to get it but it is easy for my friend; and if he does not want it, let him keep out of the way.
It seemed that the goddess of retributive justice, Nemesis, dealt with Mr. McNair and his government as she will deal with anyone who will set his foot on Temiscouata county to take possession there. It is remarkable that Nemesis could be remembered for that government, and it could be remembered also for Mr. Truman-because his government sent some people, with other bureaucrats, to my county, and the Democrats did not have a great chance at the elections.
I asked who were the people who attended the gathering at Cabano. When I speak to

some people I want to know to whom I speak. I was introduced to some of them and there were 32 seats in the dining room, all occupied by members of the party. I asked General McNaughton to send me the names. In the first place, he gave me the names of 16 only. There were three commissioners of the Canadian section, three commissioners of the American section, and then they have created two boards-the international Saint John river engineering board and the international Saint John engineering committee. I asked what was the difference between the board and the committee and they could not tell me. It was to give some importance to some members of the party.
On the board there were two members of the Canadian section, two members of the American section, and one secretary. On the committee it was the same thing. I learned later on that there were three advisers, one from the province of Quebec, one from New Brunswick and one from the company. I complained that the list was not complete because it represented only a small number of the people that were there. Then I got another list of 22 names on which 4 had been repeated, meaning a difference of 18.
There were many more than that.
Finally, I got my information from several departments and I am told that the list is not complete. There were four provincial civil servants, three from New Brunswick, and the consulting engineer from Fraser Companies, Limited; one adviser or observer from Quebec; two from the International Paper Company and subsidiaries; the chief engineer, Power Corporation of Canada Limited; the assistant engineer, International Paper Manufacturing Company Limited; 31 dominion civil servants

3 commissioners, international joint commission; 1 secretary; 3 from mines and technical surveys; 6 from resources and development and 8 from public works.
With respect to Americans from the state of Maine, no civil servants. It made all the difference in the world. There were six power executives, one of them representing the governor of the state of Maine. There were 15 federal civil servants-3 commissioners, international joint commission; 1 secretary; 3 from the United States geological survey and 8 from corps of engineers, United States army.
Resume: 4 from New Brunswick; 2 from International Paper Company; 1 observer from Quebec; 6 observers from the state of Maine; 31 dominion civil servants; 15 federal United States civil servants. I had to go to New England for a couple of weeks to obtain some information, and I was satisfied to obtain it there.
IMr. Pouliot.]

Now, sir, there are three existing hydroelectric projects in New Brunswick. They are Grand Falls, Tinker and Tobique Narrows. There are eight proposed developments. They are Rankin rapids, Fish River falls, Masardis, Castle Hill, Morrill, Beechwood, Hawkshaw and Glazier lake. I was told that the commission would make a report and select a site, and that would be done next April. I wonder why such a thing should be done? There is no necessity for it. In a financial weekly, I think it was the Financial Post, it was stated that the development is not needed now and that it will be only required in fifteen years. What was the rush? Was it to be used as a screen to cover the scandals of the last New Brunswick government? Was it to distract the attention of the people from what they had done? I do not know, but there was no need for that.
I have met many industrial men in the state of Maine who work for power developments, and they told me that they had enough power to sell a small surplus to New Brunswick, especially to the town of Edmundston. There is no need for that. The other day one of the brightest younger members on this side of the house spoke of the Passamaquoddy development. It is just a bait for obtaining the consent of the state of Maine to other hydro developments. It is absurd. It would work by the ebb and flow of the tide, like perpetual motion, to create the power. Who will ever think of that?
You know, sir, my county has been supplying timber for the Fraser Companies' mill at Edmundston for a long period of years. If it were not for Temiscouata county, that big mill would not operate at all. I suggested years ago that the provincial government should buy title to the Thomas seigniory, where these forests are. Unfortunately, there was some difficulty and the thing was not done. At the present time it is Edmundston, New Brunswick, that has all the advantage from the cutting of timber in my county. It is easy to see the Madawaska river, the outlet of lake Temiscouata, filled with logs which are going straight to Edmundston to supply the mills. What does it give to us? We have only trouble with these neighbours. They want to get all we have, and now they are trying to flood our parishes, just because of a request made by a dead government to cover its sins. It is done that way, and it was concocted by the bureaucrats here in Ottawa.
Not only that, but I have another complaint about the province of New Brunswick and the International Paper Company. This International Paper Company has built a dam in my county for a reservoir to supply Grand
The Budget-Mr. Pouliot falls. As a result the water level of lake Temiscouata has risen by many feet. As compensation, in virtue of legislation, New Brunswick was supposed to deliver to Quebec at cost price 5,000 horsepower which could have been used by my county. I asked them, and I publicly did so, for an option to be given by the government of Quebec at that time to the county council of Temiscouata or to the city of Riviere du Loup to use that electrical wealth. What happened? I have here a letter that I will put on the record. It is a letter from the deputy minister of the department of hydraulic resources of the province of Quebec. It is dated October 17, 1952 and reads as follows:
(Translation):
"Department of Hydraulic Resources Province of Quebec
Office of the Deputy Minister
Quebec, October 17, 1952
Mr. J. F. Pouliot, M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa.
Dear Mr. Pouliot:
The honourable Mr. Bourque has asked me to reply to the letter you sent him on October 4 last, in connection with the act amending the charter of the New Brunswick Electric Power Commission Company, and more particularly section 7 of the said act.
It is true that according to that section, the company was to place at the disposal of the lieutenant governor in council of the province of Quebec, at a point on the border line, a permanent supply of 5,000 horse-power and that the lieutenant governor in council could authorize any person, municipality or company to use, in whole or in part, the said electric power.
It does not appear from our files that the lieutenant governor in council has determined any point on the border where the 5,000 horse-power could be delivered and there is nothing also to indicate that the government of the province wanted to take advantage of, or make available, the said 5,000 h.p.
Out of the numerous storage dams mentioned in the statutes of 1925 and 1927, only one has been built. It is that of lake Temiscouata and at a level two feet lower than was requested by the St. John River Storage Company, with which cur department has a lease regarding that water storage on lake Temiscouata.
(Text):
I beg to remain,
Yours very truly,
(signed) A. Dussault,
deputy minister."
Then, there are coal deposits in New Brunswick. I know that steam power is used to develop electricity. The coal mines in New Brunswick are mentioned in the report of the hydro commission. Why does not the government of New Brunswick or the power commission use the coal from the maritimes to develop the power if they need more?

The Budget-Mr. Pouliot


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Why should they not use both, just as many other provinces do?


Jean-François Pouliot: They may use everything, as long as they do not flood my parishes.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I should like to ask the hon. member a question. Was that not done through an agreement with the province of Quebec when Grand falls was developed? Quebec agreed to it. If Quebec is not getting her share of the bargain now, is it not her own fault?


Jean-François Pouliot: It is not her own fault because the province of New Brunswick diverted it somewhere else. I will tell the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) one thing. It is that I have many good friends in New Brunswick, and what I complain of most is the clique that ran the affairs of New Brunswick until they were defeated. I hope that he will not attribute the same thing to the present government of New Brunswick.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I can sympathize with that point of view.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will tell my hon. friend another thing. It is this. When I complain about these things that have been done, my complaints are justified. I do not mean to say anything against the province of New Brunswick as a whole.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I would hope not.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not want to offend my friends from New Brunswick. I still have friends there. But there are others who are rotten politicians and they will use any device in order to cause harm to the other provinces of Canada. That is what I complain of.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The people have already dealt with them.


Jean-François Pouliot: But there are many people who do not know about it, and I want to explain. I know that when I am through my hon. friend will agree with me entirely.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I agree with the hon. member 90 per cent.


Jean-François Pouliot: Especially on the eve of the time when atomic energy will be used, it would be absurd to waste $100 million, $200 million, $300 million, $400 million or perhaps half a billion dollars for electrical development which will be harmful to a large section of the country and which is not needed according to the wisest brains of the state of Maine.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: They are wrong there.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend has not met them. For a diversion I will now read an
[Mr. Pouliot.!

article in French. My hon. friend will not understand me and hence I shall not be interrupted.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I do not understand my hon. friend's English very well either.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will send my hon. friend a copy. There is shown a picture of a falling spire on which there is an SOS from le coq gaulois. I would ask the page boy to give this to the hon. gentleman and while he is learning French I will read it. We will read it together. It was published in October last and reads as follows:
(Translation):
Villages Under Water
There are hardly any more poignant memories than that of the outline of the little church of St. Cyriac which long held out on the banks of lake Kenogami, after the whole village had been submerged by a man-made flood. The same fate overtook the larger community of St. Methode, when the level of lake St. John was raised. In the first instance the intention was to harness the water power which now serves the industries in Chicoutimi. In the second case this was a result of the construction of the huge dams at Ile-Maligne, Shipshaw and Chute-a-Caron.
At the present time other villages are threatened with extinction as a result of artificial flooding. In this case it is not only an isolated village like St. Cyriac which is concerned, but a complete agricultural area in the county of Temiseouata, with six long-established villages.
The international joint commission is at present looking into a proposal to raise the level of several lakes and rivers in Temiseouata county, in order to allow a greater production of electric power for the province of New Brunswick and the state of Maine. The carrying out of this project would involve the flooding of nearly half the villages of Riviere-Bleue, St. Marc, Squatteck, Cabano and Notre-Dame du Lac and the complete extinction of the village of Lac des Aigles. The farmers whose lands border on rivers passing through these same localities would suffer also from disastrous flooding, the citizens of Temiseouata have stated in a resolution of protest.
The entire population of the province of Quebec cannot remain indifferent to the plight which threatens a considerable number of citizens and an important portion of its territory. At lake St. John and Kenogami, it was possible to say that such a tragedy was necessary to progress: damages were relatively limited and pecuniary compensations were adequate and arranged on friendly terms. Above all, those who were driven away by the floods were absorbed by the urban centres which emerged as a result of the great hydroelectric developments which have enriched the very territory of the province of Quebec as a whole.
The six or seven villages of Temiseouata county are in an altogether different position. There can never be adequate financial compensation for the mass exodus imposed upon these people by flooding. This tragedy will create, in the province of Quebec, no industrial centre capable of absorbing the displaced populations. The province of Quebec itself will derive no advantage from a development designed for the benefit of New Brunswick and Maine.
Such being the case, the province of Quebec must be extremely vigilant. If it cannot object, in the final run, to sacrifices required for the

progress of a sister province, this serious loss of territory will have to be compensated by a gain of territory and the exodus of the population will have to be compensated by an adequate gain in population. The ethnical and geographical situation of Quebec and New Brunswick is suitable to such friendly arrangements.
In any event, the problem created by the erasing of about ten villages, a large area, as well as hydraulic resources, is not one that can be solved by distributing a few dollars to the people who are thus going to be driven out. (Le Soleil, Quebec).
(Text):
There was another article which was published by Le Soleil and which was extremely sympathetic to us. When I meet the members of my two county councils on Wednesday I will tell them that I have explained the case in the House of Commons to the best of my ability and that I was interrupted only by a Conservative member from New Brunswick, a fact which means perhaps that the party of the actual government of New Brunswick is the same as that of its predecessor.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That is rather far-fetched.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not know what it is. It may be so. But my hon. friend may be sure that he has once more killed the chances of any Conservative candidate in Temiscouata county at the next election. I will tell you something more, Mr. Speaker, and it is this. I make a direct appeal to the government of Canada and also to the government of our great and powerful neighbour nation, to stop all that bureaucracy about flooding part of Temiscouata for the benefit of a dead government which could not enjoy any advantage from it; and the province of New Brunswick does not need it at all. If they need it, let them try it on Maine. Grand falls is all in New Brunswick. Grand falls is not on an international section of the Saint John river. The Grand falls water development is all inside of the province of New Brunswick. If they want to make arrangements with regard to any hydroelectric development they want, let them get in touch with Maine. Over there they will meet exceedingly fine people who are much more obliging than are some bureaucrats of Ottawa that I have met at Cabano. They are helpful and considerate people and real businessmen, and they are well disposed towards Canada, as everyone knows. I am sure that the result will be that no wasteful expenditure will be made and that the people will be happy. Why should people have to worry for fifteen years? Imagine the farmer in his house, with his wife and his children, not knowing what will be their fate, whether their house will be destroyed or whether they will not use their land. They will be in the same position as are the poor people in England, The Netherlands, 68108-172
The Budget-Mr. Diefenbaker Belgium and the countryside alongside of the North sea and the channel. It is no life for them. The matter should be settled at once. The commission may make its report but I do not see why the commission should make a decision on a site. That is why I protested this afternoon. I thank the house for the way they have listened to me and I also thank my friend the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) for his interruptions which have been most useful to me.


John George Diefenbaker: In
rising to say a few words in regard to the budget I wish to follow a course of not repeating the arguments that have been advanced, beginning with the outstanding analysis made by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) and the speeches of other colleagues who followed him. I shall begin by referring to the words of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) who, when speaking over the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on "The Nation's Business" broadcast on February 24 last, said that when he brought down the budget last April:
. . . that the only reasonable hope for real reductions in the tax load must lie either in a lesser need for defence expenditure or in a steady expansion in our national production.
I suggest that there was also a third means, and the most effective means of all in the present circumstances, namely, the need to practise economy, to abolish and abandon waste and wasteful expenditure, which the government has shown itself unable to do except with resolute inaction and apathy.
I am going to deal with the two points raised by the Minister of Finance, and then I shall refer to some examples of waste and extravagance which indicate that not only is there waste and extravagance in the defence department, which has been proved beyond any question, but the civilian departments of government are permeated with the same indifference to wasteful expenditure.
The minister said that we must look at the world situation, for a considerable portion of the expenditures have to do with defence. We meet on this occasion in the shadow of the death of Marshal Stalin and on the day of the assumption of power by the new leader, Georgi Malenkov, who has been chosen as the successor to Stalin and who will have the responsibility during the days and years ahead of determining the course of world history.
All of us, our budgets, our economy, our livelihood and our existence, depend to a very considerable extent upon those who occupy the Kremlin. The one bright spot in history on an occasion such as this, with the passing of Stalin, is that Russian history

The Budget-Mr. Diefenbaker shows that after Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great and Catherine the Great had passed away, there was for a considerable period of time in each case a reversion in activity internationally and a pronounced diminution in aggressiveness against neighbouring countries.
What was Stalin's stand? Was he the enigma that he was pictured to be? Was it his influence that held back the legions of tyranny from actual warfare? All through the years since 1945 the shadow cast by the Kremlin has put fear in the hearts of men. Every nation has had its policies modified or controlled by those in the politburo. Our hope is that with his death the prospect might herald the end of the world's half peace, and the dawn of peace, although there is nothing in the life of Malenkov that would indicate, in his insularity to international viewpoint, any alteration in the policies that have led to the forward march of communism in the world.
Stalin emerged as absolute, supreme and unquestioned. The hope has been expressed that in divisions amongst those in the politburo who would succeed him there would be hope for the future; but one must be an optimist to believe that a peaceful world will take the place of the world of the last few years, with the same apostles of persecution, terror and aggression sitting in the Kremlin, headed by a man whose vision has never been widened or developed by foreign travel and intercourse with foreign nations. Therefore on this occasion, hopeful as we would like to be, we cannot look forward to the years ahead but with that fear that has gripped the hearts of free men everywhere. Therefore the hope for an altered budget through reductions brought about by the elimination of international fear may not be expected. Indeed, those of us who were privileged this morning to hear one of the greatest of present-day British leaders, Lord Ismay, could not but have been impressed by the fact that his hopes are not for the early removal of aggression. His hopes for peace are in the strengthening of responsibilities and the sinews of defence among the members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
Any early reduction in taxation must come as a result of removing waste and extravagance, which the government has not seen fit to do and cannot deny, because Canadians everywhere can point to examples of it. The hope of reduction in taxation consists in removing much of the wasteful attitude that exists now, in meeting the squander mania that seems to have seized


hold of this government in all its ranks, and to substitute an attitude of mind that will demand and secure reductions in unnecessary expenditure.
Finally, private enterprise must be assisted and given the opportunity to expand and develop, and, by building a strong economy in Canada, to make possible the diffusion of the load over as large a base as possible.
As far as the budget is concerned, my friends on the government side of the house may argue as they will that all is well and that the people are satisfied. Let them go out into the country, in -the highways and the byways, and learn the truth. Let them realize the facts that the mirage of budget night has been dissipated in the sunlight of investigation that has taken place since and in the analysis of reductions which that night had the appearance of reality but which in effect result in the meagre savings that were referred to this afternoon by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue). Let them go out into my province of Saskatchewan. I would like to hear some of the Liberal members from Saskatchewan speak about this multitude of income tax inspectors. One is not supposed to call them by that name. They are referred to as intelligence officers; that is the description given by the government.


Mr. Boucher:: I never saw any of them.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is not going to be a candidate next time, so naturally he would not see those things.


William Albert Boucher: That is more than you can tell.


John George Diefenbaker: They were so numerous in Saskatchewan just before the last provincial election that, rumour had it, it became necessary for them to wear white badges in their respective lapels so that one would not be chasing the other.
All through the west, all through Saskatchewan, they advanced. The hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. Smith) described the situation the other day; and I would suggest that the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Boucher) get in touch with him, because he was able to tell stories which can be multiplied over and over again in Saskatchewan.
I say we need to have economy practised. Too much and too many of the moneys extorted and squeezed from the Canadian people are being wasted by the parasites of extravagance. Only a few days ago I read a speech by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) in which he said in effect, "If the Canadian people get to know the facts, then all will be well for us".

Strange as it may seem, while that is the view of the Minister of Justice, the attitude taken by the government in recent days has been this-supported always by its overwhelming majority-that the lid of secrecy be applied wherever an endeavour is made to pry into waste and extravagance. They say: Let the people know-and then they use their overwhelming majority to keep the people from knowing the facts. There have been example after example; and no excuses made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), either in that capacity or in his capacity as Minister of Defence Production, that the questions being asked are overworking his department, can conceal the fact that what is being done by the government is to cover up, to conceal and not to reveal the situation as it is.
I am not going into examples that have already been dealt with. Rather, I shall deal with one case in Saskatchewan which, I suggest, is indicative of this government's attitude of mind. May I revert for a moment by saying that I asked a question regarding salaries in the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. That corporation took from the Canadian people by way of assistance $80,500,000, and parliament is to be denied information as to what is being done with the Canadian taxpayers' money.
There is a similar situation in other departments, and particularly in crown corporations. The stand taken by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) today was simply this, that while the government was in a position to review what was being done by these corporations he himself, as the Prime Minister, had no idea as to the salaries the officials are receiving.
That is a most peculiar situation-concealing from the Canadian people, but of course for the good of the Canadian people, things that the Canadian people have the right to know.
And now let me give an example from Saskatchewan. It is a simple one but indicates the attitude of mind of those who have contracts from this government. I am referring to the Lunam Construction Company Limited. It did not exist a few years ago; but as the result of a multiplicity of contracts it finally found itself a large contracting company. It did a considerable number of jobs in Saskatchewan. About a year ago it went out of business, after it had mulcted the Canadian people to the extent of thousands of dollars, indicating that at no time was there any effective examination made of the accounts it produced for payment.
The Budget-Mr. Diefenbaker
Let us take, for example, the new Indian hospital at Qu'Appelle. This company contracted to build it for $336,000. It was paid $296,000 on account-and I am just giving the round figures-and then it went out of business. What happened? In Saskatchewan there are material suppliers, merchants, lumber yards, plumbing firms and the like who are owed by that company sums aggregating $61,000. The government refuses to pay. Credit was given because it was a government contract. The government, in order to complete the building, must spend many more thousands of dollars. The result is that before it is completed, if it is going to pay these innocent people who advanced assistance and who should have been protected, it will have to spend another $80,000.


George Prudham: Do they not have mechanics' lien laws in Saskatchewan?


John George Diefenbaker: Mechanics' liens against government property? Not very effective.


George Prudham: Surely it is.


John George Diefenbaker: Not very effective.


George Prudham: Yes, it is.


John George Diefenbaker: The attitude taken is this in effect: "You waited too long; you thought you were going to be protected." The suppliers say, "We thought we were going to be protected", but now they are in the position where they are out a large amount of money. The company has flown; and, if the accounts are paid, many tens of thousands of dollars beyond the cost of the contract will be required to complete the building.
Let me give another example, the new public building at Fort Qu'Appelle, as it is described. It was to cost $132,000, and we find that $103,000 was paid to the company. I would ask the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham)-because, if one may judge from the notes in front of him, he will probably speak this afternoon-to tell us, as one of the great contractors in this country-


George Prudham: I am not a contractor.


John George Diefenbaker: He can speak on the subject, because he is experienced as a contractor. I would ask him to say whether that kind of thing is justified. Where was the examination of the progress reports? Why were material suppliers not protected? The company was paid $103,000, but still owes honest, respectable people in Saskatchewan $40,000 for materials the government received. To complete the deal will require $37,700 if the accounts are paid. This kind of thing

The Budget-Mr. Diefenbaker went on for a long time. This company collected its money but it was wasted and there was no control exercised in proportion to that which should have been expected in connection with the contracts.
Here is the next one, the unemployment insurance commission office in Regina. A contract was let to this company for $215,000 and $180,000 was paid to the company on account. A total of $58,000 is still owing to the material suppliers and the government says in effect, "Well, after all, this is their look out". If this is to be completed and the accounts paid, that building will cost a further $99,000 of the Canadian taxpayers' money.
This company built three schools in the Crooked lake area. They built a residential school at Lac la Ronge; they built an Indian agency school on File hills. There too there is owing to the material suppliers on these contracts a total of $21,698, and in order to complete these particular buildings a further $20,000 will be required to be spent.
That is just an example but it is not unusual. As a result of the failure of the government to act against wrongdoers and to protect the public interest there has developed an attitude of mind in this country on the part of some who have contracts with the government. That attitude is, "Who is there to stop us? Who is there that will investigate? Where are the auditors?" There is a complete breakdown similar to what was revealed in the Currie report. There is a breakdown in accounting and, above everything else, a breakdown on the part of the government. That government had as one of its members the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, who would know how to go about matters such as this. He is in the cabinet and I am sure if given the opportunity he would, above everything else, have demanded that the public interest be protected.
I have given these examples, but there are others which indicate that attitude: Waste, spend and spend, and tax and tax.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) says this budget is one that holds out hope. I think of the 70 per cent of Canadians to whom it holds out no hope. I was impressed by the minister's radio speech a few days after his budget speech, in which he held forth to the Canadian people hopes of further reductions in taxation, and said:
I felt that it was especially important to reduce those taxes which interfered with normal incentives or which placed an excessive penalty on successful effort. Relief in these directions would, I believe, contribute to a further expansion of output and in this way lay a sound basis for more tax reductions in the future.


I am going to give the Minister of Finance an opportunity to answer a question. This is an election year. The budget is what is called a cyclical budget; the cycle comes up as the election approaches. Is it the intention of the government between now and the election to use its powers under the Emergency Powers Act to reduce taxation by order in council as it did in 1945? I think that is a matter that Canadians have a right to be assured about. I do not want to refer to another debate, Mr. Speaker, but we had difficulty finding reasons for the re-enactment of the Emergency Powers Act. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) did mention the election, but it never occurred to me that the emergency might have something to do with the reduction of taxes. The government reduced excise taxes in 1948. I know the minister will say immediately that those reductions were made under the powers contained in the Excise Act.
Is it the intention of the government to reduce taxation between now and the election under the Excise Act? Is it its intention to blossom forth as an apostle of free trade between now and the election? Does it intend to use the powers contained in the Emergency Powers Act to do what it did during the election period of 1945 when on May 18 of that year, after the writs for the election had been issued, order in council, P.C. 3408, came out cutting taxation in connection with a number of commodities under the powers contained in the War Measures Act. I should add that the War Measures Act contains no other powers relative to the reduction of taxes than does the Emergency Powers Act. I shall wait for an answer and I hope the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys will be able to give it when he speaks. I hope he will be able to give the house assurance that the same kind of fiddling with the tariff and reducing taxation for political purposes will not be done in 1953, to repeat the performance of 1945.
I have mentioned orders in council reducing taxation. You may ask why I did that. I did that because this is an election year. Last evening we had a speech by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) that had all the earmarks of a campaign speech during the coming election. As I listened to him and read his speech I realized that we were hearing the same old arguments and seeing the same old strategy. Talk depression, talk of the days of 1930 to 1935 and blame it on the Conservative party when every country in the world, free enterprise or socialist, had the same or lower prices.
Talk protection and say how this party is allied with great interests, with silk hats and striped trousers. Mr. Speaker, if it were

not that I did not want to quote Mr. King, who today as far as the Liberal party is concerned is almost the non-speakafole Canadian -if it were not for that I would suggest that they should look up one of Mr. King's speeches of 1935 when he read the list of members in the Senate and their directorates. I do, for the benefit of my hon. friends opposite, ask them to do that at the present time when they speak of such alliances.
I ask them: Why is it that while they talk of tariff reductions, protection is being given in this budget to the electrical industry? Some days ago there was an interesting question asked by the hon. member for The Battlefords (Mr. Bater), in which he asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) whether there was going to be any additional tax on tires and tubes for vehicles attached to tractors and the like; and the Minister of Finance said no. My hon. friend the member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) asked, in effect, "Are you going to announce some more changes?"
The facts are that about eight or nine months ago the tariff board found that farmers were not liable for any tax on replacement tires and tubes. As soon as that was found out this government, the friend of the farmer, brought in a last moment amendment to the law, in June of last year, to provide for a 15 per cent tax; but they forgot to include tubes and tires on accessories attached. They have been charging the tax since illegally, and what has been done in this budget is to ratify what has been done-the taking from the western farmer and the Canadian farmer in general a 15 per cent tax on replacement tires and tubes on accessories connected to tractors.


Douglas Charles Abbott: If my hon. friend wants to be accurate, the tax has not been changed. He said we have been collecting it illegally, but he is mistaken.


John George Diefenbaker: Then we are going to start to charge it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, we are not.


John George Diefenbaker: That is a most interesting thing.


Douglas Charles Abbott: We never intended to.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister says we are not going to do something that we have not been doing. Well, why put it in the budget at all?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is not in the budget.


John George Diefenbaker: Then it is in the attachments to the budget.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No.
The Budget-Mr. Diefenbaker


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, it is. The Winnipeg Free Press and the western Liberal press were not unaware of that fact. If I am correctly informed the minister was approached by some of the western Liberal members who wanted to remedy what they thought was unjust and unfair treatment of the western farmer.
This is an election year, with millions of dollars to go to the western farmer under the 20-cent payment. I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) the other day if that money is held to the credit of the western farmer. Certainly the farmer is entitled to that 20 cents; but when I asked the minister if he had it to the farmers' credit his answer was in effect: "If we have not, we will borrow it". That is what they did in 1949, Mr. Speaker. They borrowed the money in order to make advances to the western farmers; then they charged the farmers' account half a million dollars in interest on the money advanced and distributed just before the election.


Mr. Wood:: Have they not made that payment every year?


John George Diefenbaker: Well, what my hon.
friend says is right; but they borrowed it and charged the interest to the western farmer.


An hon. Member:: What about succeeding years?


John George Diefenbaker: In the succeeding years I know of no interest being charged; and if my hon. friend does see that I give him the opportunity of saying that they charged the farmers interest in succeeding years.


An hon. Member:: You cannot see it.


John George Diefenbaker: No, you cannot see it; but the point I am making is that that magnificent gesture was just coincidental with the election of that year.
There is another sign, Mr. Speaker. The government is starting now to distribute the amount overcharged, or the amount taken in excess of what was proper with respect to income tax from workers and employees.


Mr. Benidickson:: Did they not do that last year?


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, absolutely; but is it not significant that this distribution is going to be made on the eve of the election?


Douglas Charles Abbott: When is that?


William Moore Benidickson: Yes; you tell us when the election is going to be.


John George Diefenbaker: When I listen to those on the opposite side, Mr. Speaker, I sit in silence.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Oh.

The Budget-Mr. Diefenbaker


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: When?


An hon. Member:: The sound of brass and tinkling cymbals.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman is the finest example in the house.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Winters:: I think you have that distinction.


John George Diefenbaker: The distribution is being made, and I would ask the minister when he speaks to explain why it is that the man who works for wages, the labouring man, should not be trusted to make his own deductions and his own payments of income tax, as every other sector of the community is entitled to do.
In the few moments left at my disposal I want to repeat that taxation can be reduced only if either the dangers of the present are dissipated, or the government will undertake a policy of retrenchment and do away with waste, which they will not do. They refuse to accept a commission to look into the matter. President Eisenhower did not refuse. The first thing he did on becoming president of the United States was to set up such a commission and they are going to save hundreds of millions, yes, billions of dollars.


William Moore Benidickson: In reduced taxes this year?


John George Diefenbaker: They are going to save billions of dollars. Here this government has taken from the Canadian people $40 for every man, woman and child more than was needed during the last four years. It is just coincidence, Mr. Speaker, that in an election year the cycle is completed.
Another way to reduce taxes, the minister said, was to extend the basis for national development, and I have one or two suggestions to make in particular reference to the province of Saskatchewan in that connection. Over the years we have had a socialist government in Saskatchewan. Their attitude was that they could develop natural resources simply by everybody producing for use and not for profit. Well, Mr. Speaker, we got nowhere-


An hon. Member:: Except in the theatre.


John George Diefenbaker: Finally the government realized its mistake, and that is a lesson this government could take; to realize the errors of the past instead of being prisoners of their own past mistakes. The government opened up Saskatchewan to private development. The disposal of some of the oil areas might perhaps be explained to us by the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Studer). He might be able to tell us how they were disposed
[Mr. Abbott.l

of, in a manner that was not conducive to the development of our province. But in the last couple of years there has been a retreat from that position; private enterprise is being encouraged, and Saskatchewan is enjoying development in keeping with the greatness of our resources.
I will refer to one or two of these developments, as my hon. friend from Meadow Lake (Mr. Harrison) did on an earlier occasion. In northern Saskatchewan we have, at least in anticipation, one of the greatest uranium finds in the world. Canada is the third producer of uranium, and we believe that when this development take place Canada's uranium production will be the highest.
My time is almost up, so I will have to shorten what I was going to say in regard to uranium. Eldorado is about to open a mill in the north, and will soon have a 500-ton output. At Higginson lake and Charlebois lake, hundreds of claims have been staked and licences taken out. These resources are beyond description, but the lack is transportation facilities in order to permit of expansion. What should be done as I see the situation is this:	Provide transportation by air, by road
and by railroad.
The other day the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) was speaking in Yorkton, and he outlined a railroad that started in Churchill, went through the muskeg and even crossed the mountains where there are no passes. What he had in mind was northern development. The Canadian Pacific surveyed a railway right of way in this area north of Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, many years ago. There was a survey to Stanley, where there are tremendous possibilities in copper and gold. Resources hidden in the soil will never forge the shield of freedom. Uranium is needed, and I suggest that in order to open up this area a railroad from Prince Albert would, in fact, be the greatest means that could be devised, coupled with roads to be built by the province and the development in the city of Prince Albert of all-weather runways to permit air transportation into northern Saskatchewan.
I conclude, Mr. Speaker; my time is up. By following that course, uranium will be made available to a much greater extent for the building and expansion of our defence plans, and Saskatchewan will be in the position of changing its economy in part, both for the welfare of Canada and the prosperity of the people of that province.


William Albert Boucher: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we all enjoyed the matinee performance of the hon. member who has just

taken his seat. To judge from the rambling remarks he has just made, since he said very little against the budget apparently he agrees with other members that it is a good budget.
In the first place, Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) very warmly upon the splendid budget that he presented to this house on February 19 last. I have discussed this budget with several businessmen in the city as well as outside the city, one of whom at least was not a supporter of this government. All agreed that this is a good business budget, and a fair one for all Canadians.
Let me mention some of the reductions: Personal income tax reductions averaging 11 per cent for a full year; personal income tax exemptions broadened to permit greater deductions for medical expenses and to provide parents with exemptions for children over 21 attending university; corporation income tax reduction; tax on a package of 20 cigarettes reduced by 4 cents; repeal of the 10 per cent sales tax on books and on newsprint and materials used in newspapers; repeal of the $2.50 annual licence fee on radio receiving sets; repeal of the stamp tax on cheques, money orders and so on. These reductions will bring some relief to all people in Canada.
I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure all Canadians are pleased, that the United States has lifted the embargo against our cattle. I understand that no other country in the world has stamped out foot-and-mouth disease so rapidly as Canada did. I have no doubt that the people of this country appreciate the good job done by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) in connection with this matter.
I must comment on a statement I have heard to the effect that western farmers are able to spend two-thirds of each year in California or Florida. This is an idea which is only too prevalent in central and eastern Canada. It is not correct. It is true that we are more generally prosperous than we have ever been before. For this we thank, first of all, a beneficent providence, which has provided sufficient rainfall to give us a measure of prosperity, despite frost and untimely weather and other exceptional hazards peculiar to farming in the prairie provinces. This measure of prosperity has not been obtained without long hours of hard and diligent work by our people through every season of the year.
The farmers of Saskatchewan give full credit also for this measure of prosperity to the wheat board policy and other policies of
The Budget-Mr. Boucher this government. Our farmers are unshaken in their support of the wheat board and this government's wheat policy. We appreciate the good work of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) in this connection. We feel that the tour of Latin America which he has just completed will produce beneficial results.
At this time I should like to express the hope that the discussions which are taking place in Washington concerning the international wheat agreement will be successful. The people of Rosthern are in favour of a renewal of the agreement at a reasonable price. The policy of the Liberal party is to be fair to all groups and interests, and we know that the basic revenue for everything still comes from the land. The greatest good to the greatest number is guaranteed to all people by the Liberal party looking after the interests of the farmer.
Another matter about which our farm people are concerned is that adequate housing should be given to our rural communities as well as to our cities. A great many more of our young people will make farming their way of life if they can have modern homes. It is in the interests of all the people of Canada that this be done. The Farm Improvement Loans Act, passed by this government, has been of great value, but I suggest that still more be done by having Central Mortgage and Housing benefits given to hamlets, villages and towns as well as cities. I would strongly urge this government to increase family allowances and raise personal income tax exemptions, as soon as our homes and families are safe from the threat of slavery which at this time comes from the godless communist aggressor.
I should like now, Mr. Speaker, to say a word about the historic site at Batoche, Saskatchewan, which is in Rosthern constituency. At the annual meeting of the historic sites and monuments board of Canada in May of last year, the site and the rectory at Batoche were declared of national historic importance. It was recommended that the Department of Resources and Development investigate the possibility of acquiring the rectory for museum purposes, and to that end Mr. Campbell Innes, the Saskatchewan member on the board, and Rev. Father D'Eschambault, the Manitoba member, were requested to continue their investigations. I understand those two representatives of the national historical society visited Batoche last November and again in January.
I strongly urge that the department give careful consideration to any proposals resulting from the investigations referred to. It is
2702	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Boucher my hope that provision will be made for the acquisition of this property. This historic site is ideally situated for a museum, and would be a great attraction for tourists. The rectory is situated only a few yards from the main river road. Approximately 3,000 visitors signed the register at the rectory during the three months of June, July and August of last year. It is also an extremely picturesque location. Down below, the South Saskatchewan river flows around a wooded bend. It is hard to believe that this beautiful, peaceful spot was once a battlefield, in the early days of the west.
The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) has said that he did not hear me say anything about the dam on the South Saskatchewan river. I should like to quote what I said in this house on December 10, 1949, as reported at page 3067 of Hansard. I was referring to the criticism of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) by hon. members opposite. This is what I said:
I believe it is the duty of each one of them to back the minister to the hilt in his efforts in connection with this project.
I continued:
It is such a big thing and so important that I feel it should be above party politics.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I am pleased to support this budget. It embodies the principles of Liberalism whose watchwords are unity, security and freedom.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, American and British newspapers have been unanimous in their praise of the last Canadian budget. That praise is all to the credit of our country and, also, of its able Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott).
It is the extraordinary prosperity of our country that has made possible such notable tax reductions at a time when taxes are increasing in all other countries. But, one must not forget that that prosperity is due, in a large measure, to the most judicious management of the statesmen responsible for the industrial and commercial expansion in Canada.
We are indeed privileged, Mr. Speaker, to have at the head of our government men like the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), the Right Hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), the Right Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), the Hon. Minister of Finance and many others who, by their ability, contribute to the high reputation of the present government.
I am convinced that the Canadian people appreciate as they should the excellent work of our federal ministers and that they will show their satisfaction at the next election by


voting the Liberal party back to power with a strong majority.
(Text):


Mr. Wylie:: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on the budget; but in view of the fact that private bills are given consideration from five to six o'clock, may I now call it five o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As it is five o'clock, the house will now consider private and public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 192, for the relief of Mary Rose Anne Rihel Kowalski.-Mr. Winkler. .
Bill No. 193, for the relief of Walter Critch.-Mr. Winkler.'
Bill No. 194, for the relief of Edwin George Godden.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 195, for the relief of Lottie Men-delman Brand.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 196, for the relief of Jacob Titsch.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 197, for the relief of Andrew Percy Bell.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 198, for the relief of Eileen Doris Martin Martin.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 199, for the relief of Annie Moulard Cumming Wright.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 200, for the relief of William James Dunn.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 201-, for the relief of Jean Marion Oickle Joudrey.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 202, for the relief of Alena Estella Welch Ball.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 203, for the relief of Elizabeth Rogers Guerin.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 204, for the relief of Richard Alfred Sutton.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 205, for the relief of Doris Edgar Choquette.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 206, for the relief of Jessie Hazel Kerr Coolon.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 207, for the relief of Laurence Christopher Bell.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	208,	for	the	relief	of	Valorie
Leslie Hylda Carson Wallis.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 209, for the relief of Jessie Allan Purdie McCulloch.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 210, for the relief of Alice Mary Barakett Zion.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	211,	for	the	relief	of	Marcel
Clark.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	212,	for	the	relief	of	Sender
Mines-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 213, for the relief of Robert Joseph Albert Pratte-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	214,	for	the	relief of	Leonard
James Chadwick.-Mr. Winkler.

Bill No. 215, for the relief of Merle Minnie Esther Hoffman Nevard.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 216, for the relief of Doris Ethel Taylor.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 217, for the relief of Gordon Earl Page.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 218, for the relief of Yaroslava Glucka Levandosky.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 219, for the relief of Adelard Gilbert.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 220, for the relief of Celia Tarnofsky Edgar.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 221, for the relief of William Flookes.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 222, for the relief of Kathleen Ada Styles Labonte.-Mr. Winkler.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, March 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. Larson for the second reading of Bill No. 189, to incorporate Mid-Continent Pipelines Limited.
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, when the hour for private bills expired on Tuesday last I had finished pointing out benefits to the various parts of Canada which would follow the construction of a natural gas pipe line from the gas fields of Alberta to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. I had just begun to deal with one other feature, namely the fact that one of the great weaknesses in the Canadian economy is the dependence of Ontario and Quebec on United States coal. I gave the figure for the importation of coal from the United States during the calendar year 1952, which was in excess of 24J million tons.
Hon. members will recall that along with shortages of oil, iron, steel and cotton, the shortage of coal in Canada was one of the main factors in bringing about our adverse exchange position in the year 1947. That exchange position forced the government to bring in what was known as an austerity program. Now, fortunately, the situation has changed to a large extent with regard to oil and iron ore because of the discoveries that have been made since that time. It has also been changed to a degree with regard to steel, and here in 1953 we have an opportunity with western Canadian natural gas to do something about this bad feature of having to import so much coal into Ontario and Quebec from the United States.
Dr. G. S. Hume, who I believe is the leading expert on oil and natural gas in Canada, made a speech in 1951, to which I referred the other day. It was entitled: "The Utilization of Natural Gas in Canada". In that speech he dealt with the effect that bringing
Private Bills
natural gas to Ontario would have on the amount of coal required. These were his words:
Thus, Trans-Canada pipelines-
As hon. members know, this is the one company which thus far has a plan to instal a pipe line from the west to Ontario and Quebec by an all-Canadian route. I continue:
Thus Trans-Canada pipelines, transporting 365 million to 500 million cubic feet a day, would deliver natural gas which, to the consumer, would represent a very large sales value and if efficiency in burning is considered, the pipe line, when operating at full capacity 500 million cubic feet a day, would replace the equivalent of about 25,000 tons of good grade coal a day.
That works out to over 9 million tons of coal a year which would be replaced by natural gas from the western prairies.
Objections have been raised to an allCanadian natural gas pipe line. One of them is that the distance is too great. It would be about 1,780 miles from Alberta to the city of Toronto, and another 325 miles from Toronto to Montreal, making the estimated total length of the pipe line to Montreal 2,105 miles. That does seem a long distance; but on the west coast the Fish Engineering Corporation are speaking of a line of about 1,400 or 1,500 miles, with which they hope to prevent us from getting our natural gas from the Peace river into the states of Washington and Oregon.
Hon. members may be interested to know that the Bechtel Corporation, which is one of the great pipe-line building firms of the world, and which incidentally is building the oil pipe line to the Pacific coast at the present time, has plans for a gas pipe line from Iraq to Paris, and eventually to London. I hold in my hand the issue of The Oil Forum for January of this year. It contains an article on this proposed pipe line. The distance to Paris would be 2,500 miles. The pipe line would have a capacity of 500 million cubic feet a day, which is the same capacity as is planned for the all-Canadian pipe line to Ontario and Quebec; and it would cost $425 million. There you have a much larger gas pipe line proposal by a thoroughly responsible company. I submit that one cannot question the plan for an all-Canadian pipe line on the basis that the distance is too great.
Another objection is that it would be preferable to have a system of exchange in gas; for example, that we should pipe our gas which comes east from Alberta down into the state of Minnesota, and then let Ontario and Quebec depend on natural gas being piped in from Texas or other parts of the United States. That of course would

Mid-Continent Pipelines Limited require an agreement between the governments. Pipe lines are installed by private companies, not by governments, both in the United States and in Canada; therefore it will be realized how difficult it would be to work out an agreement between the governments. We seem to be having a great deal of trouble getting an agreement between governments concerning the St. Lawrence waterway, and how much more difficult it would be to have an agreement with regard to natural gas pipe lines.
Then if there is an exchange agreement the result will be that Ontario and Quebec will be subject to the federal power commission of the United States. Under the natural gas act of the United States that commission must apply the test of public interest. It has been clearly defined on several applications to permit the piping of United States gas into Canada. I hold in my hand one of the decisions which gives the picture very clearly. It is a decision by the federal power commission of the United States on an application for leave to export gas to Ontario, and reads as follows:
Delivery of natural gas to Union-
That is the Union Gas Company of Canada, Limited.
Delivery of natural gas to Union shall be curtailed or interrupted whenever, and to the extent, required for the protection of deliveries of natural gas, either for immediate consumption or for storage, to any and all of applicant's customers in the United States. The authorization hereby granted shall not constitute ground or justification for any refusal by applicant to transport or sell natural gas to any person or municipality at any time during the term hereof, either for consumption in the United States by such person or municipality or for storage, or for resale for ultimate public consumption in the United States for domestic, commercial, industrial, or any other use, it being the intent of this authorization that at all times, persons and municipalities in the United States are to receive preferential service over that to Union.
And counsel of the federal power commission in this brief points out that by virtue of that decision the federal power commission has set its policy in the matter of export to Canada, giving priority to customers in the United States and in effect providing that deliveries of gas to Canada are inconsistent with the public interest unless it can be shown that there is no need for gas for resale or for direct use in the United States.
The province of Ontario has had the experience of being unable to get even the gas for which a permit had been given by the federal power commission. The governments of Ontario and Quebec know too that if they have to depend on gas from Texas, then there will be none available for the great northern portions of the two provinces. The premiers

of those provinces went on record last year as being in favour of getting Alberta gas, rather than being forced to depend upon United States gas.
I suggest that an exchange agreement is completely impracticable, particularly as there is a time element involved. We believe that 1953 is the crucial year. Just today we see a news dispatch from Alberta to the effect that Premier Manning stated yesterday in the Alberta legislature that his government favours export at the earliest possible date, and will do all it possibly can to facilitate the establishment of an adequate market.
There is the picture. In conclusion may I say that I believe it will be a great tragedy if this western gas is not used to supply Canada first. If there is a surplus beyond the requirements of Canada, then there is no reason why that surplus should not go to Minnesota. But certainly Canada should be supplied first. I believe that bringing gas east by an all-Canadian route is one of the most vital steps that could be taken at this time to strengthen Canada. Dr. Hume, in the speech to which I referred before, summed it up in these words:
The building of an all-Canadian natural gas pipe line from western to eastern Canada could be as important a national asset as was the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway across the preCambrian area.
Here is the best chance in our generation to further Canada's development into one of the leading nations of the world; and we must not let that chance slip through our fingers.


Mr. O. L. Jones (Yale):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my protest against this bill on grounds which have been covered before and which, to my mind, are sound; that is, that we should protect our Canadian consumers, and first set aside sufficient gas and oil for our own use.
I am alarmed by the frequency with which these bills appear before us. I do not know what number of them have been presented to the house, or the number that will come before us in the future. But we do know they are appearing with great frequency and that they follow a definite pattern, that the gas is to be exported to the United States. The frequency and the danger of these applications have alarmed a number of people in my constituency, especially those connected with boards of trade, city councils, junior chambers of commerce, the Canadian Legion, and service clubs of all kinds, the members of whom have written to me in protest, asking that I speak out against the exportation of these vital natural resources. They are demanding that they should be given the

first opportunity to utilize those resources, and to develop their own industries.
Cities such as Vernon, Penticton and Kelowna have already expressed their willingness to co-operate with oil companies or gas companies to have the pipe line directed through that area but thus far they have received no effective response. The companies refuse even to consider going through the Okanagan valley. Naturally they are more interested in profits to be derived from larger sales over the border. The only recourse we have left is for the government to step in and direct the flow of these resources in a manner whereby Canadians who require this power will have the first access to it. I believe that is the government's responsibility, not only to Canadians now living but to those unborn Canadians who will look to us for the heritage for which we are now responsible.
We are the guardians of that common heritage; and it seems to me we are poor guardians, because we are selling our heritage for a mess of pottage. This policy will be truly assessed in 20 years' time, when a new generation will be looking in vain for the gas and oil resources of this country. Nothing but rotting derricks and dry oil wells will be left for them; and historians will record that we and the government dissipated those resources without any plan, without any thought of conservation, but just through a process of happy-go-lucky dealings with private companies for purposes of exploitation.
I feel that once a pipe line is built it remains a permanent route, just like a railway. And should it turn out later that the pipe line is not in the right position to give the best service to our people, nothing can be done about it. There would be required either a new pipe line or a network of pipe lines to give full service to our own communities. Therefore now is the proper time to plan. I feel the last persons to do the planning would be the oil companies or the pipeline companies. Their interests are diametrically opposed to ours, because they are after quick and large markets, in any part of the world so far as they are concerned. At the moment the nearest and the greatest market is across the border.
Therefore our interests are totally different. Our interests are to develop our own country first. And I say "our" because it is in the interests of the government as well as those of the opposition to do that. The government should take a hand immediately in planning the proper distribution of this great natural resource, before it is too late. It should do .so as an economic service to Canada, with
Mid-Continent Pipelines Limited a view to finding out the best possible use of our natural resources, and to bringing gas and oil to those areas which could profit and develop most from such service.
I do not blame the pipe-line companies for their point of view. They are putting up large sums of money; they are gambling with it, and gambling in the hope of doubling their investment, or making as much money as they can. So we cannot look to them to use a policy that would not be profitable from the standpoint of making money immediately.
. On the other hand our government has the responsibility to improve our economy and development. This can be done easily by directing cheap power to the right locations.
I have in mind my own riding where we need cheap power if we are to develop industry. At present we have most of our eggs in one basket, in the form of the growing of fruits and vegetables.
In line with the statement made in the house some time ago, I believe industry should be decentralized, and that now would be the time to consider part of that decentralization by locating in interior British Columbia some of those lighter industries which could be located suitably in that area. We have an ideal climate all the year round, which would prove attractive to many industries that are handicapped in the colder parts of Canada through having to close down in the winter months.
I have referred to my own riding because there is one familiar aspect with respect to it. It is roughly 200 miles in length by 50 in width, or just the same size as my native Wales. In Wales there are over 2 million people living in a rugged area, much of which is uninhabitable; and I have in mind particularly the Snowdon range. It is very similar to the Okanagan valley except that we have more resources, as our timber limits are still fairly intact and our minerals have not been developed to their fullest extent. In addition we have a very fine climate. At the present time we are supporting roughly
100,000	people, merely a handful compared to what the same area in Wales supports. We could support a quarter of a million people quite easily if we had the stabilizing influence of industry. That cannot be done until we have cheap power. These industries could be operated under ideal conditions.
When adverse conditions arose in the coal mines in Wales and production began to slow down the government became interested, just the same as this government should become interested in our valley. They found that the Irish boats were considering stopping their service to Holyhead because of
2706	HOUSE OF
Mid-Continent Pipelines Limited the embargo on sheep and cattle. They realized that they had to look after those people and see that they did not suffer from the embargo. They promptly started a watch and clock factory in Holyhead. Those people had had no experience in that sort of work, but I happened to be in the town when they were celebrating the turning out of the one millionth clock.
That is now a prosperous industry and the people who have been rehabilitated are quite happy. The same thing happened in South Wales where new industries were developed in areas where the coal mines were beginning to peter out. Some of the brightest spots in South Wales today would have been depressed areas if the government had not stepped in and brought new industries into that area.
I feel that what was done in Wales could be done in Canada. Here we have a source of cheap power which would be the magic key to bring about a transformation. As I pointed out before, the private pipe-line companies are not at all interested. We tried to sell them this picture and we tried to place on the record of the house what we are trying to do, but to no avail.
I suggest that the government is the logical body to take over the direction of the flow of gas, and it could be done in conjunction with the other transportation company that we now own, the Canadian National Railways. This new form of transportation is the ideal thing to be operated by the same group who operate the Canadian National Railways. -I am satisfied that the profits from the pipe line would pay the deficit on the Canadian National Railways.
The stock 'of some of these pipe-line companies has been traded on the stock market. I have in mind the stock of one company which was placed on the market at $10 per share. This company has not yet transported one cubic foot of gas, but such are the prospects of profits that people all over the country are buying these shares at around $59. That should not be. I believe the government should have stepped in at the very beginning and taken over this form of transportation to be administered along with the Canadian National Railways.
If that had been done there would have been a ready-made route for the pipe line especially in British Columbia where the Canadian National runs through a pass which is much better than any other in the province. The pipe line could have been laid on the railroad right of way. Their experts and trained men could have looked after both the railway and the pipe line at the same time, thus reducing costs.


While this particular pipe line will not run through British Columbia, I submit that the principle is the same. The question is, are we going to build up the United States economy at the expense of our own? I would point out that the United States have already exploited their own resources; they have denuded their forests and depleted other natural resources, and now they would do the same to ours. Naturally the United States are not interested in the conservation of Canadian natural resources; that is our problem. They are not going to go out of their way to help conserve what does not interest them beyond the profits to be made out of their use as quickly as possible.
We are the ones concerned, and it is for that reason that I appeal to the government to announce a policy under which no natural gas would be permitted to leave this country until every avenue had been explored to provide for its use in the development of our own country.
By developing new industries we will keep our youth happy in industry in this country instead of following the gas to the newly-created industries south of the border. I appeal to the government to really consider this aspect of this pipe-line bill and take over this means of transportation so they can direct the flow of gas and have our own economy the first in mind.


Mr. G. A. Cruickshank (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word or two in connection with this particular pipe-line bill. One point that interested me was brought to the attention of the house by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), that exactly the same Fish interests who introduced a similar bill under a different name last year are introducing this MidContinent Pipelines Limited bill.
It is rather peculiar to realize that this company is doing its utmost to prevent the development of industries in British Columbia to utilize our own power and that being produced by the neighbouring province of Alberta.
You may have noticed in the papers of the day before yesterday that Fish interests behind this bill have instructed their lawyers to take a new line of protest to prevent the movement of gas from Alberta and the northern part of our own province. They instructed their lawyers at Washington to see that under no consideration was any of this great natural resource being produced in Canada to be utilized for the development of Canada.
As may be known, we on the Pacific coast-I shall come to the eastern coast later-have enough gas within our own.

boundaries to supply the province. There are many fields in northern British Columbia, and there are other wells which the experts say can be brought in at any time. It is not practical to bring them in until such time as there is a market for the gas. Then our good neighbours in Alberta would give us gas if we needed it.
It is an expensive business to build a pipe line, and the market available on the Pacific coast of Canada at the present time is not sufficient to warrant such an expenditure. Therefore these selfish interests-heartily supported, I am sorry to say, by parts of Saskatchewan-would deprive us of gas in British Columbia to develop our province.
I do not need to go into the details of the feasibility of building a pipe line. It is ridiculous to advance the argument that it is not feasible. The hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra has referred to the pipe lines that have been built, and their mileage. I wonder where Canada would be today if we had allowed such people as the Fish interests to come to this country and tell the great pioneers that they could not build either the Canadian Pacific or the Canadian National railway.
Possibly some of those who advocate and pursue a policy of development for our good neighbours in the United States to the south prior to the development of Canada have never had the privilege of visiting the Pacific coast. Possibly they have never seen the territory that the two great transcontinental railways run through, and I am perfectly sure they have never watched a pipe line under construction. We have been privileged in the province of British Columbia this year to watch them constructing the Trans Mountain pipe line. If anybody thinks it is too difficult they should watch such experienced experts as those in the Bechtel Company, with all the engineering ability and equipment they have. Mr. Speaker, in two hours they could put a pipe line over the dome of the library if they wished. When I hear these arguments that it is not practical and it is not possible to build a pipe line to serve Ontario or Quebec, it just does not make sense.
I do not want to take up too much time on this particular bill; and one reason I do not want to take up too much time, Mr. Speaker, is that I realize or I presume that the house will not go on sitting until July or August, and that we will probably be out of here before then. There are only so many private members' hours before July. I do not want to give away the exact date on which the house is going to adjourn; my friends across from me would think I had
6, 1953	2707
Mid-Continent Pipelines Limited inside information. But there are only so many private members' hours and I will just give you some of the members, Mr. Speaker, who I am sure will want to speak on this particular matter, as representing their own districts.
Last year a few of us-and I am sorry to say that I was alone on this side of the house at that time-could envision the future of our province with this cheap form of power. We knew that they were going to develop it in northern British Columbia and we had been assured by the premier of Alberta, whom I will quote if necessary later, that as far as it lay within his power the people of Canada would be served with gas produced in Alberta before anyone else was served.
We had a fight, Mr. Speaker, to get that all-Canadian route in the bill. When one of the ministers' estimates are up I will have something to say about that particular oil pipe line, but I do not think we from western Canada will get an opportunity, possibly after today, to speak on this particular bill. I am just going to go down the list and mention some of the reasons we will not.
Algoma West has a population of 52,051 people. I do not know much about Algoma West, but I do know of one industry they have in that great riding; and I know that the genial member who sits to my right will not appreciate it if I do not give him an opportunity on behalf of his people to take many times 40 minutes to insist that gas come to his riding.
I will just skip on down the list to one of my hon. friends who is sitting here, or was a moment ago, the member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson). Kenora-Rainy River has a population of 55,008. Even if the 55,000 people did not object, I am sure the 8 would. Possibly some of you from the far east have never seen Kenora, that beautiful little town in Kenora-Rainy River so ably represented in this house. I know that the representative of that district would not permit me to take up my full time speaking in connection with this bill.
Mr. Speaker, coming from the province of British Columbia we are not inclined to boast, and we very seldom speak of our province. I certainly never mention the name "Fraser Valley" unless I am bound to do so. Those of you who have travelled on the railway going through Kenora-Rainy River on the route across Canada, Mr. Speaker, will be impressed, as you are impressed with the ability of its member. I know he wants to speak on this particular issue on behalf of his district. Kenora, Mr. Speaker, has the most beautiful garden at its railway station,

Mid-Continent Pipelines Limited more beautiful than at any station across Canada. Of course the member for Kenora-Rainy River will want to speak on behalf of his district, to see that industry is brought there and employment created.
I go back to the list. There is no hon. member who should be more revered in this house-because he happens to be the senior in age and the youngest in heart-than the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor). Now, we have heard of the head of the lakes, Mr. Speaker. We in the west want to build Fort William to even greater heights. So far we have built it through the great grain elevators. We all know of the beauty of Fort William; but we also know that the industry of Fort William depends entirely on the grain from western Canada to keep it where it is. In the usual generous western way we want to see that Fort William gets gas from the province of Alberta to create further industry for our good friends in Fort William.
There is another town quite near Fort William, equally well represented. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I know of no riding, with the exception of Quebec city, that is as well known for the leadership given there. That town is Port Arthur, a magnificent little town. Oh, I should not say "little town". They even have controversies oetween Fort William and Port Arthur over hockey. I am not going to say which team should win or which is the greater town; but I also know that Port Arthur was built by grain from western Canada passing through the elevators that were designed and engineered as they could have been by no other man in Canada. Naturally that riding will resent it if we from western Canada alone protect the people of that district.
Now I will just come a little closer, Mr. Speaker. According to the press I have had something to say of late about the capital of Canada. When I first came here, Mr. Speaker, I admit that I did disagree with the capital of Canada getting the grant they did to beautify it. I had a selfish viewpoint at that time; but since then I have realized that it is not the capital of the immediate district but it is the capital of Canada. I am proud of it and I want to see the rest of Canada, including my own district, bear their fair share of beautifying this magnificent capital and providing the necessary funds.
I do not believe that any district should depend entirely on civil servants for the wherewithal to keep a town going. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I want to point this out to you. While we do not want industry within the confines of Ottawa, Ottawa East

has a population of 56,127 and Ottawa West has a population of 74,667. I for one do not want to see industry brought into the beautiful city, but I want the people to be warned, Mr. Speaker.
Two weeks ago I had to telephone my landlord-I am fortunate for the first time in seven years in having an apartment-and say: "I realize that we have gas and heat in the west, and as yet we do not have it here". I told him that with only two people in the apartment, one frigidaire was enough; that we did not need three refrigerated rooms as well. That is one reason I want to bring this gas to the people of Ottawa. We have here all the civil servants, who have many worries on their shoulders, working long hours, five hours every day and five days every week, and I want them to have plenty of heat. I want gas to be brought here for that purpose.
Mr. Speaker, in greater Ottawa we have Carleton, the magnificent district of Carleton, very handsomely represented. Carleton has a population of 71,974.
Mr. Speaker, it will in one way interfere with the beauty of the metropolitan area if one or two industries are placed out there by bringing cheap gas from western Canada. Among other things, we have large government buildings being erected in the district. Not far from here we have Hull, very ably represented here, and I know the representative of that district will want to have a word to say in connection with getting this gas. Actually they have one industry in Hull already. It has a population of 67,677 people, and merely for the selfish interests of Mr. Fish, should we deprive Hull of the power for developing that district? I am coming down now to another district, Nipissing.


Mr. Graydon:: What about the mayor of Ottawa?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I have a column here from tonight's newspaper which I could read.


Gordon Graydon: If she were with you, the two of you would make a good team.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The only difference is that I happen to be on the winning side, and she would have to sit on that side. Mr. Speaker, Nipissing would be on the route of the pipe line. It has a population of 53,906, and is so well and largely represented by my good friend from North Bay. They need industry in North Bay, and it is right on the route of the pipe line. I know the member for that district will want to speak on this matter because he wants gas, if for no other reason than that it would be so much cheaper to produce soft drinks. In order to produce soft drinks you have to

have heat and power. There will be a lot of representatives demanding the right to speak on this particular matter so that we can get this western gas.
Now we come to Stormont, with a population of 48,458. The people of Canada are being asked, and probably rightly so, to dig a bigger ditch along the St. Lawrence. Probably we will be able to get the United States to agree at some date in the future. Already there are thousands of acres available for industry in the Cornwall district. No district in this house is better represented than Cornwall. I know the member for that district will insist on speaking in this house in order that they may get power for the development of industries along the St. Lawrence. When you have the gas you can build factories, and the boats will be able to come up there so you can ship by way of the St. Lawrence.
Renfrew is another district so capably represented here. I am sure the hon. member for Renfrew North (Mr. Warren) will feel it is his duty to get up here and say that he is doing his very best to get this gas for his riding so there can be more woollen mills and more factories at Renfrew. It has a population of 39,572.
Then we go to Timmins. Well, Timmins has a population of 45,924. I have never been in Timmins, but I understand that everybody there is either a millionaire or hopes to be, according to the press reports about the Toronto stock exchange. If they could get to the point where they could mine gold so much cheaper, why would they have to worry about the stock? The member for Timmins (Mr. Eyre) will insist on speaking on behalf of the people in his riding. I know that when the people in these ridings read in Hansard that their member is insisting on speaking on this matter, they will write and tell him that they want industries in their riding and do not want to be left out.
Now I want to go to another town, genially represented, and that is Sudbury with a population of 94,629. Next to Trail in my own province, Sudbury is the best individual customer for natural gas because of her line of industries. I say that the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gauthier)-and I say this very sincerely-would not be doing his duty for that great town, one of the best developers of natural wealth, if he did not speak on this matter. No town, other than Trail in my own province, could use this natural gas in the way Sudbury could. I am sure the mayor of Sudbury will have something to say about being bypassed.
We can even go down to Leeds, that beautiful little district, which is principally
Mid-Continent Pipelines Limited famous for two things. I shall only name one of them, Jersey cattle. I shall not name the other; but knowing the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Fulford) as well as I do-I wish he were here today-


George Taylor Fulford: I am.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I knew that. I am going to Leeds, incidentally, about a week from tonight. As a matter of fact I hope that the Rotary club, the Kiwanis club and the Lions club there have a combined meeting-I hope it is a luncheon, as I prefer a luncheon-and I can address them, demanding that this gas from the west go to their beautiful town of Brockville.


George Taylor Fulford: If I cannot get a better speaker, I will see what we can do about the Rotary club.


George Alexander Cruickshank: That is fine. I was
hoping for that, because even if he cannot get a better speaker all I want the member for Leeds to do is to get up here and speak for his riding, for his province, just as we from the west are compelled to do.
I do not think we should leave out this other riding of Pontiac-Timiskaming, with a population of 41,899 and a lot of splendid trotting horses which are in that district. The member for this riding will be certain to insist on speaking on this matter, if for no other reason than that they are going to have more direct communications now. This generous government, through the more than generous Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier), is going to build a bridge up there. When you get the bridge you have been requesting for 40 years, and will not need for the next 40, you ought to be happy. Unless we bring in this gas for industries, what are they going to use this bridge for, anyway?
I do not want to leave out any of these districts. There is the Gatineau. You know the Gatineau, a beautiful little place on the other side of the river. I am sure that some day the Quebec government is going to build a highway up there. Now they do not have a highway. Look at the indirect benefits that will come to the riding of Hull when the Gatineau has power up there. They will not be confined to one little cement plant. They will expand that plant. They will bring other industries in there because the town of Hull is adjacent to them. As I have already explained, Hull is well represented. I am sure that the 38,841 people in the Gatineau will insist on their member speaking and insisting that they get gas in their riding.
Well, I was almost leaving out another riding, that of Russell. We do not want this

Mid-Continent Pipelines Limited industry right within the confines of the city *of Ottawa, we want the industry around us. Russell is not very far away, and has a population of 56,945. Mr. Speaker, the member representing that riding is not only a capable member, but next Tuesday afternoon he is quite capable of speaking for 40 minutes in this connection on behalf of his district. I am sure he will. I will see that he gets a marked copy of Hansard. I might even send it to the mayor of Rockland. When I was younger and more foolish than I am now, I went to Rockland one night to play broomball. I took the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair), and he was a little more foolish than I was. He fell down, and it cost $92 for a doctor and hospital because he was playing broomball. I know the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Gour) wants to speak about it. They would have had a larger hospital in Russell with the revenue coming in. They would have treated the present Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) right there, and I would not have had him following me about for the next ten days in the office we shared. He is bound to want to speak on this matter. I could go on through all the other districts, but it would not be fair if we from the west took up all the time. I have mentioned just a few of the ridings. I am sure those who represent them will all want to speak.
I want to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, and through you to each and every one of these ridings, that it will be a million and one years before they ever get any gas if it goes into the United States, from Winnipeg to Minneapolis. I wonder what the city of Montreal would say. Montreal is the largest city in Canada at the present time. I cannot single out any one member from Montreal, as there are so many brilliant members from that city. For instance, there is Verdun, across from Montreal. Montreal is a magnificent city. Within fifteen years I know that members from Montreal will say, "We congratulate you, Vancouver, for having passed us. Possibly the reason you passed us in population and in industry was that western members fought to get this power in the city of Vancouver." I know, Mr. Speaker, that by next Tuesday the members from the city of Montreal will be insisting that they get this natural gas for their city.
There is also Toronto. Having visited Toronto several times I thought at first, from the environment around there, that it had natural gas; but I discovered that it had not. I know that the members from Toronto will want to speak about this matter. For instance, there is the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll). He will want to speak on it.


He will not want us westerners to monopolize the advancement and development of Canada, but will want, by utilizing our natural resources first before they go to some other country, to build a greater Ontario. Coming from Toronto, he knows that if the gas ever gets to the United States it will be a million and one years before it will come around on the circular trip back to Toronto or to Brampton with the great flower shops there. It will never get there if it has to come back from the United States.
I could give you an instance of these international deals. They built a pipe line from Detroit to Windsor in order to pipe gas across. Then, sir, the United States interests said, "No; we have not enough for a surplus" and the pipe line lay idle with no gas going through it. Do you people in Ontario and Quebec want that sort of thing to happen again? Do you want it to happen so you will never be given that gas from the west?
Mr. Speaker, it may be a far cry from domestic oil to natural gas, but I well remember in the last four or five years asking hon. members from the province of Quebec and the province of Ontario in particular to support me in preventing the use of these synthetic oils-and any hon. member can verify this in Hansard-in order that we might maintain and build up the great dairy industry. If I am not mistaken, Mr. Speaker, this session, within the past three weeks, is the first time a member from Ontario or Quebec, according to Hansard, has answered my plea that we protect our dairy industry by barring-by provincial or any other legislation-the use of these synthetic oils to the detriment of a great resource, namely the dairy industry. Are those members from Ontario and Quebec going to sit idle now and let this gas be diverted at Winnipeg, never to return, so as to advance and develop the great provinces of Ontario and Quebec?
As the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra pointed out, once it gets across the line, it is an international matter. To bring it back into Canada entails international complications. It will require treaties. The other day we heard the Minister of Fisheries speak about a halibut treaty. Mr. Speaker, I should like hon. members from the ridings I have mentioned just to note the length of time that was required for negotiations on an international basis in order to bring about that halibut treaty. I want them to realize the international complications that will arise if this gas goes down to the United States before it reaches its rightful place within Canada.
Mr. Speaker, knowing that these members from these districts I have mentioned will

want the great privilege of protecting their ridings-not of protecting us in the west but of protecting their own ridings-may I call it six o'clock and move the adjournment of the debate?
On motion of Mr. Cruickshank the debate was adjourned.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As it is six o'clock, and the time devoted to private and public bills having expired, at eight o'clock the house will resume consideration of the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed 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.
William Duncan McKay Wylie: Mr. Speaker, I intend to make my remarks on the budget rather brief, although I could talk for 40 minutes or maybe an hour and still feel quite at home.
During this budget debate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) has been called many names. While I am about the sixtieth speaker, I think the best name the minister was called is to be found in the word used by the parliamentary assistant to the minister when he referred to the minister as a wizard, the wizard of Ottawa.


Mr. Johnston:: The Wizard of Oz would be more appropriate.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: That has been referred to many times. Last night the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) gave a very good definition of that word. He gave several, but the best one was taken from Winston's Universal dictionary as follows:
A person, supposed to possess magical or supernatural power derived from alliance with the devil or with evil spirits.
One thing I must say is that in a free country it is safe for one to be unpopular. I am not sure the government are safe so far as being in power in this country is concerned, but they are very unpopular today.
The Budget-Mr. Wylie
It must be remembered that very little assistance is being given to the lower income tax groups. The hon. member for Vegre-ville (Mr. Decore) made a very good speech the other day, but I think the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) answered him completely yesterday afternoon. That shows that lawyers are not always correct in their figures.
We know that some nuisance taxes have been done away with. One is the stamp on cheques and other documents. Radio licence fees have been abolished. I am glad to see that fee done away with. I do hope that the department will keep their inspectors in the field to deal with interference with radio.


Mr. Byrne:: There is no stamp on basic dividends.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: The hon. member for Kootenay East says that there is no stamp on basic dividends. Perhaps he should know about basic dividends. I do not think there are any stamps on family allowance cheques today. There never were and there never will be.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: That is not a basic dividend.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: The Budget-Mr. Wylie on it. You need not laugh yet. I could have brought down the only satisfactory budget so far as the people of Canada are concerned because I would have wiped out all taxes. You may wonder how I could do that.


Mr. Sinclair:: Social Credit.


George Alexander Cruickshank: It is a very simple matter. I would go to the financial critic of the Social Credit party, borrow their machine and manufacture as much money as we needed.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I was not surprised at the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruiekshank) making that statement; but I am very surprised at a minister of the crown saying what he is reported to have said. He is supposed to be a Rhodes scholar.


An hon. Member:: He is.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: And he should know better.


Mr. MacDougall:: Why?


William Duncan McKay Wylie: All that is troubling the
Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair), and all the other Liberal members from British Columbia, is that Social Credit has done such a good job in Alberta and they are worried lest we do the same job in British Columbia. That is the only thing worrying them. They know the present government will come back to power with a larger majority than they have today.


Mr. Maclnnis:: They have no majority at all.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: They have a majority of one, and that is more than you have.


Donald MacInnis: No, they have not a majority of one; they have a minority.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, despite what the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) has said, the Social Credit party in British Columbia today has a larger number of members than any other party in that province.


Donald MacInnis: Oh, but that is a different thing.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: So they are the government; and that is what counts.


An hon. Member:: And what a government.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: I can assure hon. members from British Columbia, especially Liberal members-yes, and the C.C.F., too-that after the next election we will again have a Social Credit government.


An hon. Member:: What have they now?


William Duncan McKay Wylie: We have one now, and we will have one after the next provincial election. Don't worry about that.


John Lorne MacDougall: They have no government there now.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: Alberta has shown what can be done.


An hon. Member:: What can be done with oil.


William Albert Boucher: Or with Social Credit dividends.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: I am glad you mentioned that. The hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Boucher) has mentioned Social Credit dividends, and I am glad he did.


Mr. Fair:: Walter Tucker will be able to tell, when he comes back here after the next election.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: We had him here before. I am going to say this to you, that in spite of what you say about dividends-and the hon. member for Rosthern has said the Social Credit party was the first one in this country to mention dividends-that it exactly what we are getting today.


John Lorne MacDougall: Throw the book at us, Bill, and then we will understand.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: The Minister of Fisheries should have known better than to make the statement he made. If he had not been worried he would not have made it. I believe he was parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance at one time; or, if he was not, he was very close to it. Certainly he was assisting the minister. So we see that the British Columbia members today are quite worried; and I hope we keep them worried.


Mr. Hosking:: Oh, you do not want them too worried, do you?


William Albert Boucher: You are getting involved.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: I am not involved as much as you are.


John Lorne MacDougall: You go out and speak for me, because neither of us knows anything about Social Credit. We would make a good team.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: When the hon member for Atha-baska (Mr. Dechene) was speaking in the house he made quite a few statements-


Donald MacInnis: And most of them wrong.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: Yes, most of them were wrong. I am going to read what he said as reported at page 2374 of Hansard:
There is another question that I should like to put to the hon. member for Peace River before he issues his next challenge. I ask him to talk to his own people An Alberta and tell his government to play the game. That is the only word to use, to play the game with the people of Alberta and with the ordinary people in the matter of oil royalties. We are told about the wonderful financial position of Alberta.
Well, I am quite sure the hon. member must know something about the wonderful financial position of Alberta, not just because I am sure every hon. member in the house knows about the financial position of Alberta.
TMr. Wylie. 1



B, 1953

John Lorne MacDougall: They also remember their bonds.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: Alberta has a good government, the best provincial government in Canada; and I only wish we had a Social Credit government here in Ottawa.


William Albert Boucher: What a wish!


John Lorne MacDougall: And you would be Minister of Finance, I suppose.


William Albert Boucher: What a hope!


William Duncan McKay Wylie: You do not have to take my word for it.


William Albert Boucher: Thank goodness.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: Many experts from one end of this country to the other-


Gordon Graydon: Who?


An hon. Member:: Are they political experts?


William Duncan McKay Wylie: -believe that we have the best government to be found in any province in Canada.


John Lorne MacDougall: The best you have had in 17 years.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: The hon. member criticized the oil policy in Alberta. Being an Albertan he should be better informed as to what is being done in that province, and throughout Canada. I have before me an article which appeared in the Toronto Star Weekly of Saturday, January 10, written by Mr. Andrew Ross.


Donald MacInnis: What is he an expert on?


William Duncan McKay Wylie: He makes reference to a geographer by the name of Dr. E. G. Pleva. Dr. Pleva had this to say about Alberta:
"We should be careful that in sharing our resources we do not take the short-term view, and seek to squeeze as much profit as possible out of them in the shortest-possible time," he said. "I am somewhat concerned lest by the time the prairies are in a position to become an important industrial area the oil on which their industry can be established will have been exhausted'-though I will say Alberta has the best oil conservation policy in the world."
Those are not my words; they are the words of an expert.


An hon. Member:: Are you not an expert?


William Duncan McKay Wylie: I will read what has been said by the leader of the Liberal party in Alberta who, I presume, is well known to hon. members opposite, although I do not know whether he could be classed as an expert. We do know that he is the leader of the Liberal party out there. This is what he had to say about the oil policy, as it was reported in the Calgary Albertan in October, 1949: This is entitled "Mr. Prowse and Oil."
The Budget-Mr. Wylie


An hon. Member:: Not too old.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: An hon. member interjects that it is not too old, but just the same the leader of the Liberal party in Alberta is two years older. I hope he has more sense by this time. I quote:
He said the people are not benefiting from the millions of dollars the government has taken in from oil development. True, there has been no dispersal of the funds to the public. Taxes have not been materially reduced. But, to our way of thinking every cent that goes into the provincial treasury is the property of the people of Alberta- it is money in the bank, available for any number of purposes.
He criticized the government for applying oil money against the provincial debt. This is the best possible use to which it could be put. Oil revenue is only received once. It represents capital worth of the province, and as long as the province has a debt, that is the kind of money to pay it with.
He said it wouldn't look right for Alberta to have millions of the unspent money in its treasury when it talked grants with the federal government. If Alberta, along with the other provinces, is entitled to federal money (and we believe they all are on constitutional grounds), then surely the state of Alberta's bank account is of no consequence. It is not our idea of good business to spend this legacy on riotous living just so the province can be broke when it talks terms with Ottawa.
Yet the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Dechene) will go on to criticize the Alberta government because they are obtaining revenue from the production of oil and are not giving it back to the municipalities. Let me tell you that Alberta will be the first province in Canada, it will be the first province in the commonwealth, it will be the first province in the world to be debt-free.


Charles Edward Johnston: The federal government
should take a lesson.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: Yes, as the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) says, the federal government should take a lesson from the Alberta government. It is all right to get revenue from oil, as my hon. friend over to my right says, but the fact is that we have used that oil revenue to the best advantage. We are paying off our debt.


An hon. Member:: We have paid off our debt, too.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: You have paid off your debt? You certainly have not. You should know better than that. My hon. friends know just as well as I do, at least they should know, that the dominion government has not paid off its debt.


An hon. Member:: Just two billions.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: They may have paid off a small part of it, but when you read the speech by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), the leader of this party, you will see what the Liberal government has done.
2714	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Wylie


An hon. Member:: Fabrication.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: That is right, it was just fabrication. My hon. friends across the way do not believe in what they are saying. The oil discoveries in Alberta have meant a lot, not only to Alberta but to Canada as a whole.
While there have been many oil discoveries we should not forget that there is a lot of coal in that area. Alberta has 92 per cent of the coal in this country. Last Saturday I went to Montreal with the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham) to see a demonstration of a coal-burning turbine. The hon. member who is interrupting all the time was with me. He is from a coal-mining area. What might happen in a year or two made that trip more than worth while. In the event of war our oil production would be needed for other purposes; and when we can use coal in our diesels-you may not call them diesels but they are just the same-on railroads from one end of this country to the other it is going to mean a lot to the coal-mining industry, not only in Alberta but in British Columbia and Nova Scotia.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: If the hon. member who keeps on interrupting had come along with us he would have seen that the department is doing something worth while in developing the use of coal instead of oil.
Coming back to oil and to the speech made by the hon. member for Athabaska, he knows what has been done by Imperial Oil Limited and other companies which have invested money in the development of Alberta which,
I repeat, also helps the Dominion of Canada. Imperial Oil has spent millions of dollars in Alberta. I know someone will criticize them for making the profits they do, but I must say that every Saturday night they give us a broadcast of a hockey game by Foster Hewitt.


An hon. Member:: Very important.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: It is very important. Apparently one of the C.C.F. members, the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight), does not like hockey; but I do. We must not forget that there are many old people who just wait for Saturday night to listen to the hockey broadcast by Foster Hewitt.


Mr. Knight:: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I think the hon. member is putting words in my mouth. I am very fond of hockey, and we have a fine hockey team in Saskatoon. I do not think the hon. member should say that.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: I overheard what the hon. member said and I would just as soon that


he did not agree with what I am saying. That is his privilege, but it was loud enough for me to hear it. That is why I said that. There is one thing more I want to say about Imperial Oil and Imperial Esso; and I am not advertising Imperial Esso. They do bring Foster Hewitt into our homes in western Canada every Saturday night. It is something to which we do look forward. It is one of the best broadcasts we have on the air. I might say that I know some of the old people who listen to those broadcasts and they can mention every hockey player on the Toronto Maple Leaf team.


An hon. Member:: Have you heard about Eentley?


William Duncan McKay Wylie: Yes, I have heard about Bentley.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: They are all Saskatoon boys.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: Lots of these old people can tell you about the Toronto Maple Leafs.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: They all come from Saskatoon.


Mr. Quelch:: Drumheller.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: They will tell you their names.


An hon. Member:: Try to get along, fellows.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: We always do. We also have two of the Toronto Maple Leaf hockey players in this house. One of them is Howie Meeker-excuse me for not calling him the hon. member-


An hon. Member:: Where is he?


William Duncan McKay Wylie: I wish he was on the team today. Then we have Bucko McDonald.


An hon. Member:: And where is he?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: What about Lionel Conacher?


An hon. Member:: And where is he?


William Duncan McKay Wylie: It is quite evident that those who are butting in do not know their hockey players, because Lionel Conacher did not play with the Toronto Maple Leafs. It is quite evident that all they are doing is interrupting. I will say, Mr. Speaker, that Bucko McDonald still carries a wicked stick and not only in hockey, playing with the Toronto Maple Leafs. He has also shown his power in politics. So hockey players do carry quite a bit of weight.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: Not only when they are on the hockey team but also in this house, and when they are out in their constituencies.


Mr. Gray  don:@: You're over the blue line, Bill.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: I would like to tell the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Dechene) that we do enjoy what the Imperial Oil is doing by

bringing the hockey game into every home every Saturday night. Now, Mr. Speaker,
I see that my time is slipping along.


An hon. Member:: You are doing fine; lots of time. .


Gordon Graydon: You are just in the third period, Bill.


Mr. Hees:: At the blue line.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: Well, I am just at the blue line, but I would sooner be at the blue line than at the red line any time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words-


An hon. Member:: What about the penalty box and boarding?


William Duncan McKay Wylie: You are just a pipe smoker; you don't count.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: That was a good body check, Bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: I would like to say a few words about agriculture.


Victor Quelch: Shoot on that one.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


An hon. Member:: Quelch gets an assist.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: A lot of remarks are being made, Mr. Speaker, and I did not get them so I could not answer them. If I had heard them I would certainly have answered them.
The hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair), when speaking in the house the other day, put on Hansard some very revealing figures. I am going to mention one or two of them. There was the loss suffered by the farmers under the British wheat agreement in the crop years 1946 to 1949. The loss in those years was $366 million odd.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: They should not have paid any income tax.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: The loss suffered by farmers as a result of subsidizing Canadian consumers during the 1946-1949 crop years was almost $137 million, making a total of $503 million. Now, we have heard a lot in this house about the farmers getting $65 million from the federal government.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: Yes; I say it is a shame. Most members know that the money belonged to the farmers and it was their right.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: Today we know that the
Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is
The Budget-Mr. Wylie worried, and rightly so-as most farmers are worried today-about dropping prices, not only in this country but also in the United States. The Medicine Hat News of February 16, 1953, has this to say:
President Eisenhower as well as Canada's agriculture minister, James G. Gardiner, has expressed concern over the slow, irregular decline of farm prices. In his "state of the union" message, the U.S. president pointed out that the decline has been going on for almost two years, "at a time when most non-farm prices and farm costs of production are extraordinarily high."
Well, we know that prices of farm products have been declining for two years while everything the farmer buys has been going up.
Yesterday we heard a speech by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) on sugar, and it was a good speech. We know what is happening in the sugar market; and I might say to hon. members of this house that with the extension of irrigation in southern Alberta, sugar beets are one crop we can grow, and it is the best crop for irrigated land. I know something about irrigated land. We know that sugar beets are a hoed crop. You have an opportunity to keep the land clean, and it is the only crop we can grow profitably at the present time that will keep the land clean.
Alberta produces most of the sugar beets in this country, and we realize what irrigation means to the southern part of Alberta-and the government realizes it. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) speaking in Lethbridge as far back as October 18, 1946, had this to say:
Any analysis of the benefits of irrigation must make it apparent that its benefits accrue to the state-
So when someone says it is only for the benefit of the district they just really don't know what they are talking about.
-and to the community serving the irrigated area, perhaps to a greater degree than to the individual farmer. Greater density of farming population benefits the municipality that serves the area, and greater volume and greater value of crop production benefits both the province and the dominion. Few persons will deny that an irrigated area producing gross revenue of $50, even though it costs $45 to produce it, contributes far more in value to the community and to the nation than a dry land acre producing $5 gross and costing $4 to produce it, even though the dry land farmer may be as well off individually as his neighbour who uses the ditch. In other words, the benefits of irrigation do not accrue in large measure to the irrigation farmer. He may be able to do as well at dry land farming. The benefits accrue in the increased carrying capacity of the land for human population, and are distributed through the increased ability of that population to buy and sell and pay taxes.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say that irrigation in the southern part of Alberta, particularly the southeastern part as well as
2716	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Henderson in Saskatchewan, will mean a lot not only to the provinces and to the individual farmers but to Canada as a whole. When we have these irrigation projects completed there is one crop we must grow, and that is sugar beets. The other day the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Riley) mentioned the agreements with Cuba, and rather criticized the west for our sugar beet policy. May I tell him that what is good for one part of Canada is good for another. After all, we in Alberta only raise 10 per cent of our sugar consumption. Let us have more irrigation, and more sugar beets.


Mr. W. J. Henderson (Kingston City):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the fine speech delivered tonight by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Wylie). I might say that it will probably be read with a great deal of interest by my father, who was one of the original homesteaders in that constituency. It is probably just as well that my father moved away from there; otherwise, after listening to the predictions of my hon. friend tonight, I am quite sure we would not have the same cordial associations that we have today.
I feel that -the soundness and acceptability of this budget justifies me in taking part in this debate. Indeed, I should like to begin by congratulating the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) on his fine presentation and the content of this budget. We are indeed fortunate to have a Minister of Finance who is as able as he is pleasant. I expect that this is possibly the deep opinion of some of my good friends in the opposition.
I should like to associate myself with the minister and others in this house in the fine tribute they paid to the late Dr. W. C. Clark. Dr. Clark had many associations with my constituency, with Queen's university, with his residence there and the residence of his family. On behalf of my constituents I think it is proper that I should pay tribute to this great Canadian and public servant.
I presume that the two main divisions in any budget are revenues and expenditures. I should first like to say something about expenditures. I have studied the public accounts and the proposed expenditures for the next fiscal year. What do they show? They show this significant fact; that if you eliminate all expenditures on defence, war and social security payments, you find that federal expenditures have been fairly constant for the past few years. This has taken place in .a period of rising prices and expanding incomes. I submit to this house that you would have to search hard among the many governments in this country, provincial and 

municipal, to find another record equal to that. I believe that is sufficient to take care of the alleged extravagance so parroted by the opposition.
No one in this house is going to reduce social security payments.	In fact I will
wager that if any discussion concerning them should come up in this house tonight, we would have many in the opposition who would outdo each other in shouting for larger expenditures. The opposition resembles that typical American congressman who never voted for a tax or against an appropriation.
Our defence expenditures are necessary and certainly could not be smaller under the circumstances, and with such a large scale war preparation. I am going to say that the defence expenditures, in my opinion, are generally carefully and efficiently made. I should like to pay tribute here to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) for the ability, energy and time which he has given to the department. I have military establishments in my riding, and I know something of the work being done. No one who has any personal knowledge of that work, from the minister to the newest private, could take seriously the opposition attempt to blow minor and local malpractices into major and general ones. I believe the Department of National Defence has a good and able minister. I know that the army personnel of all ranks in my area are among the best. I am glad to have them in my riding. They are in many cases the children of my neighbours and constituents, and I repudiate any attempt at a blanket condemnation of the defence establishments at any level.
Turning now to the revenue side of the budget which, in the main, is tax revenue, may I say that it is commonplace that you cannot have public expenditures without taxes. If we are to have defence expenditures, social security payments, ordinary government services, taxes must be levied. No legislator wants to levy taxes or to have them higher than they need be. This budget levies the taxes as fairly as can be, and as lightly as possible under the circumstances. The Canadian system of taxation is one in which various forms of taxes are blended to make a consistent whole. Income taxes, corporation taxes, commodity taxes and duties are all used and used well. The tax system of Canada is a credit to this country.
I believe that the tax reductions made last year and again this year are sound and acceptable. Of course we would like greater reductions, but who wouldn't? The present reductions give every class of taxpayer some

relief and do not concentrate it all in one place. At this point I might say that the elimination of the radio licence, which was approved by all, was the elimination of the nuisance of all nuisance taxes. The really fine thing about the reductions is that they are based on a growing national productivity in an atmosphere of good government.
I am not an expert in these matters, but I do know that the fine calculations which the minister has to make are based on future judgments and can be very easily thrown out of line. Some of the critics seem to think, judging from the comments, that the minister knows as much about the future as they do about the past. I think, in view of the variables with which he is dealing, that he has done a remarkable job of budgeting during the years he has been in charge of this department.
We have heard the Conservatives cry about overtaxation. Why? Because the national debt has been reduced. What do they expect? What is their policy? Do they not pay off their debts? The Conservative government in Ontario compels the municipalities to pay off their debts. Is this a good policy for Ontario and a bad one for Canada? If you do not pay off your debts when you are prosperous, when do you pay them off? I take it that the opposition would never pay off their debts. It would be a matter of going from peak to peak. The cry of overtaxation is a plain matter of party partisanship and with no sound grounds. In my opinion the financial policies of the Liberal government since 1935 have been soundly conceived and well carried out.
Canada has received and deserved the commendation of the outside world on its realistic and forward-looking policies. In our own country the royal commission on prices had this to say in 1949 about the fiscal policies of our government. I quote from page 168, volume II, of that commission's report:
. . . the government did not hesitate to pursue a vigorous fiscal policy. It made a determined effort to pay for a high proportion of the war out of taxes and to finance the remaining deficit by methods calculated to reduce the volume of spending. There are no absolute standards against which to measure achievements; we can only record our view that the policies followed by the government indicated a true appreciation of the principles of war finance and that more was done than most people thought possible to translate these principles into practice.
These men who knew the principles of war finance know the principles of peacetime finance equally well, as is shown in this budget.
They are the men who bring to us these policies which I for one endorse.
The Budget-Mr. Henderson
There are two further remarks which I should like to make, one to the Department of National Revenue and one to the Department of Veterans Affairs. I should first like to deal with the Department of National Revenue and suggest that they have better public relations as far as the collection of taxes are concerned. By that I do not mean as to personnel. I mean, applying it locally, as to the facilities of offices to which the taxpayer goes to pay his taxes. I think they could take a good lesson from the banks, which make it as easy as possible for their customers to come in and discuss their problems with them.
As it is locally in Kingston if a taxpayer wishes to go in and pay his taxes or have an interview, he goes to the office building, and goes up one flight of stairs which I think are the most awkward that man has ever climbed. Then he goes up a further flight of stairs if he has not reached the right place, and down again; and by the time he meets the person whom he wishes to interview he is irritated, frustrated, sweating and in bad humour. I suggest it is unfair to the personnel to meet people under those circumstances. I submit that the tax collection office should be on the main floor. I submit further that if that is not possible, there should be a system of elevators to carry the taxpayers to the national revenue offices.
I should like to make one other remark in relation to the Department of Veterans Affairs, and more particularly the district administration of the Veterans Land Act in the constituency of Kingston. They have done an excellent job in the past and have administered the Veterans Land Act excellently. Every lot of space they have purchased has now been taken up by one veteran or another. As we are aware, Kingston is a fast-growing city industrially and otherwise. I think the time has come when the Department of Veterans Affairs, through their Veterans Land Act administrators, should undertake to purchase a larger section of land in order to further Veterans Land Act development for the veterans of that district.
I should like to point out that there are many veterans who were not formerly financially in a position to buy their own homes, and that they should have this opportunity of purchasing a lot in close proximity to the city in order that they may have the same privileges as persons who have already purchased land there. I might point out that these boys were not in that locality at a time when they could purchase reasonably-priced houses during the war or immediately after the war.


A. Earl Catherwood: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday last the hon. member

The Budget-Mr. Catherwood for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) made the statement that he would like some members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition to make some remarks with regard to the dairy industry, so I am very happy to do so.
I realize that the problems of the dairy industry are principally under provincial jurisdiction. However, there is a national significance attached to it that 1 think we might well discuss for a few moments this evening. I think it was Carlyle who once said that it is not our business to see that which lies dimly at a distance, but it is our business to see that which lies clearly at hand. There is a matter of great importance that lies closely at hand, and that is the future of the dairy industry in Canada. I feel that it is endangered as it has never been endangered before. I think it is of concern to all the members of this House of Commons that we study seriously the problems of this great segment of agriculture in Canada.
I wish to make reference to the effect the continually increasing use of dairy substitutes is having on our production of butter, cheese, milk and other products that are derived from the dairy industry. It is becoming apparent, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Fraser Valley, that margarine is being generally accepted in this country in its many and different forms, as eight out of ten provinces in Canada today are accepting it and are allowing its use and its manufacture. But the matter that we as members of parliament I feel should meet is the rapid growth in production of the many synthetic dairy products that are beginning to threaten the entire industry which on the surface may be welcomed by many people who see in these commodities an opportunity of purchasing a substitute for dairy products at a lower price, and which is ordinarily a good buying practice. Nevertheless there is another factor that we must consider, and it is a very disturbing factor indeed. That is when we stop to consider that today we have ice cream made entirely out of vegetable oils; we have so-called whipping cream composed of ingredients that contain no milk content whatever; and recent experiments have proven that practically all milk products, including milk itself, can be replaced by substitutes made entirely from oils of one kind or another.
What will all this eventually lead to, Mr. Speaker? What can the result be? I think it can indicate beyond any question of doubt that it will eventually eliminate the dairy cow from our Canadian farms.
Those of us who are associated in agricultural production-and there are a good number of us in this House of Commons-

view with grave and growing concern the possibilities that face us if this situation develops. We have no assurance that such will not be the case. When that day arrives it may very well be the beginning of the deterioration of the high health standards which we have endeavoured to build up through the years in this country.
It was well pointed out in the speech made by the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair) on April 16, 1951-
. . . that no type of food is more important to health and good nutrition than milk products, and that no type of food will receive greater emphasis in the future of Canada and the rest of the world. Milk is regarded as the perfect food.
With that statement I think we can all agree. The question we have to ask ourselves is this. Are we going to accept this growing danger to this important phase of our agricultural economy and to our health standards with nonchalant complacency, or are we not? I know and realize, as I mentioned previously, that this is a matter that is primarily under provincial jurisdiction; but I think it has developed to the point when it has become national in scope and I believe it has become national in its implications.
I ask hon. members in this house how many realize how much we depend upon our cattle population in order to maintain the fertility of the top six inches of soil. I also ask hon. members how many realize the extent to which our very existence as a people and our very existence as a nation depends upon the maintenance of that fertility. It is all very well to say that if the dairy cow disappears from the Canadian scene as a result of these synthetic products, the fertility of the soil will be sustained by the application of commercial fertilizers such as potash, nitrogen, lime, phosphate and so on. In order to maintain soil fertility any good practical farmer-and I think our agricultural economists will agree-will say in no uncertain terms that the fertilizers that are available from the dairy stables in this country contain the essentials which we need for high productivity of our agricultural lands. We should also know that continual cropping year by year without supplementing the land with the necessary substances which the dairy herds supply will mine the soil of those essential vitamins and mineral content upon which our health as a nation depends.
That, Mr. Speaker, is one of the reasons we as members of this house should be concerned with this matter. It is the reason all hon. members should be aware of these facts. I agree that if the health of our people means anything to us, and I think it does, then we should consider seriously all these things if our health standards are to be maintained.

That is the situation that we have to view, consider and ponder very seriously before we go all out in endorsing and welcoming these substitutes which could quite conceivably mean the end of the dairy industry in Canada.
I would ask hon. members to bear with me for a moment while we consider this matter from another angle, namely the welfare of those associated with the dairy industry as a whole. We have over 1,820,000 persons engaged in the dairy industry. That includes our farmers and those employed in the dairy industry, in the dairies and in other associated industries across the country. This ranks as the third highest industry in Canada, involving one-sixth of our total population. Last year this industry was confronted with a lost market and diminishing returns on the one hand, and increasing costs on the other. It has been estimated that last year the average price on all farm milk fell by over 10 per cent. The price of calves and cows sold for meat fell 36 per cent, while the cost of production based on the index of goods and services increased almost 6 per cent. As a result of those conditions the purchasing power of these people was impaired to the extent of over $50 million.
In 1951 the cash income for milk sold from farms totalled $373,611,000; the cash income from calves and cows, breeding stock and meat sold on farms totalled $475 million, making a total of $848,611,000. That is a great purchasing power in the hands of the farmers of this country, and that purchasing power does mean so much to other industries across this land. The milk sold for creamery butter production has been estimated at 36 per cent of the total, and it experienced a price drop of 10-3 per cent. The milk consumed in the production of cheese amounted to 7 per cent of the total sales, and it slumped 17 per cent in price last year. In other words the dairy industry, which sells 84 per cent of its total, 16 per cent being used on the farms, last year experienced a falling off in returns ranging from 5-6 per cent to as high as 34-7 per cent, while the over-all cost of production increased by 6 per cent. A situation like this cannot continue indefinitely. Those employed in this industry will eventually be greatly affected, and the welfare and the whole economy of our country will certainly be affected as well.
These facts simply mean, sir, that our governments of necessity must give greater consideration and attach greater importance to the regaining of these markets which I say are lost markets, but which the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) said were not lost
The Budget-Mr. Catherwood when he made his speech last evening in this House of Commons. Many of the farmers feel that these markets are lost, as they indicate to us when we visit the various farms in our constituencies. It takes only a small undisposable surplus on the markets in the case of perishable agricultural products to upset the whole price structure.
In the speech of the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair) on April 16, 1951, he referred to the close association between dairying and conservation. What he said is as true today as it was at the time he made his speech. How sound his observations were has been borne out many times since by speeches from economic leaders across this country, and I should like to quote a recent statement made by Dr. G. E. Hall, president of the University of Western Ontario, as follows:
Livestock is the only agricultural agency available to us for converting rough feeds into food for human consumption. The dairy cow does this with, great efficiency.
He goes on to say:
And besides the growing of pasture, grasses and hay crops the natural food for the dairy cow' is one of the approved practices for preventing soil erosion.
That to me is very important. So we have the three points from the national interest. First we have to approach this from the angle of the health standards of our people; we have to approach it from the fact that 1,800,000 people are affected by the dairy industry, and we have to consider it particularly from the angle of the conservation and improvement that the dairy population means to our soil. The government must of necessity give considerable thought to this matter for the ultimate good not only of the farmers but of the people of Canada as a whole.
I conscientiously believe that a complete review of every aspect of this situation, which has so many ramifications, is necessary at the present time. I would suggest that our agriculture committee be convened, and that we should study this matter. We should get certain factual information which will be most helpful, and bring it to the attention of that committee. Much valuable information could be secured from our agricultural leaders across Canada, and perhaps it would be very interesting to have the views of competent United States authorities on this matter. If this were done I feel that we would be at least in a position to determine what would be the best course to pursue from a national standpoint.
I do not want to be classed as an alarmist on these matters, but I have felt that one
2720	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Catherwood phase of agriculture is being seriously affected. We do not enjoy having to refer to these matters, but it is our responsibility and our duty as members to do so. That is what parliament is for.
I have found that our urban friends are very tolerant when we bring these matters to their attention. They are very broadminded people, and they do not resent having these facts brought clearly before them, because after all they do affect their welfare. It may not affect them directly but it does affect them indirectly, and they appreciate knowing some of these factors. One of the things I have learned since coming to parliament is the appreciation and understanding that our people have generally for those engaged in other occupations. I can assure the government that every effort they make toward aiding or improving the welfare of those engaged in occupations or industries across the country will be acclaimed by the people of Canada.
I regret that no marked reference was made either in the speech from the throne or in the budget speech the other evening which would indicate that recognition has been accorded the primary producer of this country. No reference was made in either one of those presentations to the house as to the action that might be taken to regain some of the markets that would give farmers some assurance for the future. I do say very earnestly that the farmers are concerned. That is the main concern of our agricultural industry today. They are worried about the uncertainty of the future so far as their markets are concerned.
The Minister of Agriculture tried to be very optimistic in his very stirring speech last night. He put on the record some very interesting statements. He put on a table giving a comparison of the average farm price, the average annual volume of production and the average farm values for the two three-year periods 1943-45 and 1949-51 for selected commodities. The facts that the minister put on the record are quite accurate, but at the same time the farmers of Canada are not so concerned about these figures, which are very buoyant, it is true. They are concerned with the fact that rising costs have more than taken the profits they would otherwise have had. When we see that the cost of production is rising and the farmer is receiving a decreased income we see a situation which is very serious indeed.
We also listened with a great deal of interest to the speech of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) on his return from the Latin American countries. We also trust that much good will come as


a result of the contacts he made on that trip with the company that he had with him.
I am sure that is the wish of all in this house, and particularly those connected with agriculture. We also had hoped that some encouragement would come from the prime ministers' conference held in London, which was attended by our Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). We thought something would be done toward paving the way to iron out the difficulties we have in the matter of dollar and sterling exchange, that would mean so much to us.
In all these things, which we trust may still have possibilities, we have not seen the concrete evidence we have been looking for that would eliminate the doubt and uncertainty that without question exist in the minds of those of us who are engaged in agriculture today.


John Lorne MacDougall: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak for a few moments, not so much concerning the contents of the budget but more particularly about some aspects of the operations of the Department of National Revenue, the Department of Transport and the Department of Veterans Affairs.
I, in company with other members of the House of Commons and those from the other place, listened today with close attention to Lord Ismay, Secretary General of NATO. He made some pertinent statements of which I took note and, while some of his observations are discussed in this evening's press, they are not all there. He also pointed to the fact that we of the free world should not be discouraged by the progress of NATO because, as he indicated, it was some two years plus, following the formation of the confederacy in the United States, before it began to function in anything like a satisfactory manner. He pointed out that if this was applicable-as indeed it was-to the United States, a sovereign nation in itself, then how much more patient the 14 member nations of NATO ought to be concerning the affairs of that organization, when we must work with 13 other sovereign nations.
I know the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) is a very busy man. On November 25 I referred to what I then considered and still consider to be the duty of this parliament, namely that of stating in unequivocal terms our stand with respect to NATO. I believe there is a great measure of misunderstanding through the length and breadth of Canada as to what NATO actually means. I should like very much to have seen by this time a debate on a national scale, in which leaders of all the various groups in the house would have participated.

I am sorry the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chcvrier) is not in his seat this evening because on November 25, when I spoke last in the house, I dealt with some matters affecting the Canadian National Railways particularly, pointing out what I considered a lack of service and consequently a lack of income to those railways. There is another aspect of the same question with which I wish to deal tonight. I am not blaming any of the staff of the Canadian National Railways, because they are a fine group of people. The fact remains, however, that in my opinion they are using a most inadequate system with respect to reservations. It is one that in my opinion should be cleared up immediately.
When one goes in for a reservation, instead of utilizing his name a code number is used in place of it. The sleeping car conductors on the Canadian National Railways tell me that it nearly drives them crazy. If that is true-and I am inclined to believe that it is-then it is time to make a correction in the system, not only with respect to the elimination of the code system but also with respect to the method of making reservations. And this is where I think we are losing our greatest amount of income, so far as the passenger service of the Canadian National Railways is concerned.
What is happening with respect to reservations? The fact is that, for one man, they may be made on two or three occasions for the same train. It may develop that perhaps an hour or so before the departure of the train the weather may turn out particularly pleasant, with the result that the potential passenger leaves by air, and two or three reservations are left vacant.
To give one specific instance, upon going home last summer I was informed by the office of the Canadian National Railways that it was impossible to secure a reservation, that I would have to wait for at least two weeks. They were good enough, however, to meet the additional demand for reservations by making an extra car available at Montreal. And I might say, in passing, that I am sure that must have been the car in which Sir John A. Macdonald travelled.


Gordon Graydon: You would feel right at home there.


John Lorne MacDougall: The heat in the car was atrocious. It was a hot night; the air conditioning unit was completely inadequate, and when the ticket conductor came through I asked if he would move me to a day coach. He told me there was no occasion for that, that a room was available in the next car. Had it not been for the fact that I was permitted to occupy that room in the next car, 68108-1734
The Budget-Mr. MacDougall it would have remained vacant from Montreal right through to Edmonton, because I did not have to leave it until I reached that city. At that point I had to transfer to another car. Surely there is some way of improving this situation respecting reservations. We saw the same thing happening with Trans-Canada Air Lines some years ago, when cancellation of reservations was permitted. Now one has to validate his ticket three hours before departure.
I would suggest that the minister draw these facts to the attention of the management of the railways, in order to prevent the abuses which have taken place in the past, and are continuing today. My suggestion would be that at the time one makes a reservation he should pay at least 50 per cent of its cost. Then if he does not take it, it is just too bad for him; and the Canadian National Railways has received at least 50 per cent of the cost of the reservation.
I shall now refer to running time. This is-an important matter because, so far as the Canadian National Railways operating out of Vancouver are concerned, the competition is not with the Canadian Pacific, the privately-owned company, but with the United States railroads, that cut the time from Vancouver to Chicago by 12 to 14 hours. As far as the Canadian Pacific is concerned, it is most unfortunate that their gradients are a little more difficult than those of the Canadian National. But with the great number of diesel engines which the Canadian Pacific now have I see no reason why they could not speed up their service. Certainly the Canadian National could do it quite easily. I submit that this question should be given to the board of transport commissioners for consideration.
If 12 or 14 hours could be cut off the time between Vancouver and Chicago or Vancouver and Toronto it would create greater revenue for the Canadian National Railways, and for the Canadian Pacific as well if they would make greater use of diesels. I am old-fashioned enough to believe that charity begins at home. If the services on both our' railroads can be improved and more revenue-obtained from Canadians who travel across the country, then those railways will be providing better service for the Canadian taxpayer.
I should like to deal for a few moments with war veterans allowances. Along with other hon. members, I was a member of the war veterans' committee which sat last year. We thought we had in Bill No. 181 a slight improvement in war veterans allowances. To me any improvement is worth while regardless of whether it is great, moderate or
2722	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. MacDougall small. We have a peculiar condition on the Pacific coast in connection with the recipients of war veterans allowances, in that we have from 26 to 28 per cent of the total number in Canada residing on the lower mainland in and around Vancouver.
I supported the bill along with many other hon. members of the committee. We certainly were not given to understand that that was the end of advantageous war veterans' allowance legislation. Whether it was imagination or whether it was a desire in our own hearts, we felt that the legislation could still be improved. I reiterate tonight that that legislation ought to be improved immediately.
True enough the Canadian Legion across Canada, particularly from the Rocky mountains eastward, is not too concerned about the situation as it now exists. Scattered throughout the other nine provinces of Canada are less than 75 per cent of the total number of war veterans allowance recipients. As I say, British Columbia has the great preponderance of recipients residing there. At this time I should like to make a definite and specific plea to the government, in all sincerity and humility, to reconsider its stand with respect to war veterans allowances and give these recipients an increase of not less than $10 per month.
I think all hon. members will agree with me when I say that the greatest test of patriotism for citizens in any country is to step into the breach against aggression. That to me is the quintessence of patriotism which is recognized by all governments. It is true that conditions are a great deal better today than they were after the first world war, but are they good enough for these people who, even though they may have no pensionable disabilities, have been aged at least ten years. That is verified by all recognized authorities in Canada. In my humble opinion anything that we can do for the recipients of war veterans allowances is a tribute to the nationhood of the Dominion of Canada.
I am going to speak for a moment or two about pensions for the blind. I speak rather feelingly on this matter because one year in the early days on the prairies when I was running a binder as a boy we had a terrific amount of rust in the wheat. During the course of reaping the grain one could not help but get a lot of rust impregnated into every pore of his body. That was true in my case; but I also got it into my eyes. We did not have the modern drugs we have now, and as a result of that infection I went around with my eyes covered for pretty close to three weeks. When the covers and bandages were removed and I could see again I felt like


those in the Bible of old who had seen a new heaven and a new world.
I do not think there is a man in this house whose vocabulary is sufficiently adequate to describe what the return of sight would mean to a person thought to be permanently blinded. It would mean more than a new heaven and a new world. It would mean life revitalized, it would mean life accelerated to an extent which you and I in the ordinary course of our lives would be unable to appreciate. The humanitarian aspect involved in the removal of the means test in connection with this category of pensions was in my opinion a great forward step for the Canadian people to have taken. It is not only a great forward step for the Canadian people, but it would be a great credit to every member of this parliament if he or she had an opportunity of sharing in the consummation of that great Canadian endeavour.
So, sir, I ask the government in all seriousness, and in humility, to give this problem their very earnest consideration. Surely, with the expenditures of billions of dollars which the taxpayers of Canada are called upon to make, we can find a few millions to make a great deal happier the men in the category to which I have just referred, and the recipients of war veterans allowance across the length and breadth of this dominion of ours.
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that the minister who has under his wing the administration of radio and television is not in his place because we, on the Pacific coast, have a very definite problem in connection with the present policy of the administration here. We are today sending $120,000 a week in advertising from Vancouver to Bellingham, a small town only 40 miles south of Vancouver. Take the daily papers in Vancouver, and you see block advertisements every day asking for salesmen to sell to potential buyers in Vancouver T.V. programs which will be piped in from Bellingham.
In the city of Vancouver we have what is commonly known as the southern slope; and radio or T.V. reception on the southern slope, at its crest or toward the south, is extremely good. It is not so good further north in the city. In the ridings of Vancouver South, Vancouver-Quadra, some portions of the riding of my hon. friend from Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) and my own riding of Vancouver-Burrard there are more than
25,000	T.V. receiving sets. Where are they getting their programs? They are getting their programs, as I said, piped in from Bellingham. True, the government has taken the very forward step of securing the site

for the erection of a T.V. tower for Vancouver, but when that will be in operation I am not prepared to say.
Sir, on the 2nd of June you are going to attend one of the world's greatest festivities, the crowning of our sovereign, Queen Elizabeth II, God bless her. As staunch and loyal Canadians we in Vancouver would like to see that coronation ceremony. Not being fortunate enough to be one of those who have been selected by the government to go over to London, and not being sufficiently well heeled with folding money to go over on my own, I would like to see that coronation on a T.V. set over the C.B.C. even if I had to go and sit in with some of my neighbours. However, unless some type of temporary tower is erected in Vancouver, with all those T.V. sets there to receive, what is going to be the result? The result will be that we Canadians, members of the commonwealth, heirs to the British heritage, on such a stupendous occasion as the coronation of our Queen are going to have to view it from a source originating in a foreign country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, to be quite candid and frank about this matter, I understand that the city of Ottawa will possibly have a T.V. tower for the coronation. I do not know how true that is; but if they do, what are they going to use for T.V. receiving sets? I am sure they have not very many here now. The likelihood is that they won't know whether or not they are going to have a temporary tower to receive possibly from Toronto or Montreal a telecast of the coronation on the 2nd of June.
I say, sir, that it is a matter of national pride, not a matter of politics at all but a matter of national pride, that every Canadian who loves his country, who loves his queen and the history and heritage behind him and behind her, demands that we have a better type of service than some foreign T.V. coming in from the city of Bellingham. I hope due notice will be taken of my remarks tonight by the three absent ministers to whom I have directed them, because my remarks particularly affect their departments.
I would like to close by saying that I am not one who is gifted in giving praise. I never expect it myself, and never earn it; but when I do see a job well done I am not backward in paying tribute to the doer. Though we have had many macerations of the budget with respect to all the details-we have brushed it, we have curried it and we have fine-combed it-we still have a budget that is generally accepted, I think across Canada, as not a sunshine budget but a
The Budget-Mr. Wood budget that is fair to the general run of taxpayers in the Dominion of Canada.
In conclusion, sir, I wish to pay my full tribute of confidence in the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott)-


Alphonse Fournier: Hear, hear.


John Lorne MacDougall: -who not only this year but, I think, for seven previous years has done a stupendous job for the people of Canada.


Robert James Wood: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in this discussion, first of all I may say that I am very pleased with this budget. It does not show favouritism to any particular group but, at the same time, every taxpayer benefits. It is a summing up and forecast of a business run in a highly efficient manner; and I was not surprised that our Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) was dubbed "the wizard of Ottawa" by New York papers.
The finance minister is the key man in the production of this budget, but every member of the cabinet is responsible to a degree for the successful operation of this business. There is one man in particular to whom I wish to refer tonight, and that is the Minister of Trade and Commerce, Right Hon. C. D. Howe. This man is responsible for our trade policy and is providing the inspiration for our economic development. He has been procuring markets for us which provide employment for everyone across Canada.
Speaking of employment, I saw an article in the Ottawa Citizen of February 26, under the heading "Employment at a high level," which said that in the week ending January 24 there were 4,533,000 persons who worked a full week. I think this is a record of which we should be very proud. Our trade policies are all conducive to increasing our business. This year, through the good efforts of our minister and his staff, a crop of one and a half billion bushels of grain is being satisfactorily marketed. We have a steady outlet for our cattle, and the best market in the world takes care of our surplus stock. This is a stabilized market. Following the outbreak of hoof-and-mouth disease in Saskatchewan last fall, this market was closed to our Canadian livestock producers. It was opened again on Monday, March 2, so we now have trade connections with the United States in that line.
We are allowed to ship 400,000 head of cattle, weighing 700 pounds and over, to the United States market each year. In addition to that we are allowed to ship 200,000 head of veal calves, weighing up to 200 pounds each, per year. The duty, which was 3 cents per pound in the early thirties, is now
2724	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Wood li cents a pound. Because of these markets, industry in Canada is quite healthy. Overall production has increased year by year, and this continual increase in production is the direct result of the atmosphere created by our government leaders under the guiding hand of our wise and kind Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). As a result of this favourable atmosphere, people are working harder and producing more year by year. Our country is the envy of all countries throughout the world.
The tariff structure today is only a shadow of what it was under the last Conservative government. I can remember that in the election campaign back in 1929, one Conservative campaigner came into a hall in our district and placed on the table a cream can and a cow-bell. He commenced his speech by ringing the cow-bell; then he would ask the farmers if they were satisfied with the price of 28 cents a pound for butter and 22 cents a dozen for eggs. Of course the farmers were not satisfied, and today the farmers across Canada are not satisfied with the prices they are getting for their products. I do not blame them. It is Liberal policy to always strive to get better prices.
After the Conservatives won the election in 1930, we find that in 1933 and 1934 butter prices dropped to 14 cents a pound and eggs to 7 cents a dozen. The prices of other farm products dropped to rock bottom. I saw carloads and carloads of reasonably good cattle being processed by the packing houses in the city of Winnipeg at a price of half a cent a pound. They were disposing of their surplus stock, and canning it. In 1933 wheat dropped to an all-time Canadian low of 39 cents a bushel f.o.b. Fort William. This happened in spite of the fact that we had all the brokers in the grain exchange in Winnipeg seeking markets, as well as the then leader of the government, the late R. B. Bennett, with his professed blasting formula which failed to get any markets for our wheat.
There are hon. members in this house who will say that conditions were the same all over the world, and that is true. In those days countries were trying to be self-sufficient, just as Canada wished to be self-sufficient. I should like to point out here, however, that two wrongs do not make a right. Certainly our Conservative government, during their term of office, failed to get us any markets. Even when the United States government passed a resolution in 1934 authorizing trade agreements, our Conservative government failed to make an effort to deal with them for some of our surplus goods.


George Harris Hees: Where would you suggest we could have got markets?


Robert James Wood: You could have gotten them in the United States in 1934; that is what I am pointing out.


William Joseph Browne: May I ask
the hon. member his authority for making that statement?


An hon. Member:: Haw, haw, Hees.


George Harris Hees: That is a bright remark.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson):: May
I point out that the hon. member who has the floor may not be interrupted without his consent.


Robert James Wood: I must say that it is gratifying to notice that some of these members of the opposition on my left are squirming when I point out the shortcomings of their predecessors. I like to see them squirm. It was not until three weeks after the election of 1935 that the late Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King made a deal-


George Harris Hees: Can't you answer the questions?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson):: Order.


Robert James Wood: Is it all right, Mr. Speaker, to go ahead?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would the hon. member permit a question at this point?


Robert James Wood: If any of them wish to ask questions, they are doing so with a sinister motive.


William Joseph Browne: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


George Harris Hees: He has not the answer. He does not know what he is talking about.


William Joseph Browne: I suggest that the hon. member ought to be made to withdraw that statement in which he is implying sinister motives.


Douglas Charles Abbott: They say worse than that down in Newfoundland.


Robert James Wood: As I was saying, three weeks after the election of 1935 our prime minister, the late Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King, made a deal with the United States government to take several of our surplus products, including 250,000 head of cattle each year. As a result of that deal our cattle advanced in price 4 or 5 cents a pound right away, and that was in the fall of 1935.
The other afternoon I listened to the hon. member for DufEerin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe), who I understand was a cabinet minister in the late Bennett government. Today he occupies a seat on the front benches of the Conservative party. I wish to quote one of his statements appearing on page 2474 of

Hansard for February 27, 1953, which reads as follows:
I am getting very tired, and I have been tired for a long time, of this looking to the north and south for agriculture markets.
It is quite evident that the hon. member is expressing the opinion of the Conservative party in the remark I have just quoted. They still do not want to have any truck or trade with the Yankees.
Referring to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the same hon. member said, as recorded at page 2474 of Hansard for February 27, 1953:
His viewpoint, that we have to look north and south for trade, is just the same as their party's viewpoint was before the turn of the century. His party lost an election in which they wanted commercial union with the United States-
Evidently the hon. member is referring to the election of 1911 in which the United States was offering Canada reciprocal trade. Personally I consider that that election result was one of the worst blows the Dominion of Canada has ever received. It certainly set this country back at least a decade. The hon. member went on, and I quote:
-and they have been looking north and south ever since. This Conservative party sitting to your left, Mr. Speaker . . . has consistently said that we must have markets with Europe, and with other places that need our food.
We agree that we have to have markets in Europe and in Great Britain. That is the policy of our government. I want to point out that today the Department of Trade and Commerce has found markets for our wheat in at least 40 different countries, and for our other products in many countries. When they say we have to look to Europe, certainly we do; but we must not stop there. We have to look to the South American countries and all the other countries of the world for markets; that is the policy of this government.
Mr. Speaker, we were dependent for the sale of our cattle to Great Britain during the last war and up to the fall of 1948. We were obliged to fill bulk beef orders with them, and to do so the price of our cattle in the stockyards at St. Boniface up to August, 1948, was 12 to 13 cents a pound for the best steers. I would ask you to remember, Mr. Speaker, that that was only four years ago, when we were receiving 12 and 13 cents a pound for our best steers. But in the fall of 1948 the United States market was opened to our cattle producers and, as a result, our cattle immediately advanced to 21 cents a pound, and the price kept climbing up until in the winter of 1951-52, it reached 35 cents a pound, which is the highest price at which cattle ever sold in the Dominion of Canada.
Recently we listened to the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy) pleading for
The Budget-Mr. Wood the sugar refineries; and on February 27 the hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. White) made the statement that the Cuban deal had turned towards the United States extra dollars that used to find their way to the British West Indies. This statement does not conform to the facts.
I should like to say to these gentlemen to my left that I consider we should deal with Cuba and take from her a quantity of her sugar. In 1952 we bought from Cuba raw sugar to the value of $11,605,070 and refined sugar to the value of $1,759,413, making a total of sugar purchases of $13,364,483, practically all of which was raw sugar; but last year, 1952-and under this agreement-we sold to Cuba over 10 million bushels of western wheat for which they paid us $18 million; that is, we received for our wheat more than $4J million more than we paid for our sugar. I would suggest that the Conservative party give their trade policies a complete overhaul; and I can assure them that ringing a cow-bell will not help them in the next election in the prairie provinces.
Even although this may be an election year, no one can honestly call this an election budget. No single group benefits to a great extent, yet a move has been made in the right direction. Last year, speaking in the budget debate, I expressed concern at the fact that little had been done with respect to lowering our customs tariffs. The record of the Liberal government, however, in that respect has been very good.
Furthermore, this government is using every effort to bring about freer trade amongst nations of the world. Our government has made trade terms with the United States whereby that country allows us to ship them, from the prairie provinces and other parts of Canada, cattle, sheep, hogs, meats, poultry and other farm products. Recently in a speech delivered by our Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) to a United States audience, he said:
I can assure you that we in Canada wish to see international trade easier both on this continent and throughout the world. We are prepared to do our part to this end and especially to support any move designed to bring about the freest possible exchange of goods. Surely such a policy makes continental common sense.
The tariff structure, in addition to retarding trade, is discriminatory to many sections of our Canadian economy. It is particularly discriminatory toward the consumers and producers of the three prairie provinces. Our tariff structure provides a sheltered market for the manufactured goods produced in central Canada. Tariffs are supposed to protect the markets for Canadian industry, and I
2726	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Wood have no fault to find with our tariff structure if it is put to the use for which it was intended; but I certainly have a complaint because of abuses practised by industry in Canada, whereby they take advantage of our tariffs and show no gratitude whatever for the preferred position they enjoy.
Most Canadians would prefer to buy Canadian goods if prices and quality were comparable with similar goods from other countries. But prices seldom are comparable. Besides, tariff walls produce a favourable climate for the operation of combines in Canada. Tariffs are just a handout to industry; and under present-day practices the consumers of Canada are put in a position where they are continually bonusing industry, the bulk of which is in central Canada. I therefore wish at this time to urge our government to set up a committee of this house to investigate these abusive practices by Canadian industry and to report their findings to this government from time to time.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that in 1936 a committee similar to that which I am advocating was set up to investigate conditions in the Canadian farm implement manufacturing business. After making a thorough investigation into the workings of the farm implement industry, they presented their report to this house in 1937. I have here a summary of the conclusions of that committee. This was copied by my stenographer, on April 7, 1952, from the report which is in the library and which is signed by J. Fred Johnston, the chairman of the committee. I want to read some of the clauses of this report:
In terms of the foregoing the committee has reached the following conclusions and makes the following recommendations:
1.	That the prosperity of the farm implement industry is directly dependent on the prosperity of agriculture . . .
4.	That the companies engaged in the industry, over the period of their operations as a whole, have made substantial profits on the capital invested in each company.
5.	That, if in particular instances this was not so, it was due to reasons other than the price level at which farm implements have been sold in Canada throughout the same period , . .
7. That farmers have a right to expect the price level of farm implements to be based on the most efficient and economical manufacturing and distribution cost ...
16.	That it is the opinion of the committee that the cost of cream separators to the consumers should be reduced and with that end in view recommends that this item be placed on the free list.
17.	That reduction in the tariff should and does, in the long run, tend to lower the price level to the farmer, depending on the extent of free price competition in the industry.


18.	That in the farm implement industry there Is competition in the matter of sales but little effective competition in the matter of prices.
19.	That the provisions of the Customs Act and the Customs Tariff Act affecting the importation of farm implements should be clarified and simplified.
20.	That regulations of the Department of National Revenue, under the above provisions have resulted in the inequality of treatment of importers of a like class and the whole matter should be the subject of survey by the minister of that department.
21.	That these regulations have resulted directly and indirectly in the retention in the United States of profits arising out of the operations in Canada of certain United States companies and that these profits have been subjected to income tax in the United States instead of in Canada . . .
23. That recent reductions in tariff and other trade barriers resulted in the Canadian companies lowering their prices on certain farm implements imported from the United States, but the United States companies manufacturing a full general line in the United States and marketing these in Canada did not lower their prices generally on importations other than those affected by the price reductions of the Canadian companies, indicating the lack of free price competition in the industry . . .
25.	That in order to assist the farm implement companies to satisfy the requirements of agriculture In the matter of farm implements in the next few years, the committee is of the opinion that the duty on materials entering into the manufacture of farm implements should be removed or that the farm implement companies should be granted a drawback of any duties paid on materials entering into the manufacture of farm implements.
26.	That the last recommendation is made on the assumption that any saving to the companies resulting therefrom should be passed on to the purchaser of farm implements in the retail price . . .
29.	That the increases announced by the companies in January 1936, were not justified by an increase in manufacturing or distribution costs or by the financial results of the companies in so far as these were affected by the price level of farm implements.
30.	That over the period 1891 to 1936 retail prices of farm implements have been maintained at too high a level as shown by the financial returns to the companies engaged in the industry, during that period.
On motion of Mr. Wood The debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, on Monday, before proceeding with this debate on the budget, I intend to move that we go into supply and call three departments, namely trade and commerce, citizenship and immigration, and fisheries. During the day I have discussed this matter with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), the leader of the Social Credit party and the acting whip of the C.C.F. party. They thought it was a reasonable suggestion and that we could call

these three departments without a lengthy debate. Nobody could guarantee that everybody would be silent, but that would be my hope. I would therefore ask for the co-operation of hon. members.
There are only 21 departments to be brought in. We have five in now. One was referred to the external affairs committee. This procedure would give us seven departments with which to go ahead. My trouble is that when we reach the estimates, I cannot always control the movements of my colleagues and I should like to have a few I could call upon to present their estimates.
Business of the House


Mr. Fleming:: Would the minister consider at the same time bringing along that motion to appoint the committee on radio broadcasting?


Alphonse Fournier: I have been considering that daily and I am anxious to bring it about, but we would not like to interrupt the debate on the budget for any length of time. If we were sure the motion would go through, that would be different. We have had a day's discussion on it. Perhaps we can find some time next week to deal with it.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
*174
[Stage Direction]


* >
Monday, March 9, 1953