1953-03-11

Mr. Fulton:: 1.	What was the nature of the land at Eastern Passage, county of Halifax, sold to Fairey Aviation Company of Canada Ltd., as surplus crown assets, for $6,500, as shown at page 21 of the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation report for 1950-51?
2.	What was the acreage of this land?
3.	Were there any buildings on the land at the time of sale?
4.	If so, how many and what type?
5.	What was the original cost of acquisition of this land, and buildings, if any?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	An irregular shaped strip of land situated north of the public road at Eastern Passage, Halifax county, N.S. and comprising the taxi strip and certain other areas used in connection with the former Clarke-Ruse aircraft plant.
2.	Approximately 23 acres.
3.	No.
4.	See answer to No. 3.
5.	The deeds of settlement obtained by the department of munitions and supply following expropriation, under the Expropriation Act, show that the original cost was $7,381 for a total of 28-18 acres and of this area approximately 5-18 acres were allocated to government departments or agencies or disposed of previous to the sale of the remaining approximately 23 acres to Fairey Aviation Company for $6,500.


PROFILING MACHINES
Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	How many profiling machines have the Gross Machinery company, Toronto, purchased from the government, since the first day of September, 1945?
2.	What were the types, giving the manufacturers' name thereof, and the prices paid for each of them?
3.	How many profiling machines have been sold by the said company to the government, since the first day of January, 1947 to date, and at what price for each of them, giving description and manufacturer's name?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	54.
2.	Used machines requiring overhaul and recondition or suitable for scrap.
Type	Maker	Price3	only	profilers, vertical	Ekstrom-Carlson Co.	Included with other material at1	only	profiler, vertical	T. White & Co.	' a total price of $325.9	only	profilers, vertical	Morey	31	only	profilers, vertical	Pratt & Whitney	* Total sales price $6,580.2	only	profilers, vertical	Ekstrom-Carlson	5	only	profilers, vertical	No manufacturer's name	3	only	profilers, vertical	Pratt & Whitney	Total sales price $300.3. 10	only	reconditioned, profilers, vertical	Morey	* $4,900 each.10	only	new, profilers, vertical	Morey	$9,310 each.



MAINTENANCE COST, ALASKA HIGHWAY

Mr. Green:: What amount of money has been spent by the Canadian government for maintenance work on the Alaska highway, in each calendar year since this highway was opened for traffic?


Mr. Blancheile:: The figures of expenditure for maintenance work on the northwest highway system are maintained by fiscal
year:	1946-47,	$110,107;	1947-48,	$81,696;1948-49, $422,487; 1949-50, $504,403; 1950-51, $897,755;	1951-52,	$2,085,309;	1952-53,

DISPLACED PERSONS Mr. Hodgson:
1.	How many displaced persons were brought to Canada by the government in (a) 1951; (b) 1952?

Questions
2.	How many other immigrants came to Canada, during each of these years?


Mr. Harris:: 1.	1951, 42,248 were admitted to Canada; 1952, 8,010 were admitted to Canada.
2.	1951, 152,143; 1952, 156,488.



R.C.A.F. AMBULANCE SERVICE, VANCOUVER

Mr. Green:: 1.	What type of ambulance service has been used by the Royal Canadian Air Force in the Vancouver area, in the period since January 1, 1952?
2,	If any civilian ambulance service has been used during this period, what has been the average rate paid for such service?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	Since January 1, 1952, one 4-cot crash ambulance has been in service; since February, 1952, a one-cot Pontiac ambulance has also been in service, except for a brief period when it was on loan to the Abbotsford cadet camp. During this period army ambulances have been available to station Sea Island to meet requirements.
2.	Civilian ambulance service has been used on nine occasions during this period at an average cost of ten dollars per trip.



FISH LANDINGS AND VALUES, DISTRICT D-19, HALIFAX

Mr. Balcom:: What were the fisheries landings and landed values for the years 1951 and 1952 for district D-19, Halifax county, Sheet Harbour to Spry Bay area?


Mr. MacNaughl:: Landed Catch	Value
Cwt.	$
1951	
27,936	274,8561952	
41,806	462,550



IMMIGRATION ORGANIZATIONS

Mr. Hodgson:: 1.	What are the names of the organizations bringing immigrants to Canada?
2.	How many immigrants did each organization sponsor in (a) 1950; (b) 1951; (c) 1952?


Mr. Harris:: The following answer is made on the presumption that "bringing" refers to sponsoring rather than carrying of immigrants.
1. No organizations are actually bringing immigrants to Canada; from time to time various organizations such as the Canadian Christian council for the resettlement of refugees, the Canadian council of churches, the rural settlement society of Canada, the Canadian Jewish congress, the association of Polish engineers in Canada, the international

rescue committee, and the colonization departments of the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Railways have sponsored the admission of immigrants into Canada.
2. These statistics have not been maintained.



HALIFAX AND SAINT JOHN


Mr. Robichaud:: 1.	How many immigrants entered Canada through the ports of (a) Halifax, Nova Scotia; (b) Saint John, New Brunswick, during the years 1949, 1950, 1951 and 1952?
2.	What were the countries of origin of these immigrants?


Mr. Harris:: 1.	1949	1950	1951	1952Halifax, N.S. 45,782 Saint John,	30,865	93,840	71,305N.B. ...	.. 445	1,878	6,086	5,143
2. These statistics are not maintained by individual ports of entry.



NATIONAL RELIGIOUS ADVISORY COUNCIL

Mr. Hansell:: 1.	Is the national religious advisory council a creation of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and if not, what connection has it with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?
2.	What are the responsibilities of the council?
3.	Who are the members of the council and what denominational or religious bodies do they represent?
4.	How are they chosen?
5.	What remuneration does each member receive?
6.	How often did they meet in 1952?
7.	What recommendations did they make during 1952?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	The national religious advisory council was created by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in co-operation with various denominational authorities.
2.	The council advises the corporation on matters of religious broadcasting and allocates periods to churches and speakers for network denominational religious programs.
3.	Rev. Carl Farmer, chairman, Baptist; Dr. J. R. Mutchmor, secretary, United; Rev. Minton Johnston, Baptist; Dr. W. A. Beecroft, United; Rev. J. Clarke, Presbyterian; Rev. J. Milroy, Presbyterian; Dr. G. Snell, Church of England; Dr. D. T. Owen, Church of England; Rev. G. Bornemann, Lutheran; Dr. John Schmeider, Lutheran; Father Charles Lanphier, Roman Catholic; Monseigneur J. M. Brennan, Roman Catholic.
4.	Members of the council are nominated by their respective denominations.

5.	No remuneration. Any members living outside Toronto are paid costs of transportation for attending meetings.
6.	Twelve meetings.
7.	Many recommendations and allocations respecting periods, speakers, churches and choirs for denominational broadcasting. A recommendation regarding the maintenance of time of "Church of the Air". Preliminary
Orders for Returns
recommendations in the development of religious television broadcasting on similar principles as for sound broadcasting.



IMPORTS OF CANNED TOMATOES., ETC.

Mr. Tustin:: What were the total imports into Canada for the year 1952, giving country of origin, volume and value of (a) canned tomatoes; (b) other tomato products; (c) canned corn; (d) canned peas; (e) other canned vegetables?


Mr. Mcllraith:: -	Country	Pounds	Value
		390,007	$ 46,433
(including tomato paste, pulp and puree)	Bahamas	142,230	12,012Italy	5,299,387	668,227Spain	55,115	7,824United States	21.645,580	1,928,711Totals	27,532,319	$ 2,663,207(b) Other tomato products are not classified separately in trade statistics. Included under (a) above.	45,577 36,916 3,613	$ 3,108 5,987 965United States	544,301	,58,876Totals	584,830	$ 65,828(e) Other canned vegetables	United Kingdom	
Hong Kong	3,295 108,445	612 33,497Belgium	28,335	5,524Czechoslovakia	1,500	2,475France	369,431	131,468Italy	11,330	2,143Japan	24,212	6,665Spain	43,031	8,927United States	4,794,662	553,829Totals	5,384,241	$ 745,140



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Dinsdale:: 1.	What welfare service is now being provided at unit level for troops serving in (a) Korea; (b) Germany?
2.	What staff at unit level is detailed exclusively to welfare service duty in (a) Korea; (b) Germany?
3.	What voluntary welfare organizations are serving in (a) Korea; (b) Germany? How many personnel are involved?
4.	What Canadian amenities, e.g. movies, news, comforts, etc., are available to Canadian forces abroad and how are these distributed?


ARCTIC PATROL VESSEL
Mr. Pearkes:: 1.	Has a contract been let for the building of an Arctic patrol vessel for the Royal Canadian Navy?
2.	If so, to whom was the contract awarded?
3.	When was this award made?
4.	What was the estimated cost of the vessel?
5.	Is the contract on a cost-plus basis?
6.	When was the vessel to be completed?
7.	Has the vessel been delivered?
8.	If not, when is delivery expected?
9.	How much has the vessel cost to date?
10.	What is the estimated cost now?


SURPLUS CROWN ASSETS-CLOTHING SOLD
Mr. Fulion:: 1. What are the particulars of the two items of clothing sold to Dominion New and Second Hand Store, Montreal, for $8,125.67, and $5,111, respec-

Motions for Papers
tively, as surplus crown assets, as shown at page 17 of the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation report for the year 1951-52?
2.	Had this clothing, or any of it, been worn?
3.	Were tenders called for the purchase of this clothing?


SAINT JOHN POSTAL STATION REVENUE
Mr. Riley:: 1.	What was the revenue from the Saint John-Saint John West, New Brunswick, postal station, during each of the last five fiscal years?
2.	What is the annual rental paid for the premises occupied by this postal station?
3.	How long is it since these premises were renovated?
4.	When were the present fixtures installed in the said premises?
5.	How much space is available for the public in the said premises?


FEDERAL GOVERNMENT-HORSES
Mr. Herridge:: 1.	How many horses are owned by each department of the federal government?
2.	Where are these horses kept by each department?
3.	For what purpose are these horses used by each department of government?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Nowlan:: For a copy of all correspondence or other recorded communications from the 1st day of January, 1951, to date, between the Department of National Defence, or any other department or agency of the government of Canada, and any other person or persons, respecting the sale of material to Sumac Industries Limited, together with copies of all documents referred to in any such communications.


Mr. Dickey:: I have discussed this motion with the hon. member, and he has indicated that he is interested in correspondence with respect to one type of merchandise only. Subject to the usual reservations, and the consent of other governments involved, we have no objection to this motion being adopted.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Diefenbaker:: For a copy of all correspondence and: telegrams since the first day of January, 1951, between any department of government and the Lunam Construction Company Limited of Regina, Saskatchewan, having to do with the failure of the said company to complete its1 several contracts, and in particular referring to the work progress reports submitted by it on the various construction projects under consideration by the said company, together with any statements on file containing the liabilities of the said company.



FORT GARRY HOTEL

John George Diefenbaker: For a copy of all letters, telegrams and other communications between senior officers and officials of the Canadian National Railways and Robert Pitt.	then manager of the Fort Garry hotel,
Winnipeg, concerning complaints as to allotment of rooms to federal ministers of the crown in the said hotel, and of all replies to such letters, telegrams and communications in any way referring to alleged complaints, since the 1st day of September, 1952, and to date.


Mr. Chevrier:: Mr. Speaker, I gave the house certain reasons why, because of the custom and policy of the Department of Transport as well as of the Canadian National Railways, there was objection to producing this correspondence. I also cited some authorities and expressed the hope that, because of this, the hon. member would see fit to withdraw his motion.


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend the
Minister of Transport was kind enough to hold this over on Monday, at the request of my colleague the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra (Mr. Green). The minister in the course of his remarks set out reasons upon which the government would refuse or was refusing to permit this motion to pass.
Reference was made to two debates which had taken place in the House of Commons on this subject, and to the remarks of a former prime minister, the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, which were to the effect that the House of Commons was not entitled to information analogous or similar to that asked by myself.
With your leave, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to arguments dealt with by the minister, for it is my submission that the quotations from the words of Mr. Meighen have been taken from their context and do not in any way establish authority for the general proposition advanced by my hon. friend.
I wish to refer first to a reference that was made and quoted by the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters) some weeks ago, and referred to on Monday by the Minister of Transport. He referred to the words of Mr. Meighen on April 26, 1920, as reported in Hansard of that date. I would particularly point out that the excerpt quoted from has no reference to the type of matter before the House of Commons in this motion. In 1920 certain questions were asked-


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I interrupt; I was not quoting from that statement. It was the statement of Mr. Meighen in 1921 that I put on Hansard.


John George Diefenbaker: There was a reference made to the effect that some statement I had made was authority for the acceptance of the contention then advanced by the Minister of Resources and Development. However that may be, a reference was made to it by the minister. And if Hansard is looked up it will be found that the questions asked in 1920 had to do with the purchase of coal by a railway company, and the price thereof, the quantity of coal purchased, the amount of fire insurance carried by the Canadian National Railways, the rates, and the companies to whom fire insurance was granted, etc.-all matters of purely internal concern that would be of advantage to the competing railroad, the Canadian Pacific Railway, if made available in parliament.
Mr. Mackenzie King, at that time leader of the opposition, took a very firm stand on the question, and asked particularly whether the government intended to take so definite a stand; and the general answer given at that time was that, in so far as matters of internal economy were concerned, which would be of advantage to a competing company, they ought not to be brought before parliament.
Mr. Meighen said on April 26, 1920, as reported at page 1665 of Hansard, that the price of sand, or what would be a proper substitute for milk or butter, or the grounds or right of dismissal of some minor employee or other trivial, paltry question associated with the management of the railroad, should not be brought before parliament. Then he said;
Who would suggest that that system could be run-
That is, the Canadian National Railways, then of 22,000 miles.
-and in running compete with the great Canadian Pacific ... if its business affairs were exposed-
-to public view. And he finally summed up the situation at pages 1666 and 1667 of the possibility of prejudice to the railway company in revealing such information to parliament.
Mr. King took a very definite opposition to that viewpoint, as did the late Right Hon. W. S. Fielding, and other members. The matter came directly before parliament in 1921, when Mr. Mackenzie King, on March 22, moved the following motion as reported at page 1178 of Hansard, when Sir George Foster moved that the house go into committee of supply;
That all the words after the word "that" be struck out, and the following substituted therefor:
Subject to the reservation that in exceptional cases there may be documents of a confidential
Motions for Papers
character which, in the public interest, may properly be withheld from publication, the House declares that it is the undoubted right of parliament to demand and receive copies of all reports, accounts, correspondence and papers in relation to the management of every department of the public service including the affairs of the Canadian National Railways, whether operating directly under the control of the department, or under corporate form.
At page 1179 Mr. Mackenzie King said:
In other words, the fact that parliament is denied a full and free knowledge of every fact surrounding the situation, is leading to the impression throughout the country that our national railways are being converted into a gigantic political machine for the purpose of furthering the interests of the government and its friends. Now, sir, there is only one cure for that impression, there is only one way in which that impression can be removed, and that is by the government giving to parliament the fullest information with respect to any questions which hon. members care to address to the ministry in regard to the national railroads.
He dealt with the matter further at length. He was followed by some distinguished members of the Liberal party at that time who took the stand, even in the face of the fact that the amendment by the late Mr. King was as wide in its terms as it actually was. Mr. Meighen's stand was to the following effect. First, that documents that would be beneficial to competitive railroads should not be produced; second, that trivial matters arising out of contracts and the like ought not to be produced; but excepting for the probability of prejudice, other documents should be produced. At page 1183 of Hansard of that year Mr. Meighen said:
I know that it is a fact that the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways are dealing virtually with the funds of the people of Canada. I know that parliament, and parliament alone, is responsible to the people for the disposition of the moneys raised by taxation; consequently I know that there must be ample facility for the exercise of the control that goes with and is inseparable from responsibility. The difficulty has been to evolve a line up to which you can go in disclosing to parliament the affairs of the system and beyond which you cannot go if the system is to succeed. Just where that is to be it is very difficult indeed to say. We-
Referring to the government of the day. -have brought down certain particulars in relation to the management of the road. Some questions have been answered where it appeared to the government quite certain that the answering of them or the furnishing of the return to an order of the house could not prejudice the position of the company.
My submission is that on those terms the house and the country are entitled to know the circumstances connected with the removal or the transfer of Mr. Pitt. Only yesterday the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham) brought Canadian National

Motions for Papers
Railways affairs before the house when he explained what the Canadian National Railways had done.


George James McIlraith: No, he did not. It was as to his own affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: That was on a question of personal privilege.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in so far as the transfer of Mr. Pitt is -concerned, the Winnipeg Tribune, the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix and various other newspapers have stated that the reasons have to do with an attitude revealed by certain ministers of the government. That is not a matter of internal management. That is a case of external interference. In order to clarify the situation, the ministers of the crown having denied the allegations made, the motion is brought for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the facts as alleged by these responsible newspapers are accurate. The Canadian, people have a right to know whether the ministers of the crown who contended that there was no foundation for any allegation of interference in the removal of Mr. Pitt should in fact be permitted to screen themselves simply by making a statement and then refusing to allow the production of documents to prove or disprove the statements made by them.
There, in brief, is the position, Mr. Speaker. There is a matter of principle at stake here. I am in no way acquainted with Mr. Pitt's views and have never been in communication with him. My contention is that the principle is that whenever there is any suggestion of interference with the Canadian National Railways, a simple denial by a minister of the government is not sufficient when the documents are available. If the government produces them, and if there is nothing in them to indicate that those were the complaints as alleged, then no harm has been done: the railway company has not been prejudiced. If, on, the other hand, the documents bear out what responsible newspapers have stated, then parliament and the country have the right to know what were ;he reasons, the motives or the political considerations, if any, that dominated those who caused the removal of this official.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, since my hon. friend has been allowed the opportunity not only to debate the notice of motion but also to debate other matters which were concerned not directly but very indirectly with the notice of motion, I presume that I should be allowed a word in reply. The notice of motion which my hon. friend has put on the order paper is a simple one, and it is one that he is

in the habit of putting on order papers from time to time, namely, one asking for correspondence between officers of the Canadian National Railways or between departmental officers of various departments. He knows that that correspondence is not produceable.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not what the
record shows.


Lionel Chevrier: Just let me have an opportunity to speak now. He knows that it has been the practice and the policy of the government not to allow the production of that correspondence. He also knows that not only ministers of transport who have preceded me in this position but ministers of transport and of railways and canals in previous governments-in governments of Conservative persuasion-have always taken a position such as the one I took on Monday of last week. He further knows that if that were not the position, then the Canadian National Railways could not effectively deal with its employees not only in so far as the railways are concerned but also in so far as its hotels are concerned.
My hon. friend says that there has been external interference and that parliament should be entitled to the production of these documents. May I say that I have on the order paper a motion in which I am asking to set up a committee for the discussion of matters concerning the Canadian National Railways. If my hon. friend is not a member of that committee, I hope he will make it his business to go to the committee and ask for the information that he seeks.


George James McIlraith: Oh, no; he will not.


Lionel Chevrier: That information can be
asked from the president of the Canadian National Railways and I say this to my hon. friend.	Parliament will get, at that
committee, all of the information that it is entitled to get in accordance with the practice that has been followed in this house.


George James McIlraith: He will not do that.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: That means he will not get it.


Lionel Chevrier: What my hon. friend is
trying to do is to substitute his judgment and to use political interference in so far as the Pitt case is concerned. The president of the Canadian National Railways has made his position quite clear in so far as the Pitt case is concerned. It has been stated in the house that there has been no complaint. He stated that on more than one occasion, when reference was made to him relative to this matter. I simply conclude by referring my hon. friend to the position which he took

the other day when my colleague the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters) raised the same point. He seemed then to be arguing against the position of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in favour of the Canadian National Railways and stating in effect that Canadian National Railways were right when they took the position they did, namely, that they should not produce the documents. Here are the words of the hon. member on the occasion when my colleague argued against the production of certain papers on behalf of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. They can be found at page 2292 of Hansard for February 23, 1953. At that time my friend said:
I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Meighen was dealing with the Canadian National Railways and he stated that it would be impossible to furnish parliament with the information, particularly in view of the size of the C.N.R. and the number of employees of that body.
Motions for Papers
++YEAS
Messrs:
Adamson
Argue
Balcer
Black (Cumberland)
Blackmore
Blair
Brooks
Browne (St. John's West)
Bryce
Cardiff
Casselman
Charlton
Churchill
Coldwell
Courtemanche
Coyle
Diefenbaker
Dinsdale
Fair
Fairclough. Mrs.
Ferguson
Fleming
Fulton
Graydon
Green
Hansell
Hees
Hodgson
Jones
Knight
Lennard
MacLean (Queens)
McGregor
McLure
Montgomery
Noseworthy
Nowlan
Pearkes
Poulin
Quelch
Robichaud
Rowe
Stanfield
Starr
Thatcher
Tustin
White (Hastings-Peterborough)
White (Middlesex East)
Wright
Wylie-50.
By inference, if that means anything-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: -it means that there is a distinction to be made between Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation on the one hand and Canadian National Railways on the other. The distinction is that the latter company, following the practice of this house and this parliament of many many years, should not be asked to produce documents between departmental officers of the crown company.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


John George Diefenbaker: On a question of
privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is not debatable.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not debating the motion; I am rising on a question of privilege. The question of privilege is simply this. Some reference was made to political interference, but may I tell my hon. friend-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: Let me tell my hon. friend that if these letters are produced it will be all on the other side of the house.


Lionel Chevrier: Let me tell my hon. friend that if they are produced he will be sorry they were.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope that hon. members will not make a practice of coming into the house after the division bells have stopped ringing. I realize that today the bells rang for a shorter time than usual, and for that reason I did not continue reading the motion. May I repeat that I hope what was done today will not become a practice in the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
ARMED FORCES WELFARE SERVICES Mr. Dinsdale:
of such personal correspondence would be lost if such were not the case.
As there are, therefore, no documents to produce within the terms of this resolution, I would suggest to the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Dinsdale) that the resolution be dropped. If he is not willing to do this, I shall have to oppose the motion.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Mr. Speaker, in connection with this resolution, I would just like to ask the minister a question. Do the same reservations apply to reports from .the military services? I can appreciate the difficulty, perhaps, with private sources. Recommendations as a result of investigation and close contact with the problem by the military authorities do not, it seems to me, fit into the same category as these letters from private sources.


Mr. Campney:: I would say, Mr. Speaker,
that documents or reports on observations from military sources would be the most highly privileged of all.


Mr. Graydon:: The more embarrassing they are the more highly privileged they are. '


Mr. Fleming:: May I ask the minister a
question? Is the minister prepared to ask any clergy who have written letters on the basis he indicated to permit them to be made public-if they are willing to have them made public?
For a copy of all correspondence, reports, recommendations or other conclusions of all investigations or surveys made since June 1950, dealing with welfare services in the armed forces.


Ralph Osborne Campney: This motion, Mr. Speaker,
seeks the production of documents with respect to all investigations or surveys made since June, 1950, with reference to welfare services in the armed forces. There have been no investigations or surveys made within that period except reports and studies made by officers of the services or of the department for the use of the minister and the department; and these, of course, are privileged documents.
There is also the fact that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) has personally from time to time received letters from members of the clergy who have visited the Canadian troops abroad. These letters were written at his invitation and the writers were asked to express their views very frankly and freely and on a confidential basis.
As these letters were personal communications between the writers and the minister, they also are privileged. I am sure that hon. members will appreciate that the usefulness


Ralph Osborne Campney: As the letters have been
written more or less by invitation I would think not.


Gordon Graydon: Did some not come in
without any invitation?


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.
NATIONAL DEFENCE ADMINISTRATION____



INVESTIGATIONS

Mr. Fulton:: For a copy of all reports made since January 1st, 1948, as a result of investigations into or surveys of the army works services, the Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps, and/or the administration of the Department of National Defence by any person or agency outside that department and excluding the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, on which said investigations or surveys public money was spent.


Ralph Osborne Campney: 
Edmund Davie Fulton: By six months only.


Ralph Osborne Campney: He now asks for production of documents throughout the whole department, as well as the two named branches of the army, retroactively for a period of five years and two months instead of four years and eight months, as was the case in his original motion.
On balance, the extent of the work and the number of man hours required to segregate and peruse all relevant files would be practically the same under this motion as that involved under the former motion. The reasons which I gave in detail on Wednesday last at pages 2607 and 2608 of Hansard for rejecting the former motion are therefore, in my opinion, equally applicable to this one.
I would therefore have to oppose the motion.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I would point out in the first place that the minister has apparently completely misapprehended the intent of this motion. I direct your attention to the fact that the motion calls for reports or surveys made by agencies outside the department, and is not concerned at all with reports made in the department. The minister is seeking to refuse this motion on the ground that it would involve a tremendous search of the files within the department, and would necessitate going over every working paper prepared within the department. The motion specifically asks for reports made by agencies outside the department. It seems to me hardly possible or sensible to suggest that there would be so many surveys or reports from investigations by agencies outside the Department of National Defence dealing with the administration of that department that it would be a physically impossible task to segregate them and bring them down.
If there are that many reports, Mr. Speaker-perhaps there is good reason why there may be a number of reports-then I suggest it is all the more important in the public interest that they be produced. I would direct your attention and that of the minister to the fact that, under the rule covering motions for the production of papers, unless the document was to be refused by the Governor General, as was permitted in the past on certain grounds, the only other case which I can find covering the authority for refusal of papers is contained in citation
Motions for Papers
430 of Beauchesne's second edition. It reads as follows:
A motion for a return may be opposed on the ground of public policy, such as that the disclosure of the information sought is not for the public interest, or that its supply would involve unreasonable labour or expense.
It is the second branch of that ground for refusal that the minister seeks to apply. I submit the wording of the motion itself is such as to indicate clearly that it could not be refused on the ground that too much work would be involved. There has been no suggestion that the production would not be in the public interest. I submit to you therefore, Mr. Speaker, that the minister is bound to accept this motion, because under the rules those are the only grounds for refusal to produce papers.
There are clear evidences that such reports have been made. I refer, for instance, to a report made by Mr. Gordon, a survey of the administration of the department, which is within the terms of this motion. The study began late in 1947 or early 1948, and it would fall within the terms of a survey on which public money was spent. I am submitting to you, sir, that the minister has no right to reject this motion. A refusal such as has been given now is only indicative of the determination to refuse information to the house to which the house and the country are entitled.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion before the house is not a matter for the minister to decide, but for the house to decide. I propose to put the motion.


Mr. White (Middlesex East):: I was paired with the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. McCubbin). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.
Messrs:
Abbott
Anderson
Ashbourne
Balcom
Bater
Benidickson Black (Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie) Blanchette Blue Boisvert Boivin Bonnier Boucher Bourget Bourque Bradette Bradley Breton Brisson
Brown (Essex West)
Bruneau
Byrne
Cameron
Campney
Cannon
Cardin
Carroll
Carter
Cauchon
Cavers
Chevrier
Cleaver
Cloutier
Corry
Cote (Matapedia-Matane) Cote (St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville)
Cote (Verdun-La Salle)
Crestohl
Croll
Cruickshank
Dechene
Decore
Denis
Deslieres
Dewar
Dickey
Dumas
Dupuis
Eyre
Ferrie
Follwell
Fournier (Hull)
Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont)
Fulford
Garson
Gauthier (Lake St. John)
Gauthier (Portneuf)
Gauthier (Sudbury)
George
Gingras
Gingues
Gour (Russell)
Gourd (Chapleau)
Gregg
Harris
Harrison
Healy
Hellyer
Helme
Henderson

Henry
Hetland
Howe
Huffman
Hunter
James
Jeffery
Jutras
Kent
Kirk (Antigonish-Guysborough)
Kirk (Digby-Yarmouth)
Lafontaine
Laing
Langlois (Berthier-Maskinonge)
Langlois (Gaspe)
Larson
Leduc
Lefrancois
Leger
Lesage
Little
Macdonald (Edmonton East)
MacDougall
MacKenzie
MacNaught
Macnaughton
McCann
McCulloch
McCusker
Mcllraith
Mclvor
McLean (Huron-Perth)
McWilliam
Major
Martin
Masse
Monette
Mott
Murray (Cariboo)
Mutch
Picard
Pinard
Poulin
Proudfoot
Ratelle
Richard (Ottawa East) Richard (St. Maurice-Lafleche)
Robertson
Robinson
Rochefort
Rooney
Ross (Hamilton East)
Schneider
Simmons
Sinnott
Smith (Moose Mountain) Stick
Stuart (Charlotte)
Studer
Tremblay
Valois
Viau
Ward
Warren
Whiteside
Whitman
Winkler
Wood-138.


James Arthur Ross: I was paired with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. Goode:: I was paired with the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Wylie).



NATIONAL FILM BOARD


Mr. Herridge:: For a copy of all correspondence or other recorded communications from the 1st day of January, 1947, to the 1st day of May, 1947, between the national film board and any department or agency of the provincial governments of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.


Mr. McCann:: On behalf of the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters), I have no objection to the passing of this motion, subject to the consent of the provinces concerned.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: By leave of the house, I should like to repeat the motion made on Wednesday of last week and of the previous week, namely:
That in relation to the adjourned debate on the motion of the Minister of Finance that Mr. Speaker do leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of ways and means and any amendment or amendments thereto, on the budget brought down on Thursday, February 19, 1953, the provisions of standing order 28 be suspended for Thursday, March 12, and Friday, March 13, next.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosetown-Biggar):: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Inasmuch as some members of the house may be contemplating returning to their distant homes at Easter, has the government decided on the adjournment of the house? If not, can the Prime Minister make an announcement at an early date?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The government has made no decision. I have been discussing with some of my colleagues the advisability of conferring with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), the hon. gentleman, and the leader

of the Social Credit group as to what might be most advisable in order to try and reach the goal that I think we all had in mind at the opening of this session, namely that it might finish by the end of April or early in May.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I
should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the government given consideration to suspending the bringing into effect of the last freight rate increase, pending an appeal being heard and determined, as asked for by seven of the Canadian provinces?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I have received those telegrams,
and I have been endeavouring to ascertain whether the government had any prerogative right to act-I do not think the government has any right by statute-to do that. It may be that it can be done after an appeal has been entered against the order. In any event the matter is being looked into, but I do not think there is any prerogative right to interfere with the judgments of the board of transport commissioners. The only way in which that might be done would seem to be on an appeal in the manner provided by the statute passed by parliament.


Mr. A. M. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question supplementary to that of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). Will the Department of Transport or the government consider the advisability of taking the necessary steps to defer the coming into effect of the board's decision increasing the rates and cancelling last year's milling-intransit tariff, until such time as our maritime provinces, and particularly New Brunswick's lumber producers and other maritime province interested parties, who are so adversely and detrimentally affected by this decision-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I cannot allow the
latter part of the hon. member's question.


Albany M. Robichaud: Then I shall delete that
part of the question.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I think the hon. member
misapprehends the effect of legislation passed
Inquiries of the Ministry by this parliament setting up a special authority to deal with freight rates. That having been done, I think we would be deserving of the reproach we sometimes get from the other side of the house, when we are accused of behaving in an autocratic manner, if we were to attempt to make orders that would nullify the proceedings of this board set up by statute.
I stated a moment ago that there is a provision in the statute for appeal to the governor in council. If that appeal is taken, the governor in council will have to discharge the responsibility placed upon him by parliament to deal with the order in that way. But I do not think we are entitled to deal with it in any other way.


Albany M. Robichaud: On a point of order-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Albany M. Robichaud: Or on a point of privilege-


Mr. Abbott:: He is not quite sure.


Albany M. Robichaud: I desire, with all due
respect, to point out to the Prime Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: What is the question of
privilege?


Albany M. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I have not
had the opportunity to complete my question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member
please state his question of privilege?


Albany M. Robichaud: My question of privilege was that I was fully aware of the provisions of section 52 of the Railway Act.



THE CORONATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  A. J. Baler@The Balllefords: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance, of which I have given notice. Does the Royal Canadian Mint propose to issue a special coin or medallion in commemoration of Her Majesty's coronation, for distribution to school children?


Douglas Charles Abbott: A number of other members have made a similar inquiry of me. The hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Henry) and the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Little) have referred to it; and yesterday the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) made reference to it in his speech on the budget.
This question was referred to the special coronation committee for recommendation. They have recommended that a commemoration coin or medallion should be prepared

Inquiries of the Ministry for issue to school children, through the provinces of course, as was done on the occasion of the royal visit in 1939.
There is a certain amount of detail to be attended to. The design must be prepared and, of course, it must be approved by Her Majesty. When further details are available they can be communicated to the house.



INVITATION TO HOLDERS OF VICTORIA CROSS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. F. G. Bradley (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply at this time to a question asked on Thursday, March 5, by the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Cardiff). He referred to the matter of inviting holders of the Victoria Cross to the coronation.
The Department of Veterans Affairs has written to the 36 holders of the Victoria Cross who are Canadians, and to the two Canadian holders of the George Cross, informing them that those among them who were going to the coronation would each be provided with two seats in front of Buckingham Palace. To date, nine holders of the Victoria Cross have accepted this offer.


Mr. Cardiff:: Is any provision being made for some of these men who, I understand, are not in a position to pay their own expenses? Would there be any provision made in that regard by the government?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: No provision has been made in that respect.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Samuel Rosborough Balcom: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Defence Production. Has he any information as to whether the serious fire that occurred last night at Halifax shipyards will cause any delay in the completion of the important naval construction under way in Halifax?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Defence Production):: I was in touch with the general manager of the Halifax shipyards by telephone this morning. I find that the roof of the machine shop has collapsed, and that the work in the machine shop must be suspended for a period of time. But he also told me that it would cause no particular delay to the naval program. The materials for the program on which the men are working at the present time are not in the machine shop, and it is anticipated that

the repairs to the machine shop can be made in time to avoid any serious delay.



REQUEST FOR INFORMATION CONCERNING INTERNATIONAL WHEAT AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfori):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has he any further information as to the position with regard to the international wheat agreement?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have a great deal of information, but I am not at liberty to inform the house.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: should like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour. Has he anything by way of progress to report in connection with the elevator strike at the Pacific coast?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: No; the discussions are going on in British Columbia, but I have nothing further to report, in addition to what I gave the house the other day.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, March 10, 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. Coldwel'1.
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose last night I was discussing the budget, in the light of the government's frantic attempt to maintain itself in power, in perpetuity. I was indicating that the budget presentation for this year was the latest example of that attempt. By a long process of expediency this government has been able to maintain itself in office for a long period of time. This has consisted largely, as I indicated, in swinging violently to the right and to the left, according to prevailing circumstances, and by pushing other parties roughly aside. For example, in the immediate wake of the depression we find the government party accepting the description of the C.C.F. party

as one consisting of Liberals in a hurry. In this budget, as a result of the gradual subsiding of the economic reverberations of the depression, we find a swing to what might well be described as a businessman's budget, and a return to more orthodox economic principles. ,
I believe it was the junior member for Queens (Mr. MacLean) who said it would appear that the government is trying to bring in a Conservative policy by evolution rather than by election. I believe the hon. member hit the nail right on the head. It was the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin), I believe, who made reference particularly to the lack of policy of the opposition. In the light of what I have said thus far I would suggest that had he examined the platform of the Liberal party down through the years he would find many of the planks and many of the policies that have been put forward by the Conservative party nicely implemented into the Liberal policy. It is by this method that they have been able to build up a successful political machine, that has embraced all shades of opinion in its desperate attempt to establish a majority despotism.
I made some reference-and I repeat it here just before concluding my remarks- to the tariff issue because it is an excellent example of this type of expediency. The tariff issue, as it has appeared down through Canadian political history, is an attempt to play off regional interests, one against the other. By giving lip service to free trade the back of the agrarian protest, as it was called during the twenties, was broken and the Progressive party was inveigled into the Liberal party.
But I would come to this conclusion. Actually the back of the agrarian protest has never been broken. In fact today it has broadened out into a much wider area and it might well be described as the western protest because the Liberals, after absorbing the Progressive party, have not proved to be the friends of the prairies that they professed to be in their pretence of embracing the ardent free trade of the prairie farmers during the era of the twenties.
Today, as a result of the discrediting of the Conservative party in particular-and of all other parties-in the west, by attempting to saddle it with the full responsibility for the economic difficulties of the depression, we find the west in a state of political instability.


Mr. Wood:: What about the trade agreements in 1936?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: What about them?
The Budget-Mr. Dinsdale


Robert James Wood: Yes; what about them? We are talking about tariffs.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: As I was saying before I was interrupted, Mr. Speaker, as a result of the attempt to discredit the Conservative party in the west, the west has been left in a state of political instability. The pendulum is swinging around the full cycle again and we find that many criticisms that had been raised against the Conservatives with respect to their attitude toward the west can now be laid at the door of the Liberal party. That process is inevitable. Whenever a political party remains for a long time in office in this country it must inevitably emphasize its interests in the two central provinces which, after all, hold the balance of power in this country.
In my final remarks may I say this. In some of the observations made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) during his budget presentation I detected the fact that he is aware of this developing situation. For example he used the phrase "social dividend budget" and gave full credit to the people of Canada for the part they have played in the building up of Canada's prosperity. He also referred to the important part played by the vast wealth and material resources of Canada. Just on Monday in the city of Toronto a statement was made by Dr. George S. Hume, director general of scientific services of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, which indicates from one closely in touch with the subject that Canada can look forward to a tremendous expansion in its mineral wealth; so much so in the next few years that in 1957 Canada will be, to use his phrase, "Mr. Big" in the area of mineral wealth.
We are therefore getting back again to basic realities after wandering in the wilderness for some time. We must acknowledge the fact that no country can make progress and carry on its development without the co-operation of its people, its human resources. The activities of these human resources are important in connection with the development of our mineral and natural wealth.
I was particularly interested to notice the tribute the minister paid to the agrarian west or to the prairie farmers. As reported at page 2120 of Hansard, in referring to the increase in the gross national product last year, the minister said that the record wheat crop was an important factor in the increase. Then as he attempted to prognosticate for the coming year he said, as reported at page 2123, that any attempt to forecast is dependent upon the production of an average crop during the forthcoming year. In other words, he was assuming average crops in order to achieve
2842	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Maclnnis the four per cent growth in the total national output for next year. There is recognition that the prairie wheat economy is still basic to the increasing prosperity of this country.
Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding all the lip service, I suggest there has been a failure on the part of this government to give due recognition to the situation on the prairies. We need only to mention-and I do so briefly now before my time expires-the redistribution issue and the fact that there has been no attempt to cope, by heroic effort, with the problem of the declining population on the prairies. We must, of course, have people if our prosperity is to continue. As is demonstrated by the redistribution situation, the prairies unfortunately have been in the position of suffering, during a boom period, an actual decline in population.
There is also the attitude taken toward the establishment of defence industries on the prairies. Again, notwithstanding various representations that have been put forward in this house with regard to military necessity and also with regard to sociological implications, no major defence industries have been established on the prairies. I could go on also to mention the South Saskatchewan dam situation, and also the neglect of local governments, with the resulting decline in local communities, as indicated in this budget by even a failure to remove the sales tax on municipal purchases.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I think the slogan of the government has been:	Power, perpetuity, patronage and
propaganda. By successfully applying each of those slogans to the Canadian situation we have seen an excellent political machine established in this country of ours. The purpose of political parties, however-the_ prime one, I think, among all the other functions of political parties-is to assure a balanced situation of democratic representation.
In the long run, so long as the democratic process is allowed to prevail, political machines can be destroyed and can be placed in the chastening position of opposition by the voice of the Canadian electorate. As I look to the immediate future, when the policies of the government must once again be presented for the approval of the people, I have the optimism to believe that a more balanced, democratic and representative system will be restored in Canada.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, the first outside reaction I got to the budget was contained in a long telegram I received the day after the budget speech was made, from the mayor of Vancouver. The telegram expressed the disappointment of the mayor and aldermen of the city of Vancouver
[Mr. Dinsdale.i

that the government had not abolished the sales tax on purchases made by cities and other municipalities. I want to mention this first because there may yet be time before the budget resolutions are passed to have the matter attended to. I understand that the government does not collect sales tax on purchases made by provincial governments. Of the three levels of government, federal, provincial and municipal, it is the municipal governments that have the hardest task in financing. There is no municipal government in Canada today that is not finding it difficult to finance the ever-increasing needs of its people.
I would suggest that the minister give earnest consideration to exempting from the sales tax not only purchases made but also goods manufactured by municipalities. I imagine that in municipalities like the city of Vancouver the amount of money spent on the sales tax would not be very large, but it appears to me, and I think it appears to them, that there is a principle involved, namely that one government should not collect a tax on the operations of another. I bring this matter to the attention of the minister, and I sincerely hope he will find it possible to act on it before the budget resolutions are finally dealt with.
In the amendment to the amendment moved by the leader of this group, we referred to the budget as a rich man's budget. I do not think that statement has been satisfactorily questioned by any of the speakers on the government side. Several of them made halfhearted attempts to deal with it, but I noticed that they kept away as far as possible from enumerating the concessions made to people in the lower income brackets. But let us remember first that 75 per cent of family wage earners in this country earn less than $3,000 a year and that 25 per cent of family wage earners earn less than $2,000 a year.
In the taxation year 1950 people with incomes of over $5,000 paid 53 per cent of total tax payments. These figures are found in taxation statistics, 1952, at pages 82 and 83. About half the personal income tax cuts made in the budget will go to those with incomes of $5,000 and over. That group of income taxpayers makes up about 7 per cent of the total number of income taxpayers. The total cut for the half year is $87 million and for the full year $155 million. Therefore 7 per cent of the taxpayers will get about half the amount for the half year, that is, $43,500,000, and $77,500,000 in a full year if the cuts are still in effect in 1954. The other 93 per cent of taxpayers will get about the same amount.
It seems to me that definitely proves that this is a rich man's budget. As I said, efforts

have been made by apologists, shall I say, for the budget to prove that it is not a rich man's budget, and I want to take a few minutes to analyse some of their arguments. For my purpose I will refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Decore). I take his speech because I think he showed a keener appreciation and deeper understanding of the trials and tribulations of those in the higher income brackets than did most of the other speakers. At page 2466 of Hansard the hon. member for Vegreville is reported as saying:
Returning to the question of the personal income tax, let us examine whether we have before us a rich man's budget. Again I refer to the married man with two children who are eligible for payments under the Family Allowances Act. Let us consider the case of the man who has an income of $50,000 a year, and see what happens to him under this budget. One sees at once that he would be required to pay an income tax of $21,099.
Then the hon. member for Vegreville asks: "Is that a rich man's budget?" Hardboiled as I am in matters of this kind, my heart really did bleed when I heard what this man was compelled to pay in income tax. I thought it was bleeding, anyway, until I began to do a little figuring about what the poor man had left after paying his $21,099. I find that after paying that amount he had $28,901 left on which he, his wife and his two children would have to live for fa year. If the families in my constituency each had $28,900, overlooking the odd dollar, left on which to live for a year I would not be worried very much about their difficulties, and they would not be worrying me very much about their difficulties, either.


Mr. Byrne:: You would not be here.


Douglas Charles Abbott: They would not have worried any of us.


Angus MacInnis: The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Decore) went a little farther; after all, I imagine $50,000 is small potatoes. He continued:
Let us go farther. Supposing the man with two dependents is fortunate or unfortunate enough to make an income of $200,000 a year. How much does he have to pay in taxation? Under this budget, out of his $200,000 he will have to turn over to "Doug" Abbott-I mean to the Minister of Finance-


Douglas Charles Abbott: There you are.


Angus MacInnis: I am quoting.
-the sum of $125,504.
My heart did not bleed quite so long this time because it did not take me so long to figure out how much he would have left after he paid that very substantial tax of $125,504. I found that he would have a measly $74,496 to keep the wolf from the door for a year. To hear the hon. member
The Budget-Mr. Maclnnis for Vegreville referring to it, you would have thought this was pretty terrible; but he never mentioned what the man had left after he paid his taxes, only his taxes. I have always maintained that what is important is not the tax a person pays but the amount he has left to live on after he has paid his tax. If he has a substantial income, well, the more he can pay in taxes the better pleased he ought to be.
The hon. member for Vegreville did have something to say about the "little man" as he called him, and I quote from page 2465 of Hansard:
Let us take a man with a wife and two children and an income of $3,000. He is drawing family allowances.
Of course the other fellow was drawing family allowances too, but because of his income he did not get the benefit from them.
His income tax on $3,000 would be $205, yet he receives from the federal government by way of family allowances an amount approximately $150 for the year. In fact the so-called little man gets a bonus, if you want to put it that way, from the government of some $45 for that year.
Then the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness) said:
Not the government.
The hon. member for Vegreville said:
From the dominion government or the people of Canada.
Then he went on about a person with a slightly smaller income and said:
I am trying to point out that the so-called little man is not being left out in the cold-
He may not have been left out in the cold, but there is an awfully big crack through which the wind is blowing and, if he does not look out, he will get a bad cold.


An hon. Member:: A terrific draft.


Angus MacInnis: Yes, there is a terrific draft.
-and the same applies to the man with an income of $2,400.
That is a long way from the incomes he mentioned which the bigger fellows had. After paying his income tax one had over $28,000, and the other had over $74,000.
He pays a tax of $15, and he gets from the federal government approximately $135. Thereby he is receiving a bonus of $135 on top of the income of $2,400.
I notice that when the hon. member for Vegreville is referring to the man in the low income brackets he is very careful to mention what that man gets through social security payments. When he is referring to those in the higher brackets he is careful to mention only what they pay in taxes. He is equally careful not to mention what they

The Budget-Mr. Maclnnis have left after taxes are paid. The record looks much better when you do it that way.
He did not tell the house that the man in the $50,000 income class this year gets, as a result of the tax cut, the nice little sum of $1,237. Next year he will get $2,475. There we see that this last amount is almost equal to the total income, plus family allowances, of the man in the $2,400 income class.
The hon. member for Vegreville tried, as did other government supporters in their speeches, to include the social security payments as part of the budget. Not only that, but an attempt has been made to present social security payments as generous gifts from a beneficent government. Let me quote again from the speech of the hon. member for Vegreville as it appears on page 2465 of Hansard:
But let us not forget that the government Is spending this year for purposes of social security, such as family allowances, old age pensions and social security in other forms the sum of approximately one billion dollars.
Here is an attempt to try to present either the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) or the government as a little white father. I am afraid some people are getting a "little white father" complex. I would like to point out to the hon. member for Vegreville that it is very difficult to make a little white father out of a conservative lawyer, particularly when that conservative lawyer has an irrepressible streak of impishness in his make-up. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the minister himself wants to propagate the idea of the beneficent government or, in other words, the little white father. Toward the end of his budget speech, on page 2135 of Hansard, he said this:
These achievements-
He is referring to the achievements made during the eight years he had the honour to be the Minister of Finance. I heard a rumour that this might be the minister's last budget. If somebody who is closer to me is not going to occupy the position, I would just as soon that he had the job for another year as anyone I know.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Thank you.


Angus MacInnis: He goes on:
These achievements-
As I say, referring to the achievements of the country during the last eight years.
-have been the collective achievements of the Canadian people-rapidly growing in numbers- who have been busy about their own affairs, working, developing and exploring, saving and investing in the future.

I agree absolutely with the Minister of Finance there, but a little further on, in the next paragraph, he touches on the record of the Liberal government and forgets what he said half a minute before about the record of the Canadian people. He said:
The record of this Liberal government in the past four years is one of which we can all be proud. We have expanded and improved our earlier programs of social welfare and we have introduced a sound system of universal old age security. We have provided large financial assistance to improved health services in every province.
For a moment he gave due credit and praise to the people and in the very next, all the glory went to the Liberal government.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Not at all, just a fair share; a people well governed.


Angus MacInnis: The people by their efforts, let me tell the minister, made all those achievements possible. Before we got any of the things he mentioned or which he says the government gave us, we had to urge, we had to press, we had to plead and yes, we had to demand that the government do those things before the government acted to do them. I believe that before we feel complacent about the extent of the prosperity of our people and about what we have accomplished, we ought to examine what the conditions are. We will find that there is a great deal yet to be done before we can do very much boasting.
In that regard may I draw to the attention of the house a news item which appeared in the Montreal Gazette of February 27, 1953. The item is headed "Housing inaction delinquency cause". This article was referring to a statement made by the Rev. Patrick J. Ambrose, director of the Catholic welfare bureau, at its annual meeting in Montreal. He said:
"Deplorable living conditions, lack of adequate housing, high cost of basic commodities have become in greater and greater numbers contributing factors to domestic difficulties and mental breakdowns," he said.
"An increase in parental and juvenile delinquency is the direct result of a deplorable housing shortage, the responsibility for which must be accepted by the governments on the three levels- federal, provincial and municipal."
It seems to me that before we begin giving handouts to the rich, we ought to do something more than we are doing to take care of the very poor amongst us.
Another statement of a similar kind, this time closer to Ottawa, was drawn to my attention the other day. It was made by Judge Fraser, who is the judge of the family court for the Ottawa district. He was referring to housing conditions and juvenile delinquency. He said:
Families who live in apartments have no place for their children to romp and they are driven

out into the streets and places where they will come under undesirable influences. I have been criticized for saying it, but I repeat now, that the biggest cause for juvenile delinquency and the breaking up of homes is that people, especially those in the poorer classes, do not live in a single building; they share accommodation with somebody else. Many of these people do not have as much as $500 to pay down on a house, and no government has suggested a scheme whereby-even if it paid 99 per cent of the cost-these people could pay their share and get private accommodation. I know of homes where the children sleep eight or nine to a room, and where boys and girls of thirteen and fourteen years of age sleep together. One can readily appreciate what that is doing to them. That condition exists all over the country and particularly right in this city. I have been criticized for saying-within a stone's throw of the shadow of this building-
He was referring to the parliament buildings.
-that there are homes where eight and nine children, their father and mother live in a rat-infested two-room apartment, with only one lavatory. I know of one old home which has been converted into apartments and accommodates ten families with eighteen children under sixteen, and seventeen grown-ups and has accommodation of only one lavatory. That building is probably 75 years old.
I say again that before we begin to give handouts to the well to do, we should try to clean up some of these festering sores right on our doorstep. Until we do that, budgets such as the one we got the other day will be rich men's budgets.
I was interested in this point, that is the necessity and desirability of looking after the poor, as it was mentioned in another article which appeared in the Montreal Gazette of February 19. It was the report of a speech by Gerard Filion, the editor of Le Devoir. He had made a trip to some of the countries inside the iron curtain, in both Europe and Asia. In the course of his remarks he is quoted as follows:
Steps must be taken, said Mr. Filion, editor of Le Devoir, to prevent well-developed countries from squeezing these nations which have remained primitive in their economy.
Force of arms will hold back the hatred of the exploited people for a time, he said, but there are millions of men, women and children in the Far East whose only interest is in keeping body and soul together. There was a time when men died without complaining, they were used to it.
The twentieth century, however, is a different subject. The poorest peasant in India and the most miserable coolie in China knows there are countries where men are well dressed, well housed and well fed, said Mr. Filion.
The most obvious thing is that they know this well-being has been gained partly by the exploitation of their country and their labour.
There is a very close connection between what Mr. Filion has said about the countries of Asia and eastern Europe, and the conditions that I have mentioned which we find right here in Canada and right here in
The Budget-Mr. Maclnnis Ottawa where 34 or 35 people are living in one building with only one lavatory. These people know-and if they don't know they feel-that the wealth of Canada is a result of their exploitation. If we are going to fight communism at home and abroad we shall have to deal with these conditions both at home and abroad. I do not like this idea of remedying conditions for the sake of preventing communism. We should do these things because they are good things in themselves, and not because they may save us from a worse fate.
Fortunately the Minister of Finance makes other speeches than those he makes in this house. When making some of those other speeches he does not always have his eye on the next election. One of those speeches was delivered to the Canada Club when he was in London at the commonwealth conference last December. I am reading from a report of it in the Ottawa Journal of December 19, 1952. He is. reported as having said:
In the 85 years of Canadian history since confederation, he said, there had been no period of growth comparable to the last 13 years. It was a growth and development spread over all industries and felt in all parts of the country.
There is a little more that I should like to quote, but I think that is all that is necessary for my point. Notice what he says, that the last 13 years were the most prosperous in the 85 years of history since confederation.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think I said "the greatest growth". I was speaking without a text. I think that is what I said.


Angus MacInnis: I do not want to use words that the minister did not use.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think I said "the greatest period of growth".


Angus MacInnis: I shall read the words:
In the 85 years of Canadian history since confederation, he said, there had been no period of growth comparable to the last 13 years.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is what I thought I said.


Angus MacInnis: I will go on and read what I did not read before:
During that period the country's population had increased at a rate of about 3 per cent a year. The index of industrial production nearly doubled the 1939 level. Savings had been maintained at approximately 10 per cent of personal income and some $25 billion had been set aside for new development.
The inflow of capital from other countries for direct investment had been on a substantial scale, but since the war Canada had lent or invested abroad more than had been brought in.
"In effect, if we take into account what we have lent abroad since the war'', Abbott said, "we have provided enough capital out of our own savings to finance the whole of our development."
That being the case I am not sure that there is any need for further incentive, by exemption from income tax, for people to
2846	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Maclnnis invest in Canada; but what I wanted to come back to was this. If you take 13 years from 1952 it will bring you back to 1939. And what happened in 1939? Hitler made war on Europe in that year. Then for five or six years we were fighting that war. After that we had to rebuild and repair the ravages caused by the war. By 1950 we had things pretty well fixed up, and there probably would have been a slowdown of industry, but the late Mr. Stalin came to our assistance by starting another war.
Therefore during the whole of this period of "our greatest growth"-I am not saying prosperity, but I think it is the same thing -we have been fighting a war, repairing the ravages of war or fighting a cold war and getting ready for another hot one. Without these things, for which we have to thank not this government or past Liberal governments-if we have to thank anyone it is the late Mr. Hitler and the late Mr. Stalin- the present Liberal government would be .groping and blundering in the same old ways they did during the depression. They could not solve the problems of those days until a war came to their rescue. I say that because no new policies have been developed.
I am not saying that if peace, real peace, came tomorrow we would automatically go back to the conditions of the thirties. We have learned a little since then. We have the social security payments which the Minister of Finance and his friends tell us were given to us by a munificent government. We would have that much to help. But fundamentally we have nothing new in policies that would enable our people to consume the abundance we can produce and bring about a period of growth and expansion such as we have had in 13 years of perpetual war.
I should like to say much more along this line if I had the time. Another reason for our great growth and development is that Canada is one of the last great reservoirs of untapped or partially tapped natural resources. We have a stable government. We are in a good environment, close-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Hear, hear.


Angus MacInnis: I say we have a stable government and we have had a stable government for the past 85 years, sometimes too stable.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Sometimes not stable enough.


Major James William Coldwell: Horses again.


Angus MacInnis: Our close proximity to the United States has made these resources exceedingly valuable indeed. Not so very long ago there came to my desk an advertisement by a Toronto firm. On one side it mentions the great opportunities that Canada


has because of the need of the United States for our raw materials. On the other side it refers to the Paley report and points out some of the highlights of that report. It says:
Fifty years ago the United States produced 15 per cent more raw materials than it consumed^- today it produces 9 per cent less than it needs. By 1975 production will be 20 per cent less than estimated requirements. Where once the United States was a heavy exporter of mineral resources, it is today the world's greatest importer.
Canada's prosperity today is dependent to a large degree on the sale of these natural resources. By the same token, depletion will ultimately come about if we are not more careful than our American cousins have been.
In concluding I repeat, this is a rich man's budget. The government can take no credit for the prosperity we have had during the last 13 years. That was the result of something neither this nor any other government in its right senses would wish. I would suggest that the moral of the budget is that before we begin handing out largesse to those who already have enough, perhaps too much, we should try to improve the standard of living of those amongst us who are living below the poverty line.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, as it is customary during this debate to bring before the house matters of importance to constituencies generally and to the nation as a whole, I wish to take this opportunity to bring two matters to the attention of hon. members. They are questions of concern not only to the people of my riding, but I feel to the Canadian nation generally. The first is the plight of the Canadian coal mining industry today, and the second I believe would be the currently high import tariffs on manufactured goods.
The unhealthy position of the coal industry has been mentioned in this debate by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) and briefly by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Wylie). I should like to go further, however, and suggest certain remedies which I feel seem to be expedient. Before I do so let us examine the existing picture.
Year by year coal is being replaced by oil and natural gas, both domestically and industrially. Coal mines are being permanently closed down or are operating in many cases on a part-time basis. Experienced miners will soon be drifting from the mines, and few new miners are being trained in this highly skilled and most important occupation. Unless something is done to halt this trend, Canada may find herself in a very few years with a grave shortage of personnel trained and capable of producing this commodity. And

it is still our basic fuel. Let not my statement thus far be interpreted as a condemnation of technological improvements or of economic expediency, but rather as a warning that we may be jeopardizing the safety and welfare of future generations.
To substantiate my claim that hon. members should heed such warning, let me draw attention to the following relevant facts. The estimated Canadian reserve of natural gas, at the present rate of consumption, is perhaps sufficient for 100 years. But it must be remembered that this is only at the present low rate of consumption, that consumption being almost entirely within Alberta, the province of origin, with a small amount being exported to the United States for consumption by the Anaconda copper mining organization, and for domestic purposes.
When the anticipated pipe lines to the Pacific northwest and to eastern Canada are completed, one can readily visualize a rapid deterioration of this supply. It is my opinion that the real danger, however, lies in the field of liquid fuel, for the known Canadian reserves are only two billion barrels, and our annual consumption in Canada is about 169 million barrels. This represents a mere twelve years' reserve.
It must be remembered moreover that of this 169 million barrels, 92 million are supplied by the United States and other foreign countries. Undoubtedly there are still large reserves of undiscovered oil, but the domestic consumption is rapidly on the increase. In the event of war, much of the supply which arrives by sea could be cut off by enemy action, and much of the supply from the United States would be cut off by local consumption.
Modern warfare is insatiable in its demands for oil and oil products. It has been said, and I think with some truth, that the downfall of nazi Germany was due to such lack of oil and oil products. Therefore I might ask this question: Are we doing enough for or giving sufficient encouragement to the development of modern coal-burning engines, and the conversion of coal units to consume gas and other similar products? The known reserves of mineable coal, on the other hand, are sufficient to last some 2,000 years. To paraphrase, it may be said that coal we will have with us always. However, we may not always have the miners and the ability to produce that coal.
The Department of Mines and Technical Surveys is at present co-operating with McGill university in the development of a coal-burning gas turbine. This installation I was privileged fo view recently, on the 68108-181
The Budget-Mr. Byrne invitation of the minister of that department. While a substantial amount of federal funds has already been granted for this development, I would urge that even greater attention and greater appropriations be forthcoming.
Professor Mordell, who is in charge of this interesting and extremely important experiment, is of the opinion that when this engine is perfected, one unit slightly larger than a modern diesel locomotive will develop greater power than one double diesel unit, and with appreciable economy. While the cost of diesel oil is about three times its equivalent in coal, the general efficiency is known to be five times that of conventional coal-burning steam locomotives. On the other hand a gas turbine, while unable to achieve the efficiency of a diesel engine, would compare favourably and possibly would be even more economic if developed for coal, which would be a much cheaper fuel.
It would seem advisable, in view of the facts already enunciated, that the development of coal-burning locomotives should be pressed forward as rapidly as possible, and the trend toward dieselization by both major railways should be proceeded with cautiously. Let us not have our entire transportation system dependent upon a fuel which, while limited in supply, is the basis for our defence, and the most important element in the waging of a defensive war.
I believe it is important that Canada should establish a national fuel policy. This was suggested as point No. ' 5 of the additional recommendations of the Canadian Congress of Labour presented to the cabinet in Ottawa recently. A board should be set up, with representation from all the provinces, or at least from all the main economic regions in Canada, to sit and advise constantly on our fuel problems.
Meantime it is important that a far greater amount of research should be undertaken to find more uses for coal, and particularly its conversion to a gas with a higher B.T.U. content than is now available. The method of production of this gas should be brought into line with the high B.T.U. content of natural gas. If this were done, natural gas could be replaced by coal gas, should the reserves deteriorate.
I wish at this time to compliment the minister upon his efforts thus far, and I would request even further support from the entire cabinet in this regard.
The second question I wish to discuss today is what appears to me to be an unreasonably high protective tariff for manufactured goods. Recently in Detroit, Henry Ford II made a
2848	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Byrne public statement calling upon the United States to establish a policy of complete free trade which, in effect, would break down all existing trade barriers. I fully appreciate the necessity for some protection for infant industries, but I feel the time has come to serve notice upon manufacturers that a gradual reduction in tariffs can be anticipated.
Mr. Sale, president of Ford of Canada, offered a contradictory statement recently in which he said that tariffs were necessary for the continued progress of Canadian industry. He pointed out that much of the difference between automobile prices in Canada and in the United States could be traced to high Canadian excise and sales taxes. Undoubtedly this is true. The fact remains, however, that approximately $250 of the difference between the market prices in Canada and in the United States of a medium-priced automobile is due to this 17i per cent protective tariff.
I would point out that if the industry feels the protective tariff is necessary for its survival, it might consider the advisability of establishing a uniform price for automobiles across Canada. The $250 which could be saved by tariff reduction would be sufficient to pay the entire freight rate on an automobile to British Columbia.
While our defence and social welfare programs do require heavy taxation, we would be in a much better position to bear the burden if automobiles and other consumer goods could be purchased at approximately 17J per cent less than the present price. It has been pointed out by Mr. Sale and others that a much larger number of automobiles is manufactured and sold in the United States, thus contributing to a lower unit cost. It may be pointed out, in answer, that Canadian labour costs are, generally, somewhat lower.
In my opinion the Canadian motor car industry could economize a great deal by reducing the large number of models and types. For instance, Ford of Canada produces two comparable vehicles in the Ford and the Meteor, with the Monarch and Mercury standing as comparable vehicles in the higher-priced field. Much could be saved by the manufacturers in costs of distribution and initial services if they had only two types of automobiles competing in their own price range. The same criticism may be applied to the General Motors and Chrysler Corporations with their galaxy of models and makes. It appears to me that this high protective tariff tends towards inefficiency in manufacture and affords manufacturers the opportunity to indulge the whim of almost
[Mr. Byrne.l

every discriminating buyer at the expense of the public generally.
Canada is growing up. Canadian industry is at least reaching maturity. So I repeat: Let us begin at once a gradual reduction of our restrictive import tariffs.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I propose to place six suggestions before the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) in the hope that something may be done about them during the present session. Then, if I have any time left, I plan to make some general remarks with regard to the budget.
The first suggestion is that the mother who works for a living, in paying taxation should be allowed to deduct from her income the amounts which she has paid for the care of her small children during the hours she is employed; in other words the suggestion is that she should be allowed to deduct the cost of nursery and child care. In several of the states of the union there is a movement for this change, and I believe the time has come for us in Canada to grant an exemption of that kind.
These Canadian mothers who work do so in practically every instance because that is the only way they can provide adequately for their children. They still have their homemaking job to do after business hours. Most of the highly paid jobs are not open to them; and on the jobs they are doing usually they do not get as much pay as a man would get. I believe they are a deserving group, and I would ask the ministers to give careful consideration to this suggestion. The amount of revenue involved for the nation would be extremely small, and I am sure the vast majority of Canadian taxpayers would support the request I am making.
The second suggestion is that out of town travelling and living expenses of persons engaged in the building and construction trades should be exempted from taxable income. If this is not done, these persons have double living expenses, paying for their keep where they happen to be working and also keeping their families in their home cities. It is my understanding that during the war years provision was made for the exemption of these expenses; but this exemption seems to have been done away with by the new Income Tax Act. Other groups have the exemption such as, for example, certain groups of transport workers and travellers. Here again I believe the time has come for a change to be made in our taxation laws.
This question has arisen on the Pacific coast because unions, in making agreements with management, have inserted a provision

for payment of these out of town expenses, only to find that they are taxable. It has therefore become an extremely important question on our coast. As a matter of fact, in Canada today out of town construction work is of great importance, probably more so than at any other time in our history. With the development of our resources there is a steadily increasing need for construction workers in remote areas. I believe that this policy of taxing out of town travelling and living expenses is not only unfair but also is hampering development.
The third suggestion is that the time has come to examine into and to bring up to date the taxation of our forest industry. No step in this direction is taken by the present budget. I would point out that in Canada the forest industry is the second primary industry, ranking next to agriculture in importance. In British Columbia, on the other hand, it is far and away our first primary industry. Out there in my home province the men in the industry, who are a vital force in the life of the province, are urging policies that will enable them, their sons and their sons' sons to stay in the industry; that is, they are trying to work out policies to help get the industry on a permanent-yield basis or in other words on a perpetual-harvest basis. To do that will require changes in policy, taxation and otherwise, both provincially and federally.
For example, as to federal taxation, I believe that the costs of reforestation should be allowed as an operating expense. They are not so allowed at the present time because such expense is considered not to have been incurred directly in the production of income. It is true that no one reforests on the immediate land on which current logging operations are producing income. However, I believe this question should be looked at with broader vision. Certainly, in the long run, these reforestation expenses are to produce income. I urge the minister to have them allowed as operating expenses. That policy is followed in Sweden and possibly in other countries where the forest industry has been put on a permanent basis, as will certainly be done in Canada sooner or later. This encouragement to reforest should be given to the industry. I believe it is reasonable and that it would be of great benefit to the nation.
The fourth suggestion to the two ministers is with respect to the sales tax. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) seems determined to keep that tax at 10 per cent, which of course is the highest rate it has ever been in the history of Canada. At that rate it can only be described as a vicious tax. Levied at the manufacturing level, it pyramids as the 68108-181i
The Budget-Mr. Green article goes to the distributor, the wholesaler and the retailer until it finally gets to the purchaser, and of course the purchaser is deceived in a manner because he has no way of telling what amount of sales tax is included in the price he pays for the article. It hits the poor far harder than it hits the rich, but apparently it is government policy for this year at least to continue the sales tax at 10 per cent.
However, there has been some extension of the goods which are exempt from sales tax. Such being the policy, I urge the government to provide for the exemption of purchases by municipalities. I understand they are even taxed on goods which they produce themselves but which are not for resale at all. Several hon. members have made this same submission, but I have no hesitation in repeating it. The sales tax on purchases by municipalities means that the home owners must pay this tax to the municipality to cover the tax levied by the federal government.
We have an outstanding example in the city of Vancouver of just how this tax hurts. The city is building a bridge over an inlet of the sea which is known as False creek. It is what is known as the Granville street bridge, and the new structure is replacing one that has been there for many years. I wired our mayor yesterday to find out how much federal sales tax will be included in the cost of the bridge, and I received this answer:
Estimated amount federal sales tax in cost Granville street bridge is between $500,000 and $600,000.
The bridge is to cost about $16,500,000. That money has to be found by the home owners of Vancouver; in addition to paying for the actual materials that will go into the bridge they will have to pay between $500,000 and $600,000 in sales tax to the dominion government.


Mr. Brooks:: Ridiculous.


Howard Charles Green: I do not believe it is fair. I cannot protest it too strongly. The senior government should not gouge municipalities and home owners in this way. Provincial governments and boards and commissions established by provincial governments are exempt from the sales tax, and municipalities should be put in the same position. They have a good deal more trouble financing than the provinces or the dominion government.
My fifth point is to protest the high-handed manner in which the government goes over the head of a taxpayer to his employer where income tax is unpaid, and arbitrarily orders the employer to deduct a certain amount from the wages of the employee. I had an example of that in Vancouver last fall. This particular
2850	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Green constituent was a married man with five dependents. He owed about $100 income tax last summer. The government contacted his employer, one of our large firms, thereby endangering the man's job in the first place. As a result he went and borrowed $50, which was all he could raise. He paid that amount on his income tax, which was for the year 1951, I believe, and promised to pay the balance at the rate of $20 a month. To his letter he got no reply. Instead the government, without warning, ordered his employer to deduct $28 a month. That is bureaucracy gone mad. It is shocking that steps of this kind should be taken by the government. It shows utter contempt for the individual Canadian, and these bullying tactics must be stopped.
Another point, and my final suggestion to the two ministers, is to give them another example of bullying tactics, the business of forcing deductions from an employee's wages throughout the taxation year greater than the amount of his tax. Last week the Minister of National Revenue announced with apparent satisfaction that in the Vancouver area out of approximately 363,000 people who would file tax returns for 1952, about 161,000 would be entitled to a rebate. That means of course that 161,000 taxpayers were overtaxed in that year. The refunds were to be approximately $8,163,000. What does this mean? I submit it means that the government has dipped into the pockets of the wage [DOT]earners of the Vancouver area to the tune of [DOT]over $8 million. Some people would call that theft.


James Joseph McCann: What do you call it?


Howard Charles Green: I call it an outrage.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Never lost for a strong word, anyway.


James Joseph McCann: Do you know the conditions that bring it about?


Howard Charles Green: The government calls it borrowing, but pays no interest. There may be interest paid in the odd case, but as far as the great bulk of taxpayers are concerned there is no interest paid. In the whole of Canada over two million people have been overtaxed to an aggregate of over $85 million. Those two million Canadians are supposed to be grateful to the government for giving them a handout now, even though the money which they are to receive is their own and should never have been taken from them.


Gordon Graydon: What do you do with all that money?


Howard Charles Green: This bullying system of deducting more than is payable is dishonest in the first place-


James Joseph McCann: It is the change.


Howard Charles Green: -because it is other persons' money.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Joseph McCann: You keep quiet. It is because of the changed conditions in their status in the year.


Howard Charles Green: Is the Minister of National Revenue telling me to keep quiet?


James Joseph McCann: No. It is the changed conditions in their status in the year.


Howard Charles Green: The minister can make his own speech and explain why these tactics are used.


James Joseph McCann: Well, you give the facts and we will listen to you.


Howard Charles Green: I say that in the first place this practice is dishonest. In the second place it is unnecessary, and is merely done to make things easier for the tax collector. In the third place it is unfair because only the wage earner of Canada has to do it. A person in business on his own, a man or woman in a profession, or a farmer is not the victim of .such high-handed treatment. The deductions should be reduced to avoid these overpayments.
So much for the sixth suggestion, and now I go on to a few remarks on the budget. The first feature to which I wish to draw attention-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Those were local grievances.


Howard Charles Green: No, they were not local grievances; they apply to people all over Canada.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I was speaking to my friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier), but it was an accurate statement.


Howard Charles Green: The budget does not call for any decrease in spending. On the contrary it provides for a substantial increase from $4,327 million to $4,450 million in the fiscal year from April 1, 1953, to March 31, 1954. That means an increase of $123 million.
The Minister of Finance expects the gross national production to go up from $23 billion to $24 billion. That will mean that he will have $1 billion additional national production on which to levy taxes. At the old rate he would get more than he required, so he can reduce taxes to some extent. In other words, the reduction in taxes is based on an increase of production and not on a reduction in spending. Very little has been done about cutting the cost of government. In fact it is going up by $125 million, as I have already pointed out. More taxes are to be levied on the Canadian people in the fiscal year 1953-54 than ever before. The amendment of the

Progressive Conservative party deals with that point, and I propose to read it into the record:
This house regrets that under the present budget the government proposes to take more money from the taxpayers of Canada than ever before for non-defence and defence expenditures without any effective steps being taken to: (a) deal with waste, extravagance and administrative inefficiency; (b) give tax relief to those who need it most; (c) offer any encouragement to Canadian farmers in meeting the serious consequences of lost markets and lower prices resulting from the government's agricultural and marketing policies; (d) permit an independent inquiry into the organization accounting and administration of the Department of National Defence.
Our quarrel is with the increase in spending in the coming fiscal year and with the fact that no real attempt is made to reduce taxes by cutting expenditures, which would be the normal way to bring about a reduction. Very little has been said by the Minister of Finance on this point. I am afraid he has given up trying to reduce spending. After all, he has told us that this is his last budget and now he is off to greener pastures; and he does not seem to be worrying very much about cutting down expenditures. The only reference he made in his budget speech to reduction of expenditures appears at page 2121 and is as follows:
The government has not relaxed its efforts toward maximum economy and efficiency in all government operations. There is and there always will be room for further improvement, and we shall continue to press our efforts in this direction. We are, for example,-
And this is the one example that he gives of cutting or reducing expenditures.
-this year inaugurating a suggestion awards plan in the civil service which we are confident will, over the course of time, result in many major and minor improvements in efficiency of operation-
That makes it appear that the Minister of Finance is handing the problem to the civil servants. I believe the civil servants will do their part, and their full part, not only in watching expenditures but also in giving good administration in this country. It is my belief, after 17 years in the House of Commons, that there is no finer civil service anywhere in the world than we have in Canada. But what chance is the government giving civil servants to bring about a reduction in expenditures?


An hon. Member:: What would you do? Fire half of them?


Howard Charles Green: Let us refer to the Currie report. There we find that the civil servants did their best to warn the government about expenditures without getting any results. We find this at page 712 of Hansard, and I am reading from Colonel Currie's report:
-It must be said that internal warnings had not been lacking in the Department of National
The Budget-Mr. Green Defence. The chief auditor of the department had performed his functions conscientiously. Time and again he had reported unsatisfactory conditions. This is clear from Appendix "B" which summarizes his findings over a period of years. The deputy minister in each case had directed the quartermaster general to investigate and report. Lack of adequate action at this point had, however, caused a progressive deterioration in the situation. Aside from reports being delayed for considerable periods of time, the record shows the next audit revealing conditions similar to those previously reported and, in some cases, worse. The process is then again repeated.


Mr. Croll:: That was denied by the chief auditor.


Howard Charles Green: Now the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) is interrupting.


David Arnold Croll: On a question of privilege-


Howard Charles Green: This is no question of privilege.


David Arnold Croll: I have to rise on a question of privilege. May I state it? My question of privilege is that the hon. member is misstating to this house and reading only a portion of the evidence, not all of the evidence.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, that is an untrue statement.


John Horace Dickey: The statement you made was.


Howard Charles Green: I am reading from the Currie report, nothing else. I am not trying to drag in this committee which is hounded by the hon. member for Spadina.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Of course the word "hounded" is objectionable and also it is out of order to refer to the proceedings in the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Howard Charles Green: I am glad to withdraw the word "hounded" and members can judge for themselves.


David Arnold Croll: That left-handed sort of withdrawal, which the hon. member is accustomed to make from time to time, I won't accept. I want a withdrawal, full and complete.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member will withdraw the word "hounded".


Howard Charles Green: I shall be glad to withdraw the word "hounded".
Another example of the failure of the government to give civil servants a chance to cut down expenses arises, I believe, in connection with the purchase of these two de Havilland Comet jet air liners. They are not here yet, but I should like to know whether the R.C.A.F. was given an opportunity, before the purchase of these Comets, to say whether or not they were required and for what purpose they would be used.
2852	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Green I understand now that the first one is to be used to carry very important persons around the country. This is to be a VIP Comet, and I doubt very much whether the proper requisitioning procedure was followed in the case of these two planes.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this government will never make substantial savings. Only a new government can do so.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Howard Charles Green: A new broom is required. I
believe that in the first year a new government could save as much as the taxes have been reduced this year. Only by lower spending can substantial tax reductions be made. You cannot depend on an increased national production each year.


John Horace Dickey: You can as long as this
government is in office.


Howard Charles Green: The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Dickey) does nothing but squawk in the house when other speakers are speaking. Certainly the saving of money by cutting costs is more important. This year we have none of that, and the total weight of taxes is being increased.
The second feature of the budget to which I draw attention today is the failure to give tax relief to those who need it most. There has been much talk of the small man, but I prefer to call him young Johnny Canuck. He is the chap who is doing the work in Canada. He is the one who is increasing the gross national product, and is supplying most of the taxes. He and his like are the real strength of this nation. This young Canadian is earning up to, say $4,000, with which he has to raise his young family, buy a house, pay insurance premiums and try to save a little, all the time faced with a cost of living which is nearly twice that which his father faced. There is little sign of that cost of living going down. He receives precious little help from this budget. In fact he is the forgotten man of 1953.
In the first place, there is no reduction in the 10 per cent sales tax. Such a reduction would have brought down prices, and I believe would have set an example which also might have had a very widespread effect in bringing down prices. Then he receives very little or no reduction in the income tax. I .would refer hon. members to page 2127 of Hansard for February 19, 1953, where there is the table showing the taxation payable by a married man with a family of two for the years 1952, 1953 and for 1954. In 1952 a man earning $4,000 paid $313 in income tax and $17 in old age security tax, making a
	,

total of $330. In 1953 he pays $286 in income tax and $34 in old age security tax, making a total of $320. In 1954 he will pay $269 in income tax plus $34 in old age security tax, making a total of $303, so there will be a small saving in 1954.


Mr. Lesage:: May I ask a question?


Howard Charles Green: I am not permitting any further interruptions.


Jean Lesage: I want to ask a question.


Mr. Speaker:: Unless the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) gives way, the hon. member cannot be interrupted.


Jean Lesage: Then, sir, on a point of order, I have to point out that the hon. member, when quoting-


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think that is a point of order. The information may not be correct; nevertheless the hon. member cannot rise on a point of order.


Howard Charles Green: My time has very nearly expired; that is why I am not permitting questions. I am quoting from the government's own table. Take a man with an income of $3,000. In 1952 he paid $123 in income tax plus old age security of $7, which is a total of $130. In 1953 he pays $112 in income tax plus $14 in old age security tax, making a total of $126. In other words he pays $4 less than he paid for 1952. In 1954 he will pay $105 in income tax, plus $14 in old age security tax, making a total of $119, which is $7 less than he paid in 1953.
Now, this Johnny Canuck has no money for luxuries or for frills. He should have been given a larger share of the tax reductions. The reduction of taxes all across the board on a percentage basis simply means that to him who hath shall be given. The only real dollar saving is in the higher income groups. This young Canadian should have been given a higher percentage reduction than was given to the man who had more money than he needed for a bare living. For years, Mr. Speaker, Liberal politicians have led the public to believe that they were the protectors of the little man. This budget shows how phony that appeal has been. This present Liberal government of Canada has long since discarded the hair shirt for the striped pants.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, may I point out the brazen attitude of the government on taxation. Up to 1949 they told the Canadian people that taxes were being kept high in the good years so there would be money on hand for the poor years. Then in 1949 they

suddenly dropped this policy and cut taxes in order to win the election. In 1950, 1951 and 1952, up went the taxes. Canadians were taxed heavily with resultant surpluses which, of course, drew criticism upon the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). The next thing that happened was that moneys were spent on plans for which the minister had not budgeted, in an attempt to keep down the surpluses. In other words, during those years there has been spending where spending was not then necessary.
In 1953 we find the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) making a small reduction in taxation which could have been made before, and claiming to be a great benefactor of the Canadian people. This whole plan is obviously intended to win an election. There is an element of cynicism about it, which is one of the most disturbing features in public life today. This approach by the government is an insult to the intelligence of the Canadian people.


Mr. MacDougall:: Oh, doctor!


Howard Charles Green: I believe the government
supporters are beginning to realize that fact. When the budget was brought down this horde of hecklers around the ministry were jubilant. They wanted an early election. What did we find last night? I hold in my hand a press dispatch appearing in yesterday's paper.


John Lorne MacDougall: How true is it?


Howard Charles Green: It reads:	"See election-"


Mr. Cruiclcshank:: What paper?


Howard Charles Green: "-off until spring of '54".


George Alexander Cruickshank: What paper?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Howard Charles Green: It is evident-


John Horace Dickey: Don't be too confident of that.


Howard Charles Green: -that the Liberal members want the election put off until 1954.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Howard Charles Green: So the Minister of Finance can try again; and here is the way-


Lionel Chevrier: You were afraid you were going to get it in the spring.


Howard Charles Green: -it is to be done:
They call the election now for June of '54, preceded by another budget in which the Minister of Finance could do his softest and sweetest best for the taxpayers.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: What paper?


George Alexander Cruickshank: What paper is it?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Lorne MacDougall: The Quadra Review.
The Budget-Mr. Harrison


Howard Charles Green: Private members are now finding out that the Minister of Finance did not do such a wonderful budget job after all, and they hope he will be better next time.


Mr. Ferrie:: We are well satisfied.


Mr. J. H. Harrison (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to follow the hon. member who has just taken his seat. In looking over my file for this speech I noticed that I had one small file at the bottom of the pile that said on it "Tory policy". This is a file I have been keeping since 1949, and in that time we have had very few glimmerings in this house of Tory policy, so it is small. However, we shall attend to that a little later.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Our policy is to reduce taxes.


John Hornby Harrison: We shall get around to that.
I would not have entered this debate had it not been for some remarks made the other day by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue). It was his closing remarks that moved me to speak at this moment. He said the other day-and I assume he was speaking as a spokesman for the C.C.F. party-at page 2690 of Hansard:
I say this government reeks of scandal and the cabinet is loaded with reckless men.
That is the opinion of a recognized spokesman of the C.C.F. party in this house. It is his opinion that such men as the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and others are reckless men reeking of scandal. That is a rather sweeping statement. I doubt very much whether it will gain much recognition in the country as a whole. That is his judgment, and we take it that that is the standard set by the C.C.F. That is, their yardstick of reckless and scandalous persons is the hon. members of the cabinet I have mentioned.
Then we have the word of another spokesman of the C.C.F. party, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who outside this house also set up a yardstick of what he thought was an admirable citizen, one who he said was a public-spirited citizen. I am talking of the gentleman who took the Currie report, Mr. Hensler. Speaking of him at a meeting in Toronto High Park- I think it was a convention of the C.C.F. party-he said "he thought that the motive behind it"-the theft; the paper has it in italics-"was that of a public-spirited citizen."
Let us look at Mr. Hensler's record of convictions. He has been convicted twice for

The Budget-Mr. Harrison theft, and for bigamy he has been convicted once, he has been convicted once for nonsupport of his family, a total of four convictions. But the conclusion reached by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is that he is a public-spirited citizen. I just leave the two comparisons to your own judgment. On the one hand we have these reckless men in the cabinet, and on the other hand this man of virtue, Mr. Hensler, by the C.C.F. yardstick.
So much for that. The hon. member for Assiniboia particularly, and certainly other people in other places, have made some criticism of our floor price structure. He referred to eggs. I took the trouble to find out what eggs were selling at in his own riding on the day he spoke. He said they were selling for 18 cents under the floor price of this government. I find the following prices were quoted at Weyburn on the day he spoke in this house: grade A large, 36 cents; grade A medium, 34 cents; grade A small, 30 cents; grade B, 30 cents, and grade C, 22 cents.


Mr. Argue:: My price was the price the farmer would receive.


John Hornby Harrison: This is the price the farmer was receiving at that station at Weyburn. Then I have the prices at Assiniboia, which is a little closer-


Hazen Robert Argue: Your prices are graded.


John Hornby Harrison: 
Mr. Quelch:: Twenty cents frozen and 22 cents chilled.


John Hornby Harrison: Yes; but under that agreement Great Britain will take very little that is not frozen. To all intents and purposes, about 90 per cent of the meat being delivered is top-grade frozen beef at 20 cents a pound or, as my hon. friend says, 22 cents chilled.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: When was that agreement made?


John Hornby Harrison: It was made just recently, I believe within the last six weeks or so. Anyway, it is a new agreement for 1953, and calls for the price I have indicated.
They also made a concurrent agreement with Uruguay, just east of the Argentine, and on similar terms. So if we were to sell in the British market at the present time we would have to deliver at a port like Montreal, at seaboard, for 20 cents a pound dressed; and this would mean about 10 cents a pound, live weight, less freight from point of origin wherever it may be. If it was in the west, then the price would be about 7 cents a pound, live.
So that is not the market we are looking for. I think the facts definitely show that our price support policy has certainly been worth all the money it has cost, although it has cost quite a bit; and it has worked effectively.
It had been my intention the other day to enter the little debate that took place on freight rate increases, and I think maybe I can make a few remarks on that subject at the present time. I went up to my room for my file the other day, and by the time I came down again the debate had concluded. However, I followed the leader of the C.C.F. party during that debate, and he said that the freight rates should not be held down at the expense of any particular group. From that I gathered that he was speaking of the workers on the railways.
Well, that is his position. Then having had this wage increase, he maintained that there should still be no increase in freight rates. As an alternative he suggested that the railways seek some economies. I think they are in about the same position as the farmer who is confronted by his hired man who has been working for $100 a month, and who suddenly decides that he must have $150. If you followed the reasoning of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar and others of his party, the farmer would maybe go
2856	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Harrison without a couple of meals a day and in that way save enough money to pay the hired man the extra $50.
As everybody knows, our railways are an essential service in our country and we cannot afford to let them be idle, even if those operating them have to have increases in pay. After due negotiation these raises have been agreed upon, except in the strike of 1950 when the matter was settled by this house. But having agreed that the wage increase was justified, I do not think any hon. member is justified in getting up and saying or concluding that you should not have an increase in freight rates. I think that a raise in pay amounting to $104 million- which I think this last pay raise amounted to-is going to make necessary some rise in freight rates.
If you go back to the strike of 1950, which was settled by this house, you will find the objectives of the C.C.F. party fairly well set out. They maintained that the men should get everything they required. Let me say that that is their prerogative. There is nothing wrong with that. That is what they believe. But they cannot very well turn around in the next breath and say there should not be a freight rate increase. You cannot stand in both positions at the same time.
Where did they stand in 1950? This is the amendment to the amendment moved at that time by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the following words be added to the amendment at the end thereof:
That was the amendment to end the strike at that time. This subamendment I might say was in effect postponing settlement of the strike. At that time they said they wanted the settlement postponed in order to protect the bargaining rights of the union. They wanted to be sure that free bargaining rights were maintained. They would have us wait to have free bargaining rights rather than have the strike settled on any other terms.
That was clear from the debate. There was one dissenter in the C.C.F. party on that occasion. We had had the free bargaining situation for some twelve months at that time, and they had not come to any conclusions. Our crop was out, out in the west, and it was essential that we get the strike settled. This is the rest of their amendment:
"Provided that the administrator be instructed to grant immediately the maximum concessions made by the companies during negotiations, and that further negotiations with reference to the present dispute relate only to the question of (a) a wage increase greater than four cents an hour-


In other words it could be any increase as long as it was more than 4 cents an hour.


Hazen Robert Argue: They got 7 cents.


John Hornby Harrison: The amendment continues:
- (b) the implementing of the forty-hour week for forty-eight hours pay at a date earlier than September 1, 1951,-
They did not care what date it was as long as it was earlier than September 1, 1951, and the workers had to have at least 48 hours' pay for 40 hours' work.
-and (c) the check-off of trade union dues.
This amendment is quite clear. They wanted the railroad labour that was affected by the strike to get the maximum that could be obtained. Yet they turned around immediately afterward and blamed the government and everybody else because the freight rates went up. If you are going to ask for maximums in such a thing as wages, they are naturally reflected in your costs and your costs are bound to go up. You cannot very well blame anybody when the costs are higher for those reasons; but that was their stand at that time.
Then when the vote came on the main motion of the Prime Minister, which was to the effect that the railroads resume operations, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said, "On division." The Prime Minister then said that we had better know where the division lies, and we had a vote. Our C.C.F. friends-and I speak particularly of the ones from Saskatchewan but I imagine they are all in the same boat; we were all fairly well in the same boat with regard to getting our commodities moved at that time-voted against the railways resuming operations, with the exception of the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright). He is a farmer of some repute, and a fairly large one.


Mr. McLure:: Six o'clock.


John Hornby Harrison: He has the interests of the farmer at heart.


Hazen Robert Argue: And he will look after Jimmy Gardiner.


John Hornby Harrison: That will remain to be seen, sir. I cannot go along with that statement. People have been looking after him for about 30 years and he is still here.
On motion of Mr. Harrison the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Tomorrow we shall continue this debate, sincerely hoping that we may have one vote before six o'clock because at eight o'clock we shall take up

the motion of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) to appoint a committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government. I understand that the officials are ready to come before that committee with the estimates of their department. There is generally no discussion on this motion.
Then we shall take Bill No. 38, respecting the Saint John Bridge and Railway Extension Company; then Bill No. 39, to amend the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation Act; then Bill No. 191, to amend the Canada Shipping Act, 1934. Then if we have time-and I hope we shall-we shall take up the estimates of the Department of Transport.


Howard Charles Green: Will there be no budget debate tomorrow night?
Business of the House


Alphonse Fournier: Up until six o'clock; but we hope to complete the debate by six o'clock. At eight o'clock we shall take up the various items I have mentioned.


Howard Charles Green: If the debate is not completed by six o'clock, will it be dropped?


Alphonse Fournier: Until Friday afternoon. May I add this word, Mr. Speaker, and explain that tomorrow the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) has a distinguished visitor from the United Kingdom in the person of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and is attending some function with him. That will explain why a good many members may be absent tomorrow night.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
2853
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March 12, 1953