1953-03-16

Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table the following reports for the year ended December 31, 1952, in English and in French: annual report of the Canadian National Railways system; annual report of the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, Limited; annual report of the Canadian National Railways securities trust, and auditors' report to parliament in respect of the Canadian National Railways system and the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, Limited.
By leave of the house I move:
That the annual reports for 1952 of the Canadian National Railways system, the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited, the Canadian National Railways securities trust, and the auditors' report to parliament in respect of the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, tabled this day, be referred to the special committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government, together with the following items of estimates for 1953-54:
Vote 467-Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals, deficit;
Vote 471-North Sydney, Nova Scotia-Port aux Basques ferry and terminals, deficit;
Vote 476-Maritime Freight Rates Act, payment of 20 per cent reduction in tariff of tolls to Canadian National Railways and other railways operating in the territory fixed by the act.
And that the resolution passed by the house on January 28, 1953, referring certain estimates to the committee of supply, be rescinded in so far as the said resolution relates to votes Nos. 467, 471 and 476.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 223, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	How many retired employees of the Canadian National Railways are in receipt of pensions of less than $25 per month?
2.	How many are in receipt of only the basic pension of $25 per month?
3.	How many are in receipt of non-contributory service pensions, (a) $25.01 to $29.99 per month; (b) $30 to $39.99 per month; (c) $40 to $49.99 per month; (d) $50 to $59.99 per month; (e) $60 to $69.99 per month; (f) $70 to $79.99 per month; (g) $80 to $89.99 per month; (h) $90 to $99.99 per month;
(i)	$100 to $124.99 per month; (j) $125 to $149.99 per month; (k) $150 or over per month?
4.	How many are in receipt of pensions in part
basic and in part contributory, (a) $25.01 to $29.99 per month; (b) $30 to $39.99 per month; (c) $40 to $49.99 per month; (d) $50 to $59.99 per month; (e) $60 to $69.99 per month; (f) $70 to $79.99 per month; (g) $80 to $89.99 per month; (h) $90 to $99.99 per month:	(i) $100 to $124.99 per month;
(j)	$125 to $149.99 per month; (k) $150 or over per month?


Mr. Benidickson:: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	17 under C.N.R. plan prior to 1935.
2.	3,206.
3.	(a) $25.01 to $29.99 per month, 1,003;
(b)	$30 to $39.99 per month, 661; (c) $40 to $49.99 per month, 371; (d) $50 to $59.99 per month, 202; (e) $60 to $69.99 per month, 109; (f) $70 to $79.99 per month, 94; (g) $80 to $89.99 per month, 40; (h) $90 to $99.99 per month, 31; (i) $100 to $124.99 per month, 49; (j) $125 to $149.99 per month, 18; (k) $150 or over per month, 21; total, 2,599.
4. (a) $25.01 to $29.99 per month, 403; (b) $30 to $39.99 per month, 1,886; (c) $40 to $49.99 per month, 1,508; (d) $50 to $59.99 per month, 1,128; (e) $60 to $69.99 per month, 1,034; (f) $70 to $79.99 per month, 945; (g) $80 to $89.99 per month, 831; (h) $90 to $99.99 per month, 717; (i) $100 to $124.99 per month, 1,310; (j) $125 to $149.99 per month, 813; (k) $150 or over per month, 1,127; total, 11,702.




Mr. Knowles:: 1.	How many retired employees of the Canadian National Railways, on pension prior to January 1, 1952. have had the amount of their pension increased at any time since January 1, 1952, as the result of changes in the Canadian National Railways pension plan which came into effect in 1952?
68108-188J

Questions
2.	How	many	of	those	who	have	had	such
increases were formerly on pensions of less than $50 per month? What is the average amount of their increases?
3.	How	many	of	those	who	have	had	such
increases were formerly on pensions of $50 per month to $99.99 per month? What is the average amount of their increases?
4.	How	many	of	those	who	have	had	such
increases were formerly on pensions of $100 per month to $149.99 per month? What is the average amount of their increases?
5.	How	many	of	those	who	have	had	such
increases were formerly on pensions of $150 or over per month? What is the average amount of their increases?


William Moore Benidickson: The Canadian National Kail ways advise as follows:
1.	2,728 employees. Average increase $17.13 per month.
2.	375 employees. Average increase $5.76 per month.
3.	1,643 employees. Average increase $13.48 per month.
4.	591 employees. Average increase $25.60 per month.
5.	119 employees. Average increase $61.23 per month.




Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Has any provision been made for any increase in the pensions of retired employees of the Canadian National Railways who are in receipt of only the basic pension of $25 per month?
2.	Has any consideration been given by the government to increasing the amount of the said basic pension? If so, what is the result of such consideration?
3.	Has the management of the Canadian National Railways discussed with the government the possibility of the amount of the said basic pension being increased? If so, are there any records of such discussions?
4.	Has the management of the Canadian National Railways asked the government to approve of the Canadian National Railways increasing the amount of the said basic pension? If so, what was the government's answer?
5.	Has the management of the Canadian National Railways asked the government to take the responsibility for providing an increase in the amount of the said basic pension? If so, what reply has the government made to any such request?
6.	If no decision has yet been taken on this matter by the government, is the matter now under consideration?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with this question orally.
The subject matter of this question was fully discussed last year in this house and in the railway committee. I would like to say to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who placed this question on the order paper, that no further consideration has been given by the government to increasing the basic pension of $25

per month to former employees of the Canadian National Railways who are in receipt of only this basic pension.
The reasons were given in the discussion which took place and no representations were received from the management of the Canadian National Railways on this question.



EXPRESS SHIPMENTS, HALIFAX-CLAIMS

Mr. Balcom:: What is the total amount in claims that have been paid Halifax companies or individuals on express shipments of merchandise arriving in Halifax, via Canadian National Railways, in a damaged condition?


William Moore Benidickson: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
For competitive reasons, it is not in the interests of the Canadian National Railways to release detailed information of this character.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS, HALIFAX   FREIGHT DAMAGE

Samuel Rosborough Balcom: What is the total amount in claims that have been paid Halifax companies or individuals on freight shipments of merchandise arriving in Halifax, via Canadian National Railways, in damaged condition?


William Moore Benidickson: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
For competitive reasons, it is not in the interests of the Canadian National Railways to release detailed information of this character.



A. V. ROE CANADA LTD.  COMPANY PUBLICATIONS

Mr. Fulion:: 1.	Has all or any portion of the cost of company magazines and/or newspapers published by A. V. Roe Canada Ltd. been charged to the Canadian taxpayer?
2.	If so, how much has been paid by the taxpayer to date?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Yes, a portion.
2.	$8,272.04 (figure subject to review on final audit).



PENSIONERS' ESTATES

Mr. Hcdgson:: 1.	Does the dominion government claim any entitlement to estates of pensioners for money paid to them as pension by the government, previous to December 1, 1951?
2.	If so, how much has the government claimed from pensioners' estates for the period January 1, 1952 to December 31, 1952, by provinces?
3.	Does the dominion government pay any percentage of the disabled pensioner's allowance which is in force in the province of Ontario?


Mr. McCusker:: 1.	The federal government does not file claims for recovery of pension payments from the estates of deceased pensioners. The federal share of any amounts recovered by the provinces is refundable to the federal treasury in accordance with section 9 (3) of the act.
2.	The federal government has filed no claims whatsoever against pensioners' estates during the period January 1, 1952 to December 31, 1952. The following amounts have, during the period referred to, been refunded to the federal treasury by the provinces from recoveries made by them from the estates of deceased pensioners:
Alberta, $31,318.66; British Columbia, $71,494.72; Manitoba, $11,434.21; New Bruns-
Questions
wick, $1,111.20; Nova Scotia, $8,183.22; Ontario, $58,845.47; Quebec, $17,024.50; Saskatchewan, $8,937.23.
3.	The legislation referred to is provincial legislation and contains no provision which would enable the province to enter into an. agreement with the federal government for the sharing of costs of payments made.



IMPORTS OF CANNED FRUITS

Mr. Tusiin:: What were the total imports into Canada for the year 1952, giving country of origin, volume and value of (a) canned peaches; (b) canned pears; (c) canned strawberries; (d) canned raspberries; (e) canned fruit salad; (f) other canned fruits?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: -	Country	Pounds	Value	(a) Canned peaches	202,570 715,550 2,072,025 6,347,801	26,679 111,938Union of South Africa	
United States				743,346
				
	Totals		9,337,946	$	1,152,312
				
(b) Canned pears			584,106 543,515		
	United States				
				
	Totals		1,127,621	S	
				
(e) Canned fruit salad			444 237,904 32,019,496	8	267
	Australia				
	United States				4,216,153
				
	Totals		32,257,844	$ 4,252,048	
				
(f) Other canned fruit			3,280 125,100 963,816 54,500 18,100 13,748 1,450,979		840 22,768
	Union of South Africa				
	Malaya				
	Jamaica				
	Bahamas				
	Hong Kong				5,001
	Australia				
	Fiji				15,274
	Belgium		2,880 6,105		
	China				
	Cuba				
	France		48,000 4,688 334,170 5,156,704 313,351 672,230 18,168,689 3,035,773		
	French Africa				
	Japan				
	Mexico				
	Netherlands				37,809
	Philippines				
	Hawaii	 United States				2,413,408
				
	Totals		30,632,229	S	
				
(c) and (d) Canned strawberries and canned raspberries are not recorded separately in import trade statistics They are included in the figure for (f) above, "other canned fruit".	'

Questions



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


Mr. Pearkes:: 1.	How many hot water heaters have been purchased by the Department of Defence Production since July 1950?
2.	Were tenders called in all cases?
3.	To whom were the contracts awarded?
4.	Were they in every case awarded to the lowest bidder?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	187.
2.	Yes.
3.	Northern Electric Company, Ottawa, Ontario; Canadian General Electric Company, Ottawa, Ontario; Canadian Fairbanks-Morse Company, Ottawa, Ontario; Union Electric Supply Company Ltd., Ottawa, Ontario; Wood, Alexander Limited, Hamilton, Ontario; Coleman Lamp & Stove Company Ltd., Toronto, Ontario.
4.	Yes.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Gillis:: 1.	Did the Canadian National Railways import American coal in the years 1951 and 1952?
2.	If so, what was the tonnage and, also, the dollar value of the coal imported at the American border?


William Moore Benidickson: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	1951, 4,617,377 tons; 1952, 3,765,589 tons.
2.	It is not considered to be in the best interests of the railway to make public the dollar value of this coal at the American border.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


Mr. Hodgson:: 1.	Have any contracts been awarded by the Department of Defence Production to Scott Clothing Company Limited, Longueuil, Quebec, for battledress blouses, since February 1, 1953?
2.	If so, were they by tender or on a cost plus basis?
3.	What are the terms of the contracts?
4.	What number of battledress blouses are included and what is the total amount of such contracts?
5.	What is the cost per blouse?
6.	What percentage is for the womens' divisions of the services?
7.	On what terms are payments made?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Yes.
2.	By competitive tender.
3.	Firm prices, with cash discount 2 per cent, 30 days.
4.	(a) 91,705 army battledress blouses, $1,354,482.85; (b) 43,000 army cadet battledress blouses, $711,220.

5.	(a) $14.77 per blouse, sales tax included delivered; (b) $16.54 per blouse, sales tax included delivered.
6.	Nil.
7.	Payment on acceptance and delivery.




Mr. Hodgson:: 1.	Have any contracts been let to Tip Top Tailors Limited, Toronto, since February 1, 1953, by the Defence Production Department?
2.	If so, were they by tender or on a cost plus basis?
3.	What are the details of such contracts and total amount involved?
4.	On what terms are payments made?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Competitive tender.
3.	(a) 35,000 army battledress blouses:
Unit Price	Total Amount
$14.47	$506,450.00
(b) 1,800 Canadian dress blouses:
Unit Price
service college, battle-Total Amount
4.14
7,452.00
Note:-Unit prices include sales tax and delivery costs to destination.
4.	Payment on acceptance and delivery.




Mr. Hodgson:: 1.	Was a contract awarded to Miller and Gabbe Limited, Montreal, by the Department of Defence Production, since February 1, 1953, for battledress trousers?
2.	If so, (a) what is the amount of such contract: (b) the cost per pair; (c) the total number to be supplied?
3.	Were tenders called or is it on a cost plus basis?
4.	What is the term of the contract and on what basis are payments made?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) $560,720.
(b)	$13.04 per pair, sales tax included, delivered to destination, net.
(c)	43,000 pairs army cadet trousers.
3.	Competitive tender.
4.	Firm price contract, payment on acceptance and delivery.




Mr. Hodgson:: 1.	Was a contract let to Master Craft Uniform Company, Quebec city, by the defence production department, since February 1, 1953, for battledress trousers?

2.	If so, for how many pair, at what price each, and what is the total amount of such contract?
3.	Was this contract by tender or on a cost plus basis?
4.	What are the terms of the contract and on what basis are payments made?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) 44,700 pairs.
(b) $14-188 per pair, sales tax included, delivered to destination, subject to cash discount 2 per cent-30 days.
Questions
(c) $634,203.60.
3.	Competitive tender.
4.	Firm price contract, payment on acceptance and delivery.
AGRICULTURAL LAND UNDER PRODUCTION Mr. Fair:
How many acres of agricultural land are under production in each province?


George James McIlraith: IMPROVED LAND, CANADA AND PROVINCES Source: 1951 Census
-	Total	Under Crops 0)	Pasture	Summer Fallow	Otheracres	acres	acres	acres	acresCanada (2)	96,852,826	62,212,148	10,005,126	22,032,062	2,603,490Newfoundland	28,981	20,271	5,885	(')	2,825Prince Edward Island	645,795	426,210	197,937	1,806	19,842Nova Scotia	661,975	477,459	155,108	2,524	26,884New Brunswick	1,006,377	711,647	243,872	6,927	43,931Quebec	8,828,968	5,790,359	2,685,217	47,084	306,308Ontario	12,693,250	8,645,302	3,235,345	333,764	478,839Manitoba	10,761,810	7,335,184	584,722	2,519,264	322,640Saskatchewan	38,806,770	23,705,575	1,441,015	12,855,394	804,786Alberta	22,271,044	14,427,631	1,112,825	6,194,976	535,612British Columbia	1,147,776	672,448	343,195	70,318	61,815
(') Includes field, garden, orchard and nursery crops.
(2)	Includes Yukon and Northwest Territories.
(3)	Not available.




Mr. Hodgson:: 1.	Was a contract awarded to Maritime Pant Manufacturing Company Limited, since February 1, 1953, by the defence production department, for battledress trousers?
2.	If so, for how many, at what price per pair, and what is the total amount of the contract?
3.	Were tenders called or was the contract on a cost plus basis?
4.	What are the terms of the contract and on what basis are payments made?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) 178,485 pairs.
(b)	$13.90 per pair, sales tax included, delivered to destination, net.
(c)	$2,480,941.50.
3.	Competitive tender.
4.	Firm price contract, payment on acceptance and delivery.



SURPLUS CROWN ASSETS


Mr. Fulton:: 1.	What are the particulars of the automotive equipment sold to Hercules Sales Ltd., Toronto, for $7,800, as surplus crown assets, as shown at page 17 of the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation report for 1951-52?

Questions
2.	What was the original cost of acquisition of this equipment?
3.	Were tenders invited for the purchase of this equipment?
He said: With respect to question No. 46, I am advised by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Defence Production that these were American assets, and Crown Assets Disposal Corporation merely acted as agent and the money would be turned over to the American authorities. Under the circumstances, may I ask that the question be dropped?


Mr. Speaker:: Question No. 46 will be dropped.



BUREAU OF STATISTICS, OTTAWA-LANDSCAPING

Mr. Fraser:: 1.	Was any landscape work done on the grounds of the new bureau of statistics in Ottawa?
2.	If so, were tenders called for this work?
3.	Was there more than one tender?
4.	What was actually done in the way of adding top soil, grading, seeding or other landscape work?
5.	What was the total cost?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	Grading and placing of top soil has been carried out in the preparation for landscaping.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.
4.	In accordance with requirements eighteen inches of suitable fill and six inches of suitable top soil were placed throughout the whole area completed to date. No seeding or landscape work has been done.
5.	$194,162.49.



AMBULANCES

Mr. Harkness:: 1. Of the 36 ambulances purchased for the defence forces from the Ingersoll Body Corporation, what was the make of chassis and engine, or if more than one how many of each make, and the cost per ambulance for each make of chassis and engine?
2. Of the 37 ambulances purchased for the defence forces from the Flexible Funeral Car and Ambulance Company of Canada, what was the make of chassis and engine, or if more than one how many of each make, and the cost per ambulance of each make of chassis and engine?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	The 36 heavy cars ambulance purchased from Ingersoll Body Corporation were supplied with standard commercial General Motors chassis and engines for which Ingersoll Body Corporation metropolitan type body was designed. Since these ambulances were bought as complete units, the cost of the chassis and engines is unknown to the Department of Defence Production.

2.	The 37 heavy cars ambulance purchased from Flexible Funeral Car and Ambulance Company of Canada were supplied with standard commercial General Motors chassis and engines for which Flexible Funeral Car and Ambulance Company of Canada metropolitan type body was designed. Since these ambulances were bought as complete units, the cost of the chassis and engines is unknown to the Department of Defence Production.



R.C.A.F., SASKATCHEWAN-INVESTIGATION

Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	Did F/O Doughty of Trenton, Ontario, and F/S Kirby of Winnipeg, Manitoba, make an investigation in October or November last into the alleged disappearance of materials belonging to the Department of National Defence, in connection with the construction of any Royal Canadian Air Force stations in Saskatchewan?
2.	If so, what was the nature of the investigation, and what was the value of government materials which allegedly disappeared or were unaccounted for?
3.	Where any instructions given by the Department of National Defence to discontinue the investigation? If so, when and for what reason?
4.	How many persons were found to be involved or allegedly participated in wrongdoing?
5.	How many prosecutions have been launched in consequence of such investigation?


Mr. Claxton:: 1.	Yes.
3.	No.
2,	4 and 5. Preliminary inquiries failed to establish foundation for rumours concerning the disappearance of materials; however, the investigation is continuing under the supervision of the R.C.M.P.



NATIONAL HARBOUR, ST. JOHN'S, NFLD.

Mr. Higgins:: Has any request been made for the establishment of a national harbour at St. John's, Newfoundland?


William Moore Benidickson: No, but the Newfoundland board of trade, St. John's, has requested information as to the nature of a national harbour.



CANADA HOUSE, ST. JOHN'S, NFLD.

Mr. Higgins:: 1.	Does the government own the house situated at Circular road, St. John's, Newfoundland, known as Canada House, and presently occupied by the premier of Newfoundland?
2.	If so, when was it purchased?
3.	What was the purchase price?
4.	Is this property presently rented?
5.	If so, (a) is it a monthly rental; (b) what is the amount of same; (c) who pays the rent?
6.	What is the annual cost of maintenance of this property?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	Yes.
2.	It was taken over when Newfoundland entered confederation.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	Yes.
5.	(a) No, it is an annual rental; (b) $1,500 per annum; (c) provincial government of Newfoundland.
6.	Fiscal year 1949-50, $281.76; fiscal year 1950-51, $34.80; fiscal year 1951-52, $118.17.



SEA ISLAND AIRPORT, B.C.  LOADING ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Green:: 1.	Have any requests been received by the Department of Transport for the construction of increased loading accommodation for aircraft in front of the administration building at Sea Island airport in British Columbia?
2.	If so, what action has been taken in respect thereof?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1.	Yes. A request from the Vancouver airport board.
2.	The construction of a new runway, together with all the necessary accessories, has just been completed at Sea Island airport at a considerable cost and while there is little doubt that larger and better loading areas are necessary, this major expenditure cannot be undertaken at this time in view of the pressing needs of other parts of Canada, and the limited funds available.



TELEVISION APPLICATION, HAMILTON

Mr. Fulton:: 1.	Does the application for a licence for a television station at Hamilton contemplate a station equipped with a directional array?
2.	if so, what general zone or zones will be eliminated from the area which would otherwise be covered by the station applied for?
3.	Do any of the other licences so far applied for contemplate stations so equipped? If so, which ones?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1.	Yes.
2.	As compared to a non-directional station, the proposed directional antenna would reduce the strength of the signal northeastward across lake Ontario and southwestward to a lesser degree while at the same time it would increase the strength of the signal southeastward toward the Niagara peninsula and in a northwesterly direction. The directional antenna pattern proposed directs the energy in a manner to cover as much as possible of the areas which would not be served by Toronto and London assignments.
3.	No.
Questions



CANADIAN FORCES, KOREA  SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS

Mr. Robichaud:: 1.	What are the organizations which serve and direct our Canadian forces in the Korean theatre of war?
2.	What are the other duties and responsibilities if any, of the said organizations?
3.	What has been the annual cost to Canada for the services of the said organizations, during the years (a) 1950-51; (b) 1951-52; (c) 1952-53?


Mr. Claxton:: On the understanding that this question is directed to' the command organization relating to the Canadian forces in the Korean theatre of war;
1.	All the formations of the Canadian forces serving in the Far East form part of the United Nations forces under the command of the supreme commander. Administrative matters relative to the commonwealth forces, of which the Canadian forces form a part, are handled by the general officer commanding the British commonwealth overseas forces, who reports to the chiefs of staff of the countries concerned. In addition, the ships of the Royal Canadian Navy in the Far East form part of task force 95 of the United Nations naval forces. The 25th Canadian infantry brigade is part of the first commonwealth division, which in turn is part of the first corps, which is part of the eighth army. No. 426 transport squadron of the R.C.A.F. operationally works with the military air transport service of the United States air force.
2.	The duties and responsibilities of the commands mentioned in answer to question 1 are indicated by their titles.
3.	Nil.
BUTTER HELD BY PRICES SUPPORT BOARD Mr. Fraser:
How much butter was held by the agricultural prices support board as of March 1, 1953?


Mr. McCubbin:: 24,157,879 lbs.
SKIM MILK POWDER Mr. Fraser:
1.	What manufacturers or their agents have tendered (a) roller process skim milk powder; (b) spray process skim milk powder, to the agricultural prices support board?
2.	What quantities have been offered in each case by each of the above?
3.	How long will the purchase offer remain open? Mr. McCubbin:
I.	(a) J. I. Nicholson, broker, of Toronto, Ontario, for Villa Nova Milk Products Cooperative, Waterford, Ontario, 300 barrels.
J.	I. Nicholson, broker, of Toronto, Ontario, for Marshall Dairy Limited, Jarvis, Ontario, 550 barrels.

Questions
1.	(b) Dominion Dairies Limited, Montreal, Quebec, 150 barrels; Ault Creamery Limited, Winchester, Ontario, 985 barrels; Vermette & Fils Limitee, St. Agapit, Quebec, 500 barrels; Milk Products Inc., Montreal, Quebec, for Dalpe & Frere Cie. at Maskinonge and Ver-cheres, Quebec, 1498 barrels.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	The purchase offer will remain open until the authorized quantity has been purchased.



ARMED FORCES


Mr. Robichaud:: 1.	What has been the total cost of recruiting, training and/or initial outfitting of personnel of our armed forces, in each and every year, since the 1st of January, 1950, to date?
2.	How much of the above total amount has been expended, in each and every year, from the 1st of January, 1950, to date, (a) for recruiting; (b) training; (c) initial outfitting of personnel of our armed forces?


Brooke Claxton: Records and accounts are kept in such a way that to prepare an answer to this question would require extensive recalculation involving the expenditure of a great deal of time and money. Training is continuous throughout the service of practically all members of the armed forces and almost all expenditures on defence are related to training except expenditures on operations in connection with hostilities in Korea.



CREEKSIDE STREET, HULL    CONSTRUCTION OF WALL

Mr. Courtemanche:: 1.	Have representations been made to the government concerning the construction of a wall at a dangerous place, near the stream, on Creekside street, in Hull, Quebec?
2.	If so, on whose behalf and on what date?
3.	Has such place been the scene of any drownings?
4.	Has the government approved of the construction of such wall?
5.	If so, when will the construction be started?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	Representations were made for the installation of protection equipment on existing walls.
2.	By municipal resolution, of the city of Hull, dated November 18, 1952.
3.	No information.
4.	The construction of the fence has been approved by this department.
5.	It is expected that construction will commence in 1953.



DOMINION COAL BOARD EMPLOYEES

Mr. Hansell:: 
Mr. Prudham:: 1.	21 employees.
2.	(a) five; (b) nine; (c) five; (d) two.
3.	Chairman of the board; assistant to the chairman.



CANADIAN SERVICES COLLEGES ADVISORY BOARD

Mr. Pearkes:: 1.	Has an advisory board for the Canadian services colleges been authorized in regulations published by order in council in 1950?
2.	If so, what are the duties and responsibilities of the advisory board?
3.	To whom are the reports and recommendations of the board submitted?
4.	Who are the members of the board?
5.	How many meetings has the board held since 1950?
6.	When is the next meeting of the board?


Mr. Claxton:: 1.	Yes.
2.	To advise the minister on all matters pertaining to the colleges.
To hold one general meeting a year at each college alternately.
In addition to the general meeting, to meet as directed by the minister.
3.	The Minister of National Defence.
4.	The board has not yet been appointed.
5.	Not applicable.
6.	Not applicable.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	What Canadian cities and towns are policed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?
2.	What is the amount per policeman charged to the said cities and towns?
3.	Are charges made for the use of the police car or cars in any of said cities and towns? If so, to which and how much per year?



MOTION FOR PAPERS


Mr. Hansell:: For a copy of all recommendations of the dominion coal board, during the years 1951 and 1952, to the dominion government, any provincial government or any other person or persons.


Mr. Prudham:: Return tabled.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Righl Hon. L. S. Si. Laurenl (Prime Minister) moved:
That when this house adjourns at 10 o'clock p.m. on Thursday, April 2nd next, it stand adjourned until Tuesday, April 7th next, at 2.30 o'clock p.m.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I had the advantage of discussing with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) and the leaders of the other groups, on Thursday, the kind of motion it would be proper to make for the Easter adjournment. I think all four of us were under the impression that it was still the hope of hon. members that it might be possible to finish the work of the session, without undue haste or without neglecting anything that should be done in connection with it, by the end of April or the beginning of May.
In order to make that possible, we felt it would be desirable to have as short an adjournment at Easter as could reasonably be contemplated. There seemed to be no alternative to either having the adjournment from Thursday night to Tuesday morning or having it for at least ten days so that hon. members who reside at considerable distances from Ottawa would have time to go home and get back. It was felt that if that were not going to be possible it would be rather unfair to them to keep them in Ottawa without sittings of the house any longer than was absolutely necessary.
As a result of that conference I agreed to put down this motion for the adjournment from Thursday night until Tuesday afternoon to cover only the two holidays of Good Friday and Easter Monday. I am sure that no hon. member would feel it was proper to be sitting on Good Friday, and having to take the longer week end I think it is also desirable not to sit on Easter Monday, which most other Canadians will be taking as a holiday as well.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Can the Minister of Labour give the house a report on the strike in the grain elevators in Vancouver?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: I have no detailed report to give the house. The parties concerned are discussing a proposal which has been submitted to them. I
The Budget-Mr. Drew do not think there is anything I can add to that.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. A. Riley (Saint John-Albert):: should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries whether he is contemplating any measures designed to protect the weir fishermen of Saint John county against the intrusion of purse seiners during the coming months?


Hon. James Sinclair (Minister of Fisheries):: The fishermen of Saint John county have already raised this question with the department. The department has framed an amendment to the present regulations which it is hoped will satisfy both the purse seiners and the weir fishermen.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, March 13, consideration of the motion of Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood), and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I propose to continue to discuss certain reasons why I believe that assurance should be given to the hon. members of this house that steps will be taken to review the whole organization of government and the administration of its departments even though we recognize that it would not be possible for such inquiry to be conducted and completed before the budget has been dealt with or the estimates of the departments presented to the members of this house.
Events of the past few days which have occupied so much time over the radio and in the press do remind us that we are in a twilight period of half war and half peace. The unity of the free world gives us hope that peace may in fact be assured for all of us, but that does not dispose of the fact that there is at this very moment a very real war in Korea and that there is fighting elsewhere throughout the world. What has been happening in these past few days, increasing tension between the free world and the slave world, warns us that we are living through something that is little more than an uneasy armistice, with peace still to
2962	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Drew be assured only by the efforts of the free peoples who are combining to make sure that the elements of danger do not get beyond control.
We are told that the Korean war has cost us $129 million, but we should remember, and particularly at this time, that in the same period the people of this country have been called upon to spend for defence some $4,000 million. Every Canadian, every person loyal to democratic government, either in Canada or elsewhere, hopes for peace above all else. However, there is no escaping the fact that these enormous expenditures, part of which we have presented to us now, are made in the hope of avoiding a general war but also have been made and are being made with the recognition that we might actually become engaged in a war unless the effectiveness of our effort were maintained.
If the preparations for defence on the limited basis which has already been undertaken is to cost us so much money for that part which is not represented by fighting itself, then surely it does not take very much imagination to realize what would happen in the unhappy and terrible event that we actually did become engaged in another war.
Surely it is not necessary to press this argument. One of the factors which the men in the Kremlin surely must be keeping in their minds at all times is the ability of the free nations to maintain their military effort in the event that war did break out. If they became convinced that the free nations were going to impose too great a strain on their economy by the efforts which would require to be undertaken to defend freedom, then that would be as important a factor in their consideration as the number of tanks, aircraft and other pieces of military equipment which are regarded so carefully by all nations at this time.
Our survival in war as well as the survival of our free economy in peace demands that every possible step be taken now which will make our expenditure of money and effort as efficient as possible. If the government were only prepared to say to the members of this house, and through the members of this house to the people of Canada, that they are disturbed by what they have learned, and are ready to deal with the waste and extravagance which has been brought to their attention, then hon. members of this house might have some feeling of reassurance that in spite of all that has been exposed some steps are going to be taken to bring this to an end.
Instead of any such reassuring statement, however, the government says in simple and 

unequivocal terms that there is no foundation for the suggestion that waste, extravagance and inefficiency exist.
There is one very serious consequence of this and one which perhaps is not sufficiently brought to the attention of members of this house in the discussions which take place from time to time. Every government official in every department of government knows perfectly well that there is waste and extravagance. Every government official sees waste and extravagance just as those Canadians who are in places where it can be seen also see waste and extravagance. If those government officials come to the conclusion that what they now see is not to be regarded as waste and extravagance by the government, then surely there can be little encouragement to them To tackle those examples that come to their attention. We know that there is no single thing which will so seriously hold up or increase inflation as will extravagance and waste which offer no productive result. The answer to inflation is efficient production, and efficient production will largely be affected by the extent to which efficiency is to be found at or near the top.
It is true that inflation has been checked. We will hope that this is not temporary. Of course there is one question that arises in our minds. We see one of those things which require further explanation in a recent report. We find that the new price index suggests a slight reduction in the cost of living whereas the cost of living index to which so many of our wage contracts in this country have been anchored shows an increase at the same time. Whichever is correct, however, the fact remains that inflation may be regarded as standing still for the present. That fact, however, is no reason for complacency. What we should be doing is to take every step that can be taken not only to halt the increase in inflation but also to reduce inflation by the assurance that every effective economy has been undertaken.
When the suggestion is made that something should be done to examine this situation in the way that every business is bound to examine its own affairs from time to time, we are told that in this suggestion we should be more specific. After all, Mr. Speaker, this again is one of the disturbing things about the situation before us. We have the report of the Auditor General disclosing the fact that there are eight different systems of accounting and that nothing effective is being done to unify them. Is that not specific enough for this government? There is no indication that it is.

The government asks us to be specific in other respects. We have the findings of a man described on different occasions by the government as the man best qualified in Canada to undertake the inquiry that he undertook. We have his extremely explicit findings of waste, extravagance, inefficiency and theft. Moreover, he found that there had been a complete breakdown in the administrative supervision of the department which is spending half of our tax money and that there has been widespread inefficiency. Is that not specific enough for the government?
We have had read to us passages from the Gordon report which we have not seen and cannot obtain. It apparently makes the most explicit findings with regard to inefficiency. Mr. Speaker, there were read into the record of this house on March 12, by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), words purporting to be from what is known as the Gordon report.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Brooke Claxton: I do not think the hon. member for Kamloops suggested that.


Mr. Croll:: Oh, no.


George Alexander Drew: If that is not correct, may I say that I read them as coming from the Gordon report.


Mr. Dickey:: As a matter of fact, the hon.
member refused to identify the report.


George Alexander Drew: What is that?


Brooke Claxton: He refused to identify the
report.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, the report which has been read is one which the government has refused to identify and which has been read into the record.


Brooke Claxton: He refused to identify it.


George Alexander Drew: I will read what was read into the record at that time:
-a tremendous amount of money is being spent to provide an administrative machine which, to my way of thinking, occupies a large part of its time in a futile paper war with the reserve army which has neither the strength in numbers, the equipment, nor the inclination to respond.
Let the government produce the reports that they have and then-and then only-let them raise any questions about where the statements come from. Not one member of the government has suggested that these words do not appear in a report which is in their possession. Not a member of the government questions the fact that they have from Mr. Walter Gordon a report which they have so far refused to produce.
The Budget-Mr. Drew


Mr. Si. Laurent:: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman would not wish to be unfair. May I say that the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney) positively stated that there was no report on record in their department containing the language read into the record by the hon. member for Kamloops. There has been no indication of where those excerpts come from.


Brooke Claxton: There is no report in the Department of National Defence.


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: The hon. gentleman stated that there was no report of which those excerpts would be excerpts. I car. state positively that there are no such excerpts in the so-called Gordon report.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) raises an extremely interesting point. It will be recalled that only a few days ago, in response to a request for the production of reports, a minister of the government explained that it would not be possible to produce those reports because of the amount of time and effort that would be devoted to obtaining them. Either that statement was correct or it was not. If that statement was correct, then I must confess that I find it difficult to know how the Prime Minister is in a position to say that he can say positively that no words of this kind appear in any of these reports. Either the government has the reports or it has not. If the government has a collection of reports sufficiently comprehensive for the Prime Minister to say, "Those words do not appear" or "Words to this effect do not appear", or if the government has had made a digest of the reports which makes it possible for any member of this government to say "These words do not appear in any reports we have", then the answer that these reports are not available was not an answer in accordance with the facts. It is one thing or the other. Either these reports are available and they should be made available to the members of this house, or they are not available. If they are not available, then time should be devoted to getting them. This situation is such that one of the things which the government should have undertaken long ago was to get together all the reports that had been made with regard to the different activities of this government, in view of what was found in the case where we have had at least an extremely limited view of the administration and supervision of government activities.
I leave the matter there. If the reports are available in such a way that the Prime Minister feels confident with regard to what they contain, may I simply ask the Prime Minister whether he will now undertake to
2964	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Drew present and to table in this house the reports to which he refers?


Mr. St. Laurent:: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not. It has never been the practice to do so. We are operating under a constitutional system whereby it is the ministers who are responsible for the decisions that are made. It has always been the recognized practice for it to be the privilege of ministers to get confidential reports from those in whom they may have confidence. But those reports have always been treated as confidential reports. It would be drying up the source from which ministers responsible to this house can get assistance if it became known that they could not get any assistance in a confidential way.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a
declaration of a new concept of parliamentary responsibility. The government is merely the executive of this parliament, and is merely the executive body responsible for administration. Any money that is spent on obtaining reports for the purpose of examining the details of any department is taxpayers' money. The reports are the property of the taxpayers, and we as the representatives of the taxpayers have the right to see those reports unless they are properly subject to some terms of secrecy, such as would be involved in the case of secret documents relating to national defence. There can be no other case where this government, or any other government, has the right to refuse to the members of this house reports which were made for the purpose of examining the administration of the departments and suggesting improvements in the business of government.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I quite agree with the
Leader of the Opposition that the government cannot refuse to a majority of parliament anything that the majority of parliament requests, but the majority in parliament, so long as it has confidence in the government, has not required the government to disclose the information it obtains in a confidential manner.


George Alexander Drew: No matter what the motive may be, no more dangerous doctrine has been enunciated in this house since this country became a nation in 1867.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Minorities must rule.


George Alexander Drew: This is a denial of the one
basis upon which our parliamentary system operates. Our parliamentary system operates on the basis that the minority has the right to access to information which would make it possible to form a proper opinion about anything coming before the house. The


principle just enunciated by the Prime Minister would apply with equal force to any other document that ordinarily would be tabled in this house, and make production subject to a majority vote, which has a habit of following the express desire of the government in that respect. Then, it would be possible for this government completely to change the established procedure that has been accepted by this house as the basis of our parliamentary procedure ever since 1867.
At least, Mr. Speaker, we have this much before us now. We know now that there was not very much in the contention that it was because of the amount of work it would have taken to get the reports that we did not get them. We know now that it is simply because the Prime Minister asserts that the government has the right to say what we shall be able to see and what we shall not. If that is the proposition, let us know it. Let not any of us be misled into the belief that the reason was that it was going to take too long to find out where the reports were, or what reports could be presented. This proposition is a simple one. The proposition now put forward by the government is simply this. You will just get as much information as we are prepared to give you, and as long as we are able to get the majority vote of our members, that is going to be just as little as you can possibly get. That is the situation, and that now explains why the committees of this house have been so ineffective in being able to get the kind of information that we had hoped they would be able to get when they were originally set up.
The majority rules, yes; but the old idea of majority rule was that it would be with full knowledge that is now to be denied. It is just to be such measure of knowledge as the majority in its discretion thinks at any time the opposition is entitled to have. That is the proposition which is apparently now to remain part of our parliamentary practice here for such time as this government holds office.
This government has only emphasized why we should continue to seek by every device we can information in regard to other aspects of government administration. I used the comparison before, but in view of the proposition now before us I repeat that comparison. When we are told that we shall see just so much as the government decides we can see, then it is necessary for us to remember that we have before us what in effect constitutes a large administrative structure with one hundred rooms. We got a peep through the window of one room, because the government in that case did

decide that we would be permitted to see the Currie report. Perhaps the only reason we saw that was that it had seen the light of day in some other way. But in any event, we did see into that room. We saw into one room and we saw a disgracefully untidy room.
The government asks us to be specific. Well, what we saw there was clear and definite enough. We saw there the records of the stolen siding, of the lost bags of cement, of the pleasant fishpond and of the horses on the payroll, and the other things that were disclosed in that room. But we have not seen through any one of the other ninety-nine windows. Now we are told that it is not likely that we are going to get a peek through any of the other ninety-nine windows. Of course the fact remains that we have had some opportunity at least to get an idea of what some of these rooms do contain.
We have asked the government to let the other blinds go up, and to let us see what is in those other rooms so that if necessary there can be a housecleaning. After all, this administrative structure belongs to the people of Canada, not to this government. The government is not even the tenant of that structure, let alone the owner. It is simply the caretaker. Surely, the landlord, the people of Canada, have a right to know what the caretaker has been doing to keep the property in good condition. That is all we are asking as the representatives of the people who in fact own this business.
We have had reports from two of the inspectors who have been on this property, and they have not found the condition of the property very good. We are asking that other inspectors who have been there also be permitted to give their reports, and that, in any place where it has not been examined, it be still further examined.


David Arnold Croll: Will the hon. gentleman permit a pertinent question? Was it not during the time that the hon. gentleman was premier of Ontario that he denied to the house and to the country the Hope report?


George Alexander Drew: That interjection and the
applause which followed it indicate the kind of red herring that those on the other side seek to draw across the trail. The Hope report, as the hon. member well knows, was neither completed nor presented to the government of Ontario until long after I had left the legislature of that province. In fact I can only express regret that the hon. member in this case does not display that attention to detail which I admit he did display
The Budget-Mr. Drew while he was also directly associated with provincial activities in Ontario.
This is simply a further example of the apparent necessity for continued emphasis on the fact that we are trying to get assurances from the government that this will be dealt with in a way that will produce some positive results. It is very noticeable that in the presidential addresses of almost every bank in Canada this year emphasis has been placed upon the need for taking whatever steps can be taken to increase economy in the administration of government for the purpose of checking inflation. In several of those speeches it was pointed out that while it is not easy to effect these economies, particularly as between departments, nevertheless real efforts should be made to cut unnecessary government spending and to save wherever possible by the introduction of efficient methods.
The ordinary housekeeper has to establish her budget on the basis of what she is allowed to spend. She does not set up her budget on the basis of some arbitrary figure that she thinks she would like to spend. If the ordinary housewife in Canada followed the same practices that are being followed by this government at this time there is not one of us in this house who does not realize the unhappy results which would follow in an ordinary household where that practice was adopted.
We are seeing before us the very real dangers inherent in the centralization of taxation and government power. Every one of us here knows perfectly well that, the closer spending is to the people, the more care is exercised in relation to the spending of money. Those who have had experience in the municipal field know perfectly well how carefully people in those communities watch the expenditure of every dollar, and how responsible members in those municipal councils are to the demands for economies which are made by the people, who see how the money is being spent.
In the provincial legislature, business is still closer to the people than it is here, although not so close as in most municipal councils. That is one reason why all of us should watch what is going on, and watch it very carefully. The year before last 77 cents out of every tax dollar was collected by this government, leaving only 23 cents for provincial governments and municipal councils to carry out their extremely important tasks.
Now, if this trend had been changed, there would be some reason for encouragement. But it has not been changed. The percentage
2966	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Drew [DOT]collected by the central government is still higher. Last year it was 78 cents out of every tax dollar that was collected by the central government, leaving only 22 cents out of the tax dollar available for the provinces and the municipalities.
This concentration of spending power not only encourages the reckless use of power by the government which has it, but also it withdraws from the supervision of the people the expenditure of their own money. Some of those people who are today feeling the impact of taxation are inclined to feel a sense of detachment in regard to expenditures by the central government.
That is another reason why we should economize. That is another reason why there should be a conference where there could be laid a foundation for the kind of readjustment in taxation which has been demanded by the provinces for several years.
The fact is that this concentration of power is no accident. It is part of the policy of this government that it should get as much power into its own hands as possible. This government gives lip service to our constitution, but it has done more violence to constitutional rights than any government in the history of this country. In fact it is the first government in the history of Canada that has denied the principle that the British North America Act is a solemn pact, which represents the agreement between those who joined to make this country a great nation.
This government regards our written constitution as a mere scrap of paper to be brushed aside whenever the government decides that it is convenient to by-pass parliament, and the provincial legislatures, and to *operate by order in council-which can more accurately be described as government by dictate.	.
The present trend is one which will concern every Canadian interested in our federal system. There is another reason for great caution at this time. This government has not been prepared to recognize that, both in the domestic field and in the external field of business, everything we produce carries with it a hidden load of taxation, and a heavy load at that.
How many Canadians realize that at this time an automobile bought in Canada and made in Canada carries with it a load of government taxes, which, in total, amounts to more than the total amount paid to those who actually worked in making that automobile? And yet that is a fact. And that situation is being repeated in other cases.


This is the load of taxation, which does not appear as part of the price tag, but which is placed on automobiles, washing machines, electrical equipment, and many other things. It is something that is not only added to the burden of our own people, but is also having a very important effect upon our trade with other nations, and will have that effect in years ahead. It applies to agricultural products as well. In the case of every bushel of wheat, every pound of meat, every pound of cheese, and everything else we export, or seek to export, there is thrown in a burden of taxation either upon our own people or upon people who are asked to buy those products.
And when we hear that one of the difficulties we are encountering now in selling our products to certain markets is the fact that they cannot afford to buy, how often is the simple reality faced that one of the reasons they sometimes cannot afford to buy is the fact that our products are carrying such a heavy load of taxation imposed by this government?
No one would suggest for one moment that we can operate without taxes. But because of these facts we do say that this government should give us some assurance that some step will be taken to reduce costs, wherever that can be done. Some of us can remember events after the first world war which should be in the minds of all of us today. Many of us will remember how easy it was to sell products of all kinds in the markets of the world, in the years immediately after the first world war. That condition arose because of the destruction of producing plants in so many countries. We also remember how that changed.
The same thing has happened in the years following the second world war. We are now entering a period of extremely keen competition in export markets. We have hardly realized how fast the industrial recovery has been in some of those countries. The two most important industrial competitors outside of this continent-that is, outside of our western associates in the last war-are Germany and Japan. The figures are striking, when one examines what has happened elsewhere. For instance, in 1952 industrial production in West Germany, in physical volume, was 52 per cent above their pre-war industrial production. The physical volume of industrial production in Japan last year was 29 per cent above their pre-war industrial level.


James Sinclair: What is Canada?


George Alexander Drew: That, Mr. Speaker, is something the hon. member can speak about when his time comes to speak. I am pointing out that

this very, rapid increase in countries which were devastated by war indicates what is likely to happen this year, next year and in following years when you consider the measure of recovery in such a comparatively short time since they got back to the rebuilding of their industrial plants. We have taken the position that we welcome these nations into the community of free nations. If we do, then of necessity we must accept their competition. If we accept their competition, then we must face that competition on the basis of price as well as on the basis of quality.
We know that both the countries I have mentioned, as well as other countries, are not carrying today anything like the load of taxation that they carried in the years before the war. It is perfectly well known that, until those countries undertake the building up of military establishments in the common defence of the freedom which they now share, their taxes are bound to be lower than ours. This should emphasize to every Canadian the urgent need of examining every item of expenditure and cutting costs wherever they can be cut without impairing the efficiency of the operation or denying to our people any of the advantages that they have. These are reasons why, even at this stage, I believe there would be great reassurance in the mind of members of the house and of the people of Canada, at a time when they are called upon to accept such heavy financial responsibilities, if the government would say: Yes, we know there has been waste and extravagance. We are prepared to face that. We are disappointed that it is a reality and we are going to conduct the kind of examination that will deal with it wherever it can be found.
That would give us reassurance. That would give us the opportunity to deal with this matter with the knowledge that, while we may not be able to expect these reforms during the time that the subject is still under discussion, at least the arguments that have been presented will not be entirely disregarded. But, Mr. Speaker, the proposition put before us today is one which certainly does not give us much assurance that we are going to know too much about what does take place behind the facade of government as long as that facade is supported by the majority of members of this house who now support it so regularly on every occasion when they are called upon to express their opinion.
This, Mr. Speaker, is one reason why all of us should continue to urge that the details of government be placed under wider and more complete supervision in every way they can
16, 1953	2967
The Budget-Mr. St. Laurent be. Certainly it is a new idea that the minority in the House of Commons is going to be compelled to discuss public affairs without access to the information which is essential to the effective discussion of the business of the people of Canada.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words. We have got to be realistic and we on this side must realize that it is going to be asserted on an occasion that may not be too distant that the government has been inefficient, wasteful and extravagant. It is going to be asserted on the kind of evidence that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) has been trying to marshal here. He must also be realistic and he must realize that on that kind of evidence he is not going to have very much of a prospect of getting the majority of the people of Canada to agree with him. He wants us to say: Well, we admit we have been inefficient; we admit that we have been wasteful and extravagant. He wants to be able to go to the country and say: Of course, this evidence does not amount to very much but they themselves have admitted their inefficient, wasteful and extravagant methods, so just turn them out and put us in and you will see how efficient we will be. We are just not going to do that, and I do not think the Leader of the Opposition really expected that we would do it.
With respect to the matter of refusing information, this government has never refused any information to the house that it has been possible to supply the house. There happens to be a majority of members here who trust the honesty of purpose of the government and who, when the government says, well, no, we just cannot do that, does not insist that it be done. That is the whole situation.
With respect to these motions, I regret having to refer to them because I do not think that it is really in order but it may be necessary to re-establish the facts because the Leader of the Opposition did refer to. them. These motions were in general terms, and in those general terms would have required a large amount of research work. With respect to some of the things that would have been revealed; it would not have been possible for us to say: Well, there are reasons of public interest why that should not be disclosed. But here we have the Gordon report made several years ago at the request of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton). It was made to him and is marked "secret". It deals in an intimate manner with the top level administrative officials of his department, both in uniform and out of uniform. If that report is
2968	HOUSE OF
The Budget

Mr. St. Laurent requested, we will have to take the position that it cannot be made public.
So tar as the other report is concerned, I was credibly informed when these so-called excerpts came forward that there was nothing anywhere of which they could be excerpts. The Minister of National Defence has been trying to ascertain what is the situation, and it would appear that there has been turned up, among papers that were never away from the civil service commission, a manuscript that was apparently delivered there by someone who had been in the employ of the civil service commission and who had made an oral report while in such employ on some of the establishments that were being suggested. He also turned in a manuscript that never went anywhere else. That was found there last week among papers that are usually under the control of a Mr. G. T. Jackson, who happens to be in Burma at the present time. Apparently that manuscript never went elsewhere, and it is in that manuscript that there are expressions like those that were cited by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton). That is the whole situation.
This government has never attempted to withhold any information that it was reasonable to make available to the public. Even the Currie report could have been treated as a confidential document, but when it became known that there had been serious irregularities in what had taken place at Petawawa the minister had a report prepared and it was felt that the document, whatever it was, should be made public. The hon. gentlemen are still insisting that that document asserts that there are horses on the payroll. That is one form of expressing it but it is a very misleading form. What is true is that there were horses which were employed by teamsters. The teamsters were paid and, of course, what they were paid included something because there were horses with them. They would have been paid less had there not been horses working with them. But to say that means there were horses on the payroll is a pretty forced wav of expressing the fact. And if the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) wish to continue to assert that that means there are horses on the payroll, so long as the real facts are known, it does not very much matter.


George Alexander Drew: I would point out that those are not my words; they are the words of Mr. Currie, whose statement has not been challenged.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not know what my hon. friend means by "challenged". I am not going to call Mr. Currie a liar, but I


would say the real facts are different from those reported in that kind of language in the report.
So long as we know what the facts are one can, if one wants to do so, say that does justify saying: "There are horses on the payroll"; because on the payroll there are charges which would not be there if the horses had not been working with the teamsters. Perhaps that much can be asserted but no more.
The hon. gentleman continues to say that there was a siding stolen. Well, there was an old temporary siding that led into a gravel pit that was removed. The language is not literally untrue but it is misleading in the manner in which it is being used by my hon. friends. We are not going to bolster the insufficiency of that evidence by agreeing with the hon. gentleman that we have been doing an inefficient job, that we have been wasteful, and that we have been extravagant.
We are going to submit, within the next few months-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: -that matter to the Canadian electorate and the hon. gentlemen will have every opportunity of expressing their views about our administration. We think we have done a pretty good job. There are lots of people who are not in the official opposition who also think that we have done a pretty good job. Some of them do not happen to be Canadian taxpayers but some of them do happen to be Canadian taxpayers. While we may be very conceited, we have the conceit that the kind of job we have been doing is the kind of job we can go out to our fellow Canadian citizens and attempt to justify.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I rise merely for the purpose of putting on Hansard a short statement in answer to a question raised by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward) as to the accuracy of something I said. Before doing that, however, I would just like to make one or two comments on what the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has said.
I was glad that the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) was so quickly vindicated because, within the last half hour or so we have had some suggestions that he had been inaccurate in what he said. He pledged himself to the accuracy of his statements and the Prime Minister has now given what I take it is an explanation of the report which has now turned up but which had been unknown before.

Another thing I am frankly puzzled about concerns the Prime Minister's statement regarding the Currie report. I quite understand that it was a confidential document and, I assume, might have been regarded as being in the class of documents which would not have been produced. But the Prime Minister said it had become known and therefore was produced.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No. I said that when it became known that these irregularities had taken place Mr. Currie was appointed to investigate, did investigate, and did suggest methods to avoid repetition in the future.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Apparently I misunderstood the Prime Minister although I took down his words. I thought he was referring to the time when the report was presented.
The other evening the member for Dauphin questioned a statement I made and to which I want to refer briefly. I rise to put a statement on Hansard partly for the purpose of vouching for what I said, because I try to be accurate in this house, and I hope I shall be able to satisfy the house that I was perfectly accurate. I rise also for another purpose, and that is to try to set right what I think was a travesty, perhaps unconsciously put forward by the hon. member for Dauphin, of a great public servant, a former leader of this party. I refer to the late Lord Bennett.
I said at page 2346 of Hansard, after referring to the offer which Mr. Bennett had made of the intermediate tariffs to the United States:
This resulted in a trade agreement made between Canada and the United States in November, 1935, thirteen days after the King government was returned to power. What they really did was to sign on the dotted line the agreement that had been on the point of being signed while Bennett was still In office.
I supported this statement by a quotation from Mr. Hutchison's book "The Incredible Canadian" in which, at page 217, he says the following:
Bennett had negotiated and was almost ready to sign a tariff reducing agreement with Roosevelt. On taking office King found that agreement ready to his hand. He promptly signed it with a few amendments. It was Bennett's work, a work denying his original principles but no less valuable for that.
The member for Dauphin sought to discredit my statement by reading extracts from a speech made by Mr. Bennett in the House of Commons in 1936 after he had been defeated and after Mr. King had taken office, in which speech Mr. Bennett criticized the agreement and, in effect, said that he would not have signed it as he had hoped to get a better agreement. I point out that that
16, 1953	2969
The Budget-Mr. J. M. Macdonnell does not in the least invalidate what I said or what Mr. Hutchison said. It was perfectly open for Mr. Bennett, in February, 1936, to say that the agreement was not good enough and that he had been working for a better one. That does not in the least affect the words that I used. I again quote the words of Mr. Hutchison:
On taking office King found that agreement ready to his hand. He promptly signed it with a few amendments.
Oddly enough, although obviously I cannot quote the name of the man I refer to,
I have this additional corroboration to what is authentically stated here. I met a very senior civil servant who was, 20 years ago, a very junior civil servant and he volunteered the information that that was exactly what had happened. I do not of course ask the house to accept that as my authority, because my authority is here.


Mr. Garson:: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question at that point? If the agreement which Prime Minister King's government signed was the agreement which had been actually negotiated by Prime Minister Bennett, why would Mr. Bennett, as leader of the opposition, have criticized it so severely in the terms in which he did?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Well, of
course, oppositions have a way of criticizing, as the minister knows.
He says, and I think there is no difficulty in accepting this, that he did get certain concessions and that he was working hard for further concessions. That does not in the least affect the fact that the agreement up to that point was there, was found, and was acted upon. As a matter of fact, I have heard most enthusiastic statements by members of the Liberal party that it was of very great benefit.
Now, the other thing I wish to deal with briefly is this. The hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward) seemed to indicate that Mr. Bennett's whole mentality was to seek high tariffs, what we used to describe by the phrase, "high as Haman's gallows."
I thought that what he said was a travesty of a great public servant. I realize that in this business of party warfare we are sometimes pretty blunt with each other; yet I think we do manage, even though we are engaged in the cut and thrust of such warfare, to keep personal feelings outside of this chamber. That is why I suggest that in the case of great public servants there should be a kind of statute of limitations under which we would refrain from criticizing in an ungenerous and inaccurate way those who in times past have done great service for their country.
2970	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. J. M. Macdonnell I think I can say without fear of contradiction that I have never heard anyone in our party speak of Sir Wilfrid Laurier except with pride. We have looked upon him as a great Canadian. When a great public servant, who in years past worked in times of incredible difficulty, is held up to this house in what I can only call a kind of travesty, I think it is most unfortunate.
I am not going to use the word twaddle, which the hon. member himself used, because I find from the dictionary that it is an unpleasant word. It means "senseless, silly or trifling talk" or "empty verbosity". Although the hon. member did suggest that that is the kind of thing we talk here, I hope it is not.
I do not like saying unpleasant things about other people. I am only going to say that when people use words like that they ought to be careful because they may be at that very moment in danger of falling into that kind of thing themselves.
As I say, I feel that there has been a great deal of ungenerous talk about the late Lord Bennett. Not only has there been ungenerous talk; I think there has been silly talk about the first five years after 1930. From what one hears sometimes, one would think that Mr. Bennett invented the great depression and that then having invented it, he would not allow anything to be done about it.
I think it would be foolish to say, although we might say it with more colour of truth than the opposite, that the depression was left to us by the King government in 1930. The truth of the matter is that all of us were caught in events which arose far beyond Canada. I think it would be better if we could only talk about these things realistically, particularly when they are years behind. We might really indulge in the luxury of pursuing the truth, which is hard enough to find, even when we are really looking for it. Having said that, I would like very briefly-


Mr. Ward:: I wonder if I might make an interjection?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: This is my speech. I hope the hon. member is not proposing to make another speech.


William John Ward: I should like to interject and say that I spoke in the highest terms of Mr. Bennett. I did not in any way attempt to depreciate Mr. Bennett. I said that I had confidence in Mr. Bennett, but I questioned his judgment. I at no time attempted to depreciate in any way the late Lord Bennett.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not wish to be unfair, but I certainly felt that the hon. member was creating an impression in the matter of tariffs, which after all is a very important matter, that Mr. Bennett really was 


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: May I interject, Mr. Speaker, to say that on that same page 60 you have Mr. Bennett's statement as to the Canadian policy of his party. The hon. member did not read that. That is where the policy is described.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am reading the background of the agreement. I am pointing out that the agreement was, as stated, carried to a certain stage of negotiation when Mr. King came into office. I am pointing out that it was signed by him immediately afterwards, and it was the agreement that was in existence with minor changes. I quite candidly said that in 1936 Mr. Bennett criticized it and said he could have done better. But the facts are there. They are as clear as they can be. From that point in 1934 the negotiation went on in 1935 until -and I wind up by quoting from Bruce Hutchison:
On taking office King found that agreement ready to his hand.
There is no question about that.
He promptly signed it with a few amendments. It was Bennett's work, a work denying his original principles but no less valuable for all that.
My point is that those are the facts. There is no getting away from them. It does not affect what happened in the autumn of 1935 when that agreement was signed to say that some months afterwards Mr. Bennett criticized it. He was very frank in his criticism. I admit that, and I do not criticize that. Nevertheless the facts are that the agreement was there and, as stated, it was signed with trifling amendments.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
The house divided on the amendment to the amendment	(Mr. Coldwell)	which	was
negatived on the following division:
++YEAS
Messrs:
Argue	Blair
Black (Cumberland)	Brooks
Blackmore	Browne	(St. John's	West)


Mr. Gardiner:: I was paired with the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment to the amendment.


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


Mr. Johnston:: I was paired with the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver). Had I voted, I would have voted for the subamendment.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: I was paired with the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment to the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the
amendment.


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I desire for a short time to discuss the problem of Cuba, and the beet sugar industry in Canada-in fact, the sugar industry in Canada as a whole.
Let it be known at once that I bear no ill will in any way toward Cuba or any other country whatsoever. My object in speaking this afternoon is merely to clarify a situation which in the minds of a good many people in Canada is rather confused. Let us be a good neighbour to Cuba, but let us do it in an orderly way. Let us not pay too much for the whistle of being a good neighbour. Let us help Cuba to help herself. I think that is the attitude adopted generally today by all people engaged in both the beet sugar and the cane sugar industry of Canada.
First may I discuss for a few moments Cuba as an actuality and as a potentiality in the international trade situation of the world, and particularly in the matter of sugar.
Cuba is a great potential asset or a fearful potential liability to the world, and ultimately to herself. She is somewhat like a child playing with matches in a nitroglycerin plant. Cuba had an experience-bitter enough-in the early thirties, which will illustrate to her the truth of what I have just said.
What are Cuba's advantages in the matter of trading in sugar today? There are many. Cuba is a relatively low-cost producer. Rated among all the producers of the world she would, I think, be one of the lowest-cost producers. The United States tariff commission between 1929 and 1932 conducted a study of the cost of production of a pound of sugar in all major geographical sources from which the United States was drawing her sugar supply at that time. They found the costs in certain sugar producing areas to be the following: Louisiana, 5-5 cents a pound; Cuba, 2-7 cents; the Philippine islands, 3-5 cents; continental beet sugar in the United States,



IB, 1953

[Stage Direction]
3-1 cents; Puerto Rico, 4-1 cents and the Hawaiian islands, 4 [DOT] 1 cents.
I believe it will be agreed that among these are some of the cheapest producers, potentially, to be found anywhere. Unfortunately, so far as I have been able to find, there are no more recent data available, resulting from what we might call a thoroughly reliable and authentic study. The figures I have just given are quoted in "The Sugar Problem of the United States", issued by the Chamber of Commerce of the United States at Washington, D C., in 1941.
Then Cuba is the world's largest single producer of sugar, producing about one-sixth of the entire world crop. She produces about 6 million to 8 million tons of a total world crop of between 36 million and 38 million tons. She exports all but about 200,000 tons, which she retains for consumption. This shows that she has a considerable amount of sugar to play around with in the world markets.
Cuban refineries can turn out annually over 1,500,000 tons of refined granulated sugar, enough to supply, twice over, the entire annual consumption of Canada. This shows what Canadian refineries are up against. This means obviously that unless Canada takes effective measures to regulate refined sugar imports Cuba could in a very short time utterly destroy all Canadian sugar producers, both cane and beet.
Cuba's method of controlling domestic prices is another tremendous advantage to that country. With her method of control, Cuban exports are simply irresistible where an economy relatively free, such as that in Canada, attempts to maintain itself.
Cuban policy respecting the United States has been such that she must go into United States markets regardless of cost. That has been her policy for a long time. In order to get into the United States market she will reduce her costs, on paper, to the point at which she can enter United States markets. This was the case particularly before 1932-33.
The chairman of the United States tariff commission in a letter to the president of the United States dated April 11, 1933, said:
The situation in Cuba, which is the chief competing foreign country, is such that the higher the American tariff may be, the lower are the costs of producing sugar in Cuba.
Cuba must fix the price at which she sells sugar at a point which will enable her product to enter the American market.
I presume the same thing applies with respect to Canada, when she sees fit to enter the Canadian market. As an example of Cuba's methods, let us turn to what happened in 1952. To avoid anti-dumping laws Cuba
The Budget-Mr. Blackmore set each month an arbitrary price at which their raw sugar, and presumably refined sugar, would be sold for home consumption. For August, 1952, this price was fixed at $3,505 per hundred. This price, plus the refining margin of $1 to $1.18 which they are content to take, but concerning which I am a little doubtful that it can be scientifically established, brought their f.o.b. price to $4.69. Their sale price in Canada was apparently above this at all times. Consequently they could not be accused of dumping according to Canadian law. For September, 1952, the arbitrary raw price was fixed at $3,407 per hundred. Thus again they sidestepped the anti-dumping law.
Then, too, Cuba is in a preferred export position. This is expressed by some by saying that she produces under an umbrella, which is the United States. The United States quota system assures to Cuba the benefit of her full tariff preference plus an additional substantial premium. The United States quota system also guarantees Cuba a market for a substantial amount of sugar, enough to stabilize Cuba's sugar situation. This fact puts Cuba in the preferred export position I have mentioned, enabling her to do what in effect is dumping, although she can so manage her domestic price structure as to evade, on artifically produced technicalities, anti-dumping laws of any country in which Cuba chooses to sell her sugar. May I read the words of an eminent authority on sugar named Frank C. Lowry, as they appear in the Willett and Gray "Weekly Statistical Sugar Trade Journal" of January 24, 1946 at page 37. He says:
Under the quotas, a two-price system for the same article was created in Cuban sugar. Any surplus that could not be shipped to the United States was "dumped" on the so-called world market at the expense of other producers who did not enjoy the protection of the United States quota umbrella. In no small degree this contributed to the gradual decline in world values during the late thirties, making it impossible for the less favoured areas to pay labour more than 25 cents a day. Values in the United States also sagged until the complaint was heard that the market had been "stabilized at the bottom." It will be noted that the new system did not bring the millennium.
That quotation has considerable significance, as all hon. members will recognize. The results that Cuba was able to produce in respect of Canada were clearly demonstrated in the years 1930 and 1931, until in 1932 a minimum price of $2.30 a hundred in place of origin was imposed by Canada for tariff purposes, a matter which I shall discuss in more detail as I continue my speech.
Again, Cuba is in a most potent refined sugar position. Not only does she produce raw sugar in great abundance, but she is
[Stage Direction]
The Budget-Mr. Blackmore now in a position to produce refined sugar also in great abundance. The United States refined sugar quota of 375,000 tons annually to Cuba has perpetuated the sugar refining industry of that country. Cuba's sugar refining capacity is now more than four times her United States refined sugar quota of 375,000 tons a year. The resultant over-quota surplus of refined sugar can be disposed of by Cuba at prices which have no rational relation at all to current prices of raws. Cuba can buy up raws cheaply wherever there happens to be a distress sale among island producers, and either channel them into Canada as raws or refine them and then channel them into this country.
Cuba's production in 1952 was 8 million short tons, at least 2 million tons in excess of possible world demand. By that I do not mean world physical demand but world financial demand, meaning world ability to buy sugar and pay for it. Cuba has set aside
1,750,000	long tons of raw sugar for what they call their stabilization reserve. This they plan to feed into the market over the next five years.
This is enough to show any realistic member of the house that for Canada to turn over her home market for refined sugar with no restriction or regulation on Cuba is to commit suicide for our sugar industry.
I should like to discuss for a few minutes the sub-topic of Cuba and the Canadian beet sugar industry since world war I, and give an outline of what Canadian governments have done about it. Between 1925 and early 1932, the time of the establishment of the $2.30 minimum price in the land of origin for tariff purposes, which occurred on January 27 and 30, 1932, the way was clear for Cuban exports of refined sugar into Canada. To use a wrestling expression, no hold was barred. Cuba was granted permission to come into Canada at will. What happened as a result? Cuban refined entered Canada during those years in the following amounts:
Amount
Year	(lbs.)
1925	 90.519
1926		 13,424,822
1927		 24,208,300
1928		 30,037,100
1929		 31,234,200
1930		 40,871,600
1931		 12,739,500
1932	 40,000
1933		 Nil
In 1932 the amount declined to 40,000 because of the imposition of the minimum and in 1933, after the minimum got into full action, none was imported.
The next period in our relations with Cuba with respect to sugar runs from 1933 to 1939
[Stage Direction]

inclusive. No sugar was shipped into Canada because of the $2.30 minimum price.
From 1939 to 1951 what happened? There were no sugar exports to Canada because Cubans were able to market their extra sugar without bothering Canada, or it may be that their sugar was shut out as the result of the activities of the sugar controller. The picture is a bit blurred after the appointment of a controller in Canada. It is not easy for us to find out exactly what occurred. In addition, the United States was becoming alarmed concerning her sugar supply, and she drew quite heavily upon Cuba. The result was that so far as I have found we have no record of specific imports of Cuban refined sugar during that period.
Early in 1952 Cuba began shipping refined sugar into Canada. What was the reason Cuba did this? As I shall develop later, up to that time world sugar producing areas had not fully recovered from the devastation brought about by war. Consequently the world's supply was inadequate, causing a good demand for Cuban sugar.
Now, what has Canada done since 1925 in respect of Cuba and Cuban sugar? Between 1925 and January 27, 1932, Canada did nothing specifically to protect the Canadian sugar refining industry, both beet and cane, against Cuban refined imports. On January 27, 1932, order in council P.C. 181 was passed authorizing the Minister of National Revenue to fix the value for duty of refined granulated sugar. On January 30, 1932, appraiser's bulletin No. 3815 fixed the $2.30 value. Between January 30, 1932, and on or after November 20, 1939, when appraiser's bulletin No. 3815 was cancelled, Canada did effectively shut out Cuban refined from the Canadian market, regardless of wartime conditions or any other conditions.
Between on or after November 20, 1939 and the cessation of wartime controls on sugar on April 1, 1950, the Canadian government in a way protected from external sources the Canadian sugar refining industry through the agency of wartime sugar control.
We now come to the great mishap. The Canadian government, upon abolishing wartime controls on April 1, 1950, neglected to restore the $2.30 minimum or any other minimum, and neglected to take any other measure to protect the Canadian sugar industry, both cane and beet, against Cuban refined. This is the move on the part of the Canadian government which has caused the importation of Cuban sugar this year to the extent that it has greatly embarrassed the beet sugar industry and, I presume, greatly alarmed the cane refining industry also.

For a year or so there was no active danger because the world sugar producing industry, as I said a moment ago, had not sufficiently recovered from the damage of world war II and Cuba could sell elsewhere to good advantage.
In 1951 the Canadian government made an agreement to buy 75,000 tons of raw from Cuba in each of three years, apparently making no stipulation as to Cuban refined. Just as soon as Canada made an agreement with Cuba to buy raw, that probably was taken by the Cubans as an indication that Canada was prepared to buy any amount of sugar now that Cuba had to offer, provided it was refined. The result was that they began to exploit the possibilities of the situation.
By 1952 world production had nearly enough recovered to cause Cuba to desire to sell refined in Canadian markets. Still Canada took no defensive measures. In early 1952 Cuban refined again began to come into Canada.
I should like now to read two or three quotations from the sugar refining industry memorandum on behalf of the Atlantic Sugar Refineries Limited, the Acadia Sugar Refining Company Limited, and the St. Lawrence Refineries Limited. This was their submission to the tariff inquiry which, as I recall it, was conducted in 1939. It was a most important inquiry. I read from page 55 of their submission.
The entry of tropical refined sugar into the world export market in 1926 was an event of major importance to the refining industries of the temperate zones and constitutes the greatest threat to the latter that has arisen for many years. Because of its size and phenomenal growth the Cuban industry may be selected for special discussion but the development of refining industries in other raw sugar producing countries carries the same threat to the Canadian industry.
There is the declaration of those three great cane sugar refineries in Canada, indicating genuine alarm because of the possibilities implicit in Cuba by reason of her development of her cane refining industry.
From page 58 of their document I read as follows:
It was realized from the outset that the Cuban exports were being dumped on the Canadian market but the difficulty of proof as regards each shipment prevented any adequate remedy. In their anxiety to find markets for their extra quota accumulations of raw sugar, raw sugar was charged into the refining operation at prices substantially below the prevailing price for raws in the world markets. This practice was established to the satisfaction of the Canadian government, and finally in January, 1932, an order in council was passed under section 43 of the Customs Act fixing a valuation for duty purposes on refined sugar under the general tariff of $2.30 per 100 pounds, United States funds. As a result a dumping duty
2975
The Budget

Mr. Blackmore was established amounting to the sum by which the price to the Canadian buyer was less than $2.30 per 100 pounds, United States funds; provided however that this duty should not as provided in tariff item 134 exceed three-quarters of a cent per pound. This had the effect of stopping the influx of Cuban refined.
Our Liberal friends who talk so much nonsense about the Conservatives under Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, for whom I have no brief at all except my desire to see Liberals be decently truthful, will be interested to note what is said in that statement concerning what caused the Conservative government in 1932 to impose the $2.30 minimum. I read from page 65:
There remains one further criticism of the fixed valuation that calls for careful study. It is alleged that even were it abolished Cuban refined could not now compete in Canada and consequently if it has no value to the refining industry why not repeal it? It is quite true that price levels in Canada today are such as to prevent the importation of Cuban refined based on the published quotation on such refined f.o.b. Cuba. These figures (bated on quotations received on June 6, 1939) work out as follows:
Cuban export price f.o.b. seaport ___$1.80
Freight to New York (sea train)	16
Handling	04
Freight to Toronto (canal)	24
Duty under Item 134	 1.89
Duty on bag	03
Import tax	n
Total without dumping duty	 $4.27
As compared with the Canadian refiners' price in Toronto of $4.23.
While it is quite true, as the example shows, that the Canadian refiner is not taking any price advantage from the fixed valuation-
May I interrupt there to point out a very serious matter. The other day someone said that he trembled to think what the Canadian cane refineries would do if certain conditions were now established. Here there was found no disposition on the part of the Canadian refineries to take advantage of the $2.30 minimum.
-he is deriving the intended benefit of increased volume output resulting from the exclusion of the dumped product, but there is more to the situation than that and the following considerations should be given due weight in a study of question:
(a)	The danger of an influx of Cuban refined into Canada on a purely dumping basis is greater today than it was in 1932 for three reasons:
(i)	The capacity of the Cuban refined industry has greatly increased.
(ii)	Having an assured market in the United States for a large output at prices above the cost of production, the Cuban industry is so much more enabled to dump her "over-quota" sugar.
(iii)	Her refining capacity is still double her actual production.
(b)	At any time it is possible for the Cuban refiner to acquire raws at substantially less than world prices and to sell for export refined sugar at prices very little in advance of the world's raw prices. Such competition is at all times threatening and would, without any reasonable doubt, develop if the fixed valuation were abolished.
2976	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Blackmore
(c)	Removal of the fixed valuation would be construed In Cuba as an invitation to enter the Canadian market just as surely as a minor reduction in the spread provided by the American tariff in 1930 gave Cuba's exports to the United States a tremendous impetus. Potentially at the present time the Cuban refined sugar industry is capable of capturing the whole of the Canadian market. Destruction through price cutting of the Canadian industry would undoubtedly exclude from Canada all empire raws, nor could empire refined hope to compete against the Cuban granulated. The only portion of the Canadian trade that Cuba would not obtain under present circumstances would be the special packaged goods and the varieties other than granulated which are of very minor volume in the total. Such a condition of affairs would become imminent and would develop as soon as the fixed valuation disappeared.
We have lived to see the fulfilment of the gloomy forecast made in this submission.
It needs to be borne in mind that Canada has certain commitments with various members of the commonwealth in respect of the buying of their sugar. It is an important thing at this point for us to know that we in Canada have bought sugar from a great number of different sources. May I just run through the names of the countries from which we bought sugar during the years 1928 to 1937:
South Africa, Australia, Fiji, British Guiana, Barbados, San Domingo, Jamaica, Cuba, Trinidad, other British West Indies, British East Indies, Belgium, The Netherlands, British East Africa.
That is enough to show that we have no right to allow Cuba to monopolize the refined granulated cane sugar market in Canada. Obviously something must be done to regulate the imports of refined sugar into Canada. Unregulated importations of Cuban refined and raw sugar could in a very short time utterly ruin and wipe out all Canadian sugar production, both cane and beet, both raw and refined. That would mean a dangerous loss to Canada and an extremely expensive one. Something must be done to regulate by statute the importation of refined cane sugar from Cuba and all other countries.
It will be my aim some time in the future when opportunity presents itself to outline the history of Cuba and the United States in respect of sugar, and indicate how different has been the policy adopted by the United States in dealing with this Cuban sugar question from 1933 forward from that which Canada has adopted. The United States has used a series of sugar acts. The first act was passed in 1934; the second act was passed in 1937, and the third act was passed in 1948. United States policy was adjusted to the changing conditions which prevailed at those three dates.
Under those acts the United States guaranteed to accept a certain quota of sugar from
[Stage Direction]

Cuba and from each of the offshore possessions of the United States such as the Virgin islands, Puerto Rico, the Hawaiian islands, and from the Philippine islands. She guaranteed to accept such amounts at such prices as would allow generally for all the production of which her own cane producers were capable, and all the production of which her beet sugar producers were capable. At the same time she produced a fine stabilizing effect upon the markets in these other countries I have named.
As I said, I hope to discuss this matter at some future time and to indicate to this country the kind of policy which I think it would be advisable for us to adopt as regards this whole matter of sugar.
Gordon Francis Higgins: Mr. Speaker, I think one of the finest cartoonists we have in Canada is Ron Smith of the Ottawa Journal. On Friday or Saturday last he had a delightful cartoon in that paper which depicted the House of Commons with two pipe lines flowing from it, one going east and west and the other going north and south. It was headed, "Natural Canadian Gas now flowing at full capacity. Pre-election Pipe Line Unlimited." The east and west pipe was indicated with Victoria at the one end and Halifax at the other. I take it that the assumption we have to take from this is that the great island and newest province is not to be influenced by Canadian gas. However, there is a warning that we have to keep in mind, that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) is planning to visit the island within the next day or so. Possibly that pipe line will have to be redrawn following his visit. I am not sure of that, but would not be too surprised.
There is an old Chinese proverb which says that a government is like the wind and the people like the grass, that when the wind blows the grass must bend. Well, this government has shown in its administration that it believes implicitly in the truth of that proverb. How otherwise can be explained the attitude of members of the Liberal party in this house when they have had clearly demonstrated to them that there is waste and extravagance as proved by various reports, not only the report of Mr. Currie but the report of the Auditor General himself.
I do not want to flog a beaten horse, because certain horses have been flogged quite a lot; but I cannot help comparing the infamous horses of Petawawa with the famous wooden horse of Troy. Incidentally, I heard only today that the wooden horse of Troy was on the payroll of Helen. The real difference between that horse and the others



[Stage Direction]
we have been hearing about is that the one was wooden while the others were really alive. I understand that following the original disclosures as to these horses one senior Liberal member in the house told a newspaper correspondent, "I hope they stop these nags; otherwise they will toe galloping from coast to coast." There can be no question about it, these horses are galloping and they are galloping pretty fast.
When speaking of horses one instantly thinks of grass, and that brings me back to my original remark about the government being the wind and the people being the grass. I am afraid that no matter what explanations are given in this house or elsewhere, the government can puff and blow as long as it wishes but it will never blow those horses down. Like Johnnie Walker they will keep on going strong, and like the wooden horse of Troy they will destroy the Liberal party.
You will remember that at the time that horse was introduced to the Trojans a famous philosopher inside the walls said, "Beware the Greeks bearing gifts." These horses were brought as a gift. We would never have known about these horses except as a gift. I can assure members of the Liberal party that from what I hear they had better beware of this gift.
Back in the old days in what was then the dominion of Newfoundland we had our own government. There was a well-known and famous Canadian lawyer who had had quite considerable success in the political life of Newfoundland. When he left Newfoundland he said that Newfoundlanders were too green to burn. May I say that is an extremely fortunate situation because otherwise, with the hot winds that have been blowing since we became part of this great dominion, we would have been long ago burned by the unnecessarily high taxation to which we, like the rest of Canada, have been subjected. We have been seared, but we have not been long enough in the union to be burned completely.
Why do I mention this matter? For one purpose and one purpose only. I am going to deal with only two provincial matters. The first is a matter that I have been raising ever since I originally came into this house in 1949. I began on September 22, 1949 and repeatedly, at each opportunity I have had, ending with April 30 of last year, I have raised this matter of the necessity for a revision of the terms of union of Newfoundland with Canada. I have pointed out to hon. members of this house the necessity for adequate revision of the financial terms of union.
68108-189i
The Budget-Mr. Higgins
That necessity still exists, and is even more apparent today than it was in April of last year. I will not go into the reason; I think it is obvious to most people. We had a $45 million surplus at the time of union, and now we have had to borrow money. It is quite obvious that we shall have to have this royal commission that was made part of the terms of union; and I submit that it should be constituted at the earliest possible moment, Mr. Speaker, so that it may be put to work.
The party of which I have the honour to be a member, at the time this matter was originally discussed back in 1948, stated its position clearly and unequivocally, namely that it was opposed to the set-up of the terms of union. The Liberal party, through the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), at that time stated'-I cannot give the exact date but it was in 1948, during the final discussion- that even if this royal commission which was to be set up brought in a favourable recommendation with respect to adequate revision of the terms of union, nevertheless, in spite of that fact, no guarantee could be given that the terms of union would be revised.
I bring that matter forward, Mr. Speaker, because I feel that the time is rapidly approaching when, whether we wish it or not and whether those in the Liberal party-my colleagues from Newfoundland especially- agree with me or not, we shall have to have that royal commission set up. It is past the joking stage altogether, and it is altogether past the stage of arguing in a political sense. It is such a complete necessity now that the commission be set up that I think all hon. members from Newfoundland will join with me in making that recommendation.
The only other matter that I wish to deal with provincially is the question of the construction of an armoury for the reserve regiments at St. John's and with that I will leave it. Through the kindness of the Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley), shortly before Christmas we had a meeting in his office and an address was made by the then lieutenant colonel of the Royal Newfoundland Regiment, Lieutenant Colonel O'Driscoll. I have given to various members copies of the address he delivered at that time. I did not have a sufficient number with which to supply all hon. members, but I hope I shall have more within the next few weeks. The gist of Colonel O'Driscoll's remarks was this, and I am quoting now from what he said at the time:
The situation in St. John's today is anything but satisfactory. We are endeavouring to train cadets and reserve force units in buildings belonging to the Royal Canadian Navy which are not at all suitable for training soldiers. This can be confirmed
2978	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Higgins by the area commander and his staff now in St. John's who belong to eastern command.
While the administrative branch is suitably housed, there is no proper armoury lor carrying out training as such. This applies to the three reserve units located there; 166th Field Regiment; 56th (Independent) Royal Engineers; Royal Newfoundland Regiment.
These three units are presently trying to train in a drill hall which was constructed during the last war for the Royal Canadian Navy. This drill hall is not at all suitable, for various reasons, amongst which are:
And he enumerates the reasons.
1.	It has a hardwood floor. This, while satisfactory for training of naval personnel, who have rubber heels on their boots and shoes, is not at all satisfactory for soldiers who have steel hobnails and: heel plates on their boots. It is obvious that they slip and slide over this floor and therefore have no control over army drills.
2.	The acoustics are very bad. This can be verified at any time by properly authorized persons attending parades.
3.	There are no facilities whatsoever for lecture rooms, training rooms, messes, or canteens, et cetera.
4.	There is no proper parade square in the location where these reserve units are training.
Without reading the full paragraph, I may summarize. He says that in the event of mobilization the navy will require the whole property and the army units will have no place available. I am not going to read any more of the memorandum except this last part:
I wish to emphasize-
Says Lieutenant Colonel O'Driscoll.
-in this memorandum the fact that the Royal Newfoundland Regiment is the oldest regiment in Canada. Its history dates back to 1775, when units were recruited in Newfoundland and came to Canada and successfully defended York and other locations against the invasion of American forces. They have no permanent home of their own to house the trophies won in battles or to display their battle honours. There is no esprit de corps to which they can indoctrinate the incoming recruits. Pride of regiment is a paramount feature in recruiting. This has been very well borne out in the last two recruiting drives for Korea and northwest Europe. Without the proper facilities for indoctrination and keeping esprit de corps alive throughout the regiment, it is impossible to keep the interest of these soldiers. Trophies won in the last two wars are now scattered throughout the length and breadth of Newfoundland with no permanent resting place. They should be collected and displayed in their own armoury. Without such trophies it is very difficult indeed to keep the interest of reserve units.
It is very strongly urged that the Minister of National Defence given his earnest consideration to the above proposal. He has visited Newfoundland and inspected reserve units there and expressed himself as being very proud of them.
That is the end of what I wish to read. I wish to emphasize once again-and I am sure that my colleagues from Newfoundland will agree with me-that the necessity for our own armoury is most apparent.
[Stage Direction]

Just for a few minutes, Mr. Speaker, I wish now to deal with a matter that is possibly not quite as pleasant as those about which I have been speaking up till now.
I refer to a speech that I did not hear but which I read on Saturday. It was made by the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Gour). I take the greatest exception not to all he said but to some parts of that speech. The parts that I agree with, I agree with thoroughly. With this particular reference I am in full accord and I am quoting the hon. member's exact words as reported in Hansard of March 13:
What this country needs is good will between races, between provinces, between classes . . .
And later he said:
. . . there can be no good will without justice.
The statement that there can be no good will without justice is the most important part of the whole speech made by the hon. member. I want hon. members on all sides of the house to bear this in mind, for what does the hon. member for Russell say following that? I am rather surprised, knowing him-or at least thinking I know him- because I read an extremely odious comparison drawn by him between the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) and made in such a manner that I do not think there can be anybody in this house who will not take exception to it.
I have as high an opinion of the Prime Minister as anybody in this house. I admire the great qualities of his heart and mind. I think he is the finest example we have had for some time of a statesman in Canada.
I agree with all that in every way. But I also say that in my opinion-and it is the opinion of a great many others in this house- the Leader of the Opposition should be regarded in the same light. I am sure the Prime Minister himself would be the first to take exception to such a statement if he had heard it made. It is not because we have a leader of the opposition that he must be spoken of in terms such as those used by the hon. member at that time, and this is the last part of his speech I am going to read. He said:
What a comparison between our Right Hon. Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition; one is qualified to lead and govern our country through the greatest period of prosperity of our history, and the other to remain Leader of the [DOT] Opposition, until the supporters of his party succeed in replacing him, . . .
That is pretty rough, as far as I am concerned.
An hon. Member:: It is cheap.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I am speaking as a new
.member of this house. I do not believe any hon. member would endorse a remark such as that; but the worst part in the speech of the hon. member-I am sorry he is not here to hear me, because I do not like talking behind a man's back-is yet to come. In the last part of his speech he went even farther and invaded the privacy of the home of my leader. He discussed where and how my leader's children are being educated, and to that I take very great exception indeed, not only ' as a member of this party but as a member of this house. This is what he said as reported at page 2940 of the translation of the hon. member's speech of Friday March 13:
Now my friends, be serious with yourselves, if you are not serious with your electors. The Leader of the Opposition is responsible for this country being ridiculed in Europe since he sends his children to study abroad. This fact was mentioned to me quite often during my trip abroad, when I was fortunate enough to visit ten foreign countries. I was asked whether we had good schools at home. And when I answered there were none better I was told: "That is what we were always told, but how is it that our newspapers spread the news around here that-


Mr. Courtemanche:: Cheap politics.


Mr. Gour (Russell):: -the Leader of the Opposition to the Canadian government wants to send his children to study abroad?" In this way he gives the impression that according to him our schools are not modern enough or well prepared enough to educate his children. That would be easier to understand were they older, and had they gone abroad for specialized professional training in European universities. I therefore close my remarks, Mr. Speaker, expressing regrets that our friends overseas are apt to have an entirely false idea of what conditions really are with regard to educational institutions.
That, Mr. Speaker, to me is the cheapest remark I have ever heard in this house. I do not think it is worthy of any hon. member. I hope none of the members listening to me this afternoon were here listening when that remark was made, because the hon. member who made that speech does not deserve any endorsation; in fact he deserves in every way, I suggest to you, to be severely criticized even by his greatest friends. That is all I have to say about that part of his remarks, and I hope he reads what I have said.
I intend to devote the remainder of my time to discussing the two dominant races of Canada. Possibly it may be considered presumptuous on my part to discuss this matter, particularly as I am a new Canadian, but may I say that each of these races has contributed much to Canadian development in the past four centuries. I submit that as a new Canadian, possibly without any of the prejudices that come from living too close to Canadian life, I may be in a better position
The Budget-Mr. Higgins to sum up the fabric of Canadian life and get a clearer perspective and a fresher viewpoint.
This great country of ours has two great racial, cultural and religious traditions; the Roman Catholic culture of old France and the predominantly Protestant culture of the Anglo-Saxon countries. To these shores of course have come people from other lands, each bringing with him his own distinctive contribution to our culture, and each helping to complete the weaving of our national tapestry. I feel certain that the differences in background of our newer citizens, including the citizens of our newest province, will serve not to weaken the nation but to strengthen and enrich Canadian life.
One of the greatest challenges facing Canada today is to secure national unity in the midst of cultural diversity. This is far from impossible of fulfilment, as I see it, Mr. Speaker, for the differences need not separate Canadians but can strengthen Canadian life. Among peoples of different religious background, racial origin, and political beliefs, three most important requirements are necessary, namely tolerance, respect and good will.
We have such a lot in common here in Canada that we should keep emphasizing these things which bring us together rather than those which separate us. If the differences between two peoples are encouraged they may well lead to suspicion, antagonism, prejudice, aye and even actual hatred. They can very well impair our social order, disfigure Canadian life and menace the unity of the national effort not only in war but in peace.
No greater weapons to destroy people can be put into the hands of the communists than racial intolerance and religious bigotry. There should be no doubt in anyone's mind that the supreme problem facing mankind today is the ability of men and women to rise above differences of race, creed and class and live together in peace, friendship and brotherhood.
The answer to the problem is not the stamping out of these differences, but of promoting respect and understanding for these very divergences. It is no good pretending that there are no differences or to endeavour to level them out to a common denominator. What we must do is attempt to develop an understanding and a frank and healthy respect for one another. It is of the greatest importance that we really get to know one another, for ignorance spawns suspicion and hatred. Without knowledge there can be no understanding. You all recall the old statement, "In the night all cats are grey." It
2980	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. A. W. Stuart might be of course, but I doubt it, that some hon. members would prefer to go along with Charles Lamb who stated that he did not want to get to know the man who lived at the end of the block, for if he knew him he would be denied the luxury of hating him.
That is about all I have to add except to remind all members of the words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who was so much respected by hon. members, I am sure, and who said:
I love France which has given us life; I love England, which has given us liberty; but the first place in my heart is for Canada, my fatherland, my native country."


Mr. A. W. Stuart (Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to this debate, particularly to the criticism that has been passed across by the opposition, and I want to go back over the record, to the budget previous to the 1949 election. I found some remarks which were made at that time by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell), which I should like to put on the record again. He made a statement with regard to it being a bribery budget, and a short time later he made this statement, which I quote from page 1810 of Hansard of that year.
-the increase of $50 for dependent children is utterly inadequate, and that it should have been $200 as we suggested.
This debate has followed along pretty much the same line, but I did And a statement put on the record at that time that I think should be put on the record again. It will be found on page 2182 of Hansard of March 31, 1949. I might also add, before I quote these remarks, that I think it is his masterpiece. He said:
Of course the minister has the great disadvantage of representing a city riding-and what a disadvantage that is! I told him the other day he was nothing better than a city slicker, but even then I did not know how true it was.
He was speaking of the Minister of Finance. Speaking in the same chamber today the same hon. gentleman made the statement that we should be a little more careful in the language we use in this house. Just what the definition would be of a city slicker I do not know, but these are the words he used, I want you to look back over the record since that time. It is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Don't tell anyone in Greenwood that.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: But it will be a boomerang, because I know today the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) also represents a city riding. Does he consider himself a city slicker?
I have listened to the hon. member for Greenwood and the hon. member for St.
(Mr. Higgins.]

John's West (Mr. Browne), and I must say that I listened to the most dismal display of. defending the Bennett government that I have ever listened to in my life. That is particularly true of the remarks of the hon. member for St. John's West when, as reported at page 2791 of Hansard, he said:
From a comparison of these things you will see that Canada came out of the depression under the Bennett government better than did any other country in the world.
Might I remind the hon. member for St. John's West that if the Bennett government brought this country out of the depression, then very few Canadians knew anything about it. The record is there for anyone to see. It speaks for itself.
During the dark, dismal and despondent thirties no doubt the hon. member for St. John's West lived very well. He was not a primary producer. Perhaps the way he lived during that period of time would compare favourably with the way he lives today. Living costs at that time were away down. One dollar then would buy as much as three dollars would buy today. So no doubt he lived very well. But I doubt if many of his countrymen were in that same position. I believe he would have found the same condition prevailing in Newfoundland that prevailed at that time in Canada. And I might add that it would appear that the efforts made to improve conditions in Newfoundland compared very favourably with the disgraceful record of the methods used by the Bennett administration in Canada.
At that time there were young men in government camps getting 20 cents a day and producing nothing. Can anyone defend an administration which would support such things as that? Young men were taken off the street, to get them out of the cities. There were things that could have been done. There were many things we needed in Canada at that time, and those young men could have been employed profitably for this country. But they were given 20 cents a day and hidden in work camps to keep them off the streets.


Mr. Brooks:: Why do you not get a little schoolhouse for that claptrap? That is where it would be most appropriate.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I am pleased that the hon. member has mentioned that. I wish to tell him the story about his provincial record. He sat in the provincial legislature of New Brunswick from 1925 to 1935. After promising the people of that province old age pensions, what happened during the 1930 election? It was the grand betrayal of all time, when his party circulated application forms to every clergyman in the province,

telling them that right after the election they would have their old age pensions. He sat there, but there was no pension paid at that time. And, let me add, during that period of time we paid our proportionate share of the federal revenue to pay for old age pensions in other provinces. And that gentleman today styles himself as the champion of the pensioners in this country. That is his record. He asked for it, and he has got it. And may I add that when they were asked why they could not pay the old age pension they said they did not have the money. Well, a Liberal government came into power in 1935, and within 10 months the money was found to pay old age pensions.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: May I ask where that Liberal government is today?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I will come to that in a moment. I like to answer questions; let them come, and I will answer them.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: We have listened to that sort of thing before.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: That is your record as it stands today in the province of New Brunswick, and it cannot be denied.
I shall return now to remarks made by the hon. member for St. John's West and the hon. member for Greenwood. Today the hon. member for Greenwood put on the record the approach made by the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett and his government to various questions, and he referred to the way he handled the situation with regard to the tariff.


An hon. Member:: Mishandled.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: May I say to the
hon. member through you, Mr. Speaker, that the same thing happened to the old age pension bill in New Brunswick. It was hidden away for ten years. Then when we got a Liberal government in 1935 it was dusted off and put into effect. Policies are never any good if they are just pigeonholed. You have to put them into operation.
The hon. member for St. John's West went on to try to make it appear that the Canadian people were happy with the conditions that prevailed between 1930 and 1935; and the hon. member for Greenwood has said that the government of the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett was ready to put the agreements into effect. We all know that these agreements were very beneficial to every Canadian citizen; but the Bennett government was still endeavouring to blast its way into the markets of the world.
The Right Hon. Mr. King did this, and without explosives; and he did it in a very
16, 1953
The Budget-Mr. A. W. Stuart short time after the 1935 election. In other words the Right Hon. Mr. King accomplished in a few weeks the things that the Right Hon. Mr. Bennett could not do in five years. That is all on the record for anyone to read; and it is a good example of the difference in the approach to vital questions by Tory and Liberal administrations.
I should now like to direct my remarks for a few moments to the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud), and the contribution he made to this debate. In his contribution he made a most feeble effort to defend the Tory legislature in New Brunswick which has already broken every election promise it made, and it made plenty of them.
At this point let me say that he stated the tobacco tax as applied in New Brunswick today is exactly the same as it was under the McNair administration. I worked for that particular branch of government for two years. I audited a good many tobacco accounts, and I know that never since 1940, at the time this regulation was put into effect, has the tobacco tax of New Brunswick been more than 10 per cent of the retail value.
I will challenge any member in this house to show where at any time that tax was ever more than 10 per cent. But the hon. member for Gloucester says the tax today is exactly the same as it was under the McNair administration. I suggest to him that I will use the same terms that the opposition has used in respect of the 2 per cent increase in the sales tax, and say that this is an increase of 33 J per cent. That is the tobacco tax in New Brunswick. That is what the people are paying. It is 33J per cent more than it was under the McNair administration.
That was the new government that was going to cut taxes to the bone. They were going to have a budget that would show a surplus; and the first move they make we find that they are increasing taxation. The hon. member brought into his remarks the fact that the sales tax was taken off drugs, and that this would amount to about $200,000. Well, let me say to the hon. member for Gloucester that if he would give me the increase of 33J per cent on tobacco, he could have the decrease on drugs, because I would be away ahead of him.
The hon. member also tried to indicate in his remarks that there had been no change in the tobacco tax. I want the people of New Brunswick to know that there has been a change. The change is the same as when there was a 2 per cent increase in the sales

The Budget*-Mr. A. W. Stuart tax; it is a 33 J per cent increase. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) gave the people a break and the tobacco companies co-operated, taking another 2 cents off the price. Then the provincial government in New Brunswick increased the tobacco tax, instead of decreasing it. That is the fact, and the people in New Brunswick know it as well as I do. There is no way for the Tory member from Gloucester to deny it, because the figures are there to speak for themselves.	[DOT]
During the election campaign in New Brunswick last summer all sorts of promises were made. We were told about the waste and extravagance of the Liberal government, and also about the tax relief we might expect if Mr. Flemming were elected. But immediately after the election we are faced with increased taxation, and no hope of any improvement.
During the election campaign in the United States last fall I spent several days in the state of Connecticut. In fact I was there on election day, and watched the proceedings over television. I listened to them over the radio and I saw the voting on election day. During the campaign I heard bold statements that the Truman administration was wasteful, extravagant and inefficient. It was said that there was graft. Every other word you can imagine was used to indicate that there should be a change in the government. Every Republican speech I heard over the radio and read in the press told of the tax relief the people might expect if the Republicans formed the new government. Fantastic figures in the tens of billions were quoted on many of the radio broadcasts I heard and in many of the articles I read in the press. General Eisenhower would save these billions and reduce taxation greatly, and at the same time he would balance the budget, something the Democrats had been unable to do.
Similar propaganda was used in the province of New Brunswick. After taking office President Eisenhower, like the premier of New Brunswick, is now singing a different tune, and I want to put on record an article I have taken from Newsweek magazine of March 9, 1953. It is called "Facts of Life". It reads as follows:
When President Eisenhower commented at his press conference last week that it would be difficult-very difficult-to balance the federal budget, he was only emphasizing what some of his top associates had already told a senate committee . . . While the administration was not yet ready to recommend specific changes in ex-President Truman's $78,600 million budget, the subject was frankly and even eagerly discussed in general terms by defence secretary Charles E. Wilson, treasury secretary George Humphrey, secretary of state

John Foster Dulles, and budget director Joseph M. Dodge at closed hearings before the senate banking and currency committee . . .
With this established, the committee invited discussions of the whole budgetary picture. These were the "facts of life" that emerged: defence department appropriations probably could not be cut much below the Truman-proposed figure of more than $46 billion without endangering national defence. Wilson said he had thought, before coming to Washington, that some $5 billion could easily be trimmed from the defence budget. But now he doubted whether any cut approaching that figure could be made.
I want hon. members to listen carefully to this.
There was, he said, less "fat" and "waste" than had been assumed. When one of the senators pointed out the "waste" in the much-criticized North African bases, Wilson replied: "Had war come to Europe, the builders of those bases would be heroes instead of being accused of wasting government money".
Doesn't that apply in this chamber today?
Dulles said he thought that if Russia contemplated starting a hot war, it might be weighing the advantages of doing so in the next twelve months, since it must know the United States is getting stronger all the time. Thus drastic cutbacks in foreign-aid outlays, fixed at $7,861 million in the Truman budget, looked unlikely. Dulles said he only hoped the international situation would not force the administration to recommend even larger spending in fiscal 1954.


James Sinclair: That is a change of tune.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: What a change in a few months' time. I continue:
Dodge pointed out that the treasury stood to lose $8 billion a year beginning on July 1, 1954, through expiration of existing taxes. These levies include the excess profits tax, due to fade out on June 30, this year; the post-Korea increase in personal income taxes, due to expire at the end of 1953; and higher corporate and excise tax rates, due to go off in April, 1954. Dodge told the committee that if this $8 billion in revenues were lost it would be completely impossible to balance the budget in fiscal 1955, much less 1954.
Humphrey later told reporters that his department was assembling "an awful lot of data" in preparing to present the administration's tax program. There was a hint that he would recommend either retention of the expiring levies or substitute revenue bills.
In spite of this testimony, Senator Frank Carlson of Kansas, Republican member of the finance committee, proposed holding expenditures for this fiscal year, ending June 30, 1953, to $66,100 million. He said he didn't think the proposal was contrary to the president's views and that, while balancing the budget was admittedly difficult, neither he nor the administration had given up hope. But Senator Robert A. Taft of Ohio said Carlson's figure for this year was unachievable. "You can't do that," he said. "You've spent too much already."
We have been listening to the same sort of criticism coming from this side of the house for about three months now. There have been charges of waste, extravagance and everything that goes along with them. The opposition have been trying to explain

to the people of Canada what an improvement they could expect if the Tories formed the next government.


Pierre Gauthier: Wishful thinking.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: These are examples of election campaigns that have been fought on the same grounds, and of the promises that were made so rashly, but when the time came that the people might expect tax relief and a balanced budget they were then informed that there was not as much waste and extravagance as had been expected, that the only thing that could be done was to continue under the same tax structure, and perhaps they should even expect something higher.
The information in the article I have just put on the record comes from President Eisenhower, defence secretary Charles E. Wilson, treasury secretary George Humphrey, secretary of state John F. Dulles, budget director Joseph M. Dodge, Senator Frank Carlson of Kansas, Republican member of the finance committee, and Senator Robert A. Taft of Ohio, the keymen in the United States government at the present time. These prominent gentlemen are frank to admit that there was less waste by the Truman government than had been assumed, and that it is utterly impossible for them to give the people of the United States the tax relief they promised them during the election campaign.
I feel that the promises that have been made in this house and the criticisms of waste will be weighed very carefully by the people of Canada when it comes time for them to cast their ballots. In my own province all the people have to do is look back on the record of the new provincial government. They have not put into effect one single thing they promised to do, and they have increased taxation rather than decreasing it.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Certainly.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Will he name one thing
they promised to do that they have not put into effect?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I am glad the hon.
member mentioned that. I want to go back a little way. In their 1944 election campaign-


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I am speaking about the last election.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Just take it easy.
I will answer your question. In 1940 and
16, 1953	2983
The Budget-Mr. A. W. Stuart 1944 they campaigned on the tobacco tax and said that if they were elected they would do away with it in twenty-four hours.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: They never said that.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: They certainly did, and let me tell you something your own leader did in the last election. In the press there appeared the statement, and he made it over the radio in the most sanctimonious voice you ever listened to, that the civil servants of the province need have no fear, that if the Conservatives formed the next government there would not be one removed. Tell me one who is working for them today who worked under the McNair government?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: They all are.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: There is one
thing-


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I tell the hon. member that
they all are.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Let me say this to the hon. member. I have a son who graduated from the University of New Brunswick a few years ago. He did not get his appointment with the provincial government through political influence at all. The authorities came to him and asked him to take the job when he was working in Quebec. They were short of engineers. They promised him when he took the job that they would do everything they could to get an office for him when he had gained experience.
That boy had never taken any part in an election campaign. No one knew how he voted. What happened? When the election was over a provincial member from the town of St. Stephen-I will tell you his name; it is Mr. Groom-came to my son and said: "You are the son of a member of parliament; you must be moved out of the county." Is that what Hugh John Flemming promised? I can give more facts.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: May I ask the hon. member
what civil service job he had?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: He was an
engineer in the service of the province of New Brunswick, and the only engineer from the county of Charlotte. What did they do? They brought an engineer from Fredericton, put him in his place at St. Stephen and paid $8 a day for his room and board. Is that saving the money of the people of New Brunswick? If you have any more questions to ask let them come because I am just in the mood to answer them.
These were the promises that were made. I know the people who were fired. Don't
2984	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. A. W. Stuart worry about that. I live there and I know the people who were fired from their jobs. There is not one left. Your leader spoke over the radio in this sanctimonious voice and said that the civil servants need have no fear, that their jobs were safe; but two hours after the ballots were counted they started. Don't tell me what happened in New Brunswick.


Mr. Robichaud:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Surely.


Albany M. Robichaud: I just want to know whether your son is not still employed by the department of public works of the province.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Thank God, no; and what is more I wouldn't want him working for that Tory administration. He has a better job today than he had with them, and I want to put that on the record. He has a much better job than he had with them.
However, that is the way that boy was treated. He was told by an M.L.A. from my own county:	"Your father is a Liberal
M.P. and we will have to move you". Had I interfered in any way? Was there any criticism in this regard? No. They knew that I was a Liberal member of parliament, and therefore took it for granted that my boy was a Liberal. Again I want to say that he was the only engineer from the county of Charlotte working for the province of New Brunswick. They say down there "Let us keep our boys at home", but that is the way the Tories treated him. They tried to move him from the province of New Brunswick but he is still there, and he will be there for some years to come.
That I think indicates pretty clearly the situation, and I will finish my remarks with the statement that all I have listened to this last month is election propaganda. This is an election year but I do not think that the Canadian people are going to rise to take any of that bait. They are going to look back over the record. I myself am pretty proud of the budget brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott).


Mr.   Browns@St. John's West: May I ask
a question?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Well, I guess this is a question period.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: You asked for it yourself. Do you know that when Mr. King came into office in 1935 he dismissed every employee of the House of Commons?


Some hon. Members:: No, no.
rWjr. Stuart (Charlotte).]


Andrew Wesley Stuart: No, I do not; and you cannot prove it. All you have to do is to take the record of those here today. I can show you plenty of them that are still working. There are plenty sitting right here working in the House of Commons today.
I want to say this, though, in all seriousness, and I don't care whether or not I am holding a club over anyone. After the next election in the province of New Brunswick, there will be plenty fired. I want that remembered. It is quite something for me because I have always been sympathetic in those matters; but after the next election in the province of New Brunswick, and that government will only be in for four years, there will be plenty fired.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have been interrupted, and there have been interjections so I will finish by saying that I am proud of the budget brought down by the Minister of Finance. It was a fine budget. It must have been pretty good or it would not have received the condemnation that it has received from the official opposition. They have tried in every way in their power to make the people believe that it is a rich man's budget. Well, a man with $2,400 a year income is paying $15 tax. So I will say that the people will be able to weigh this thing carefully, and when it is weighed the Minister of Finance will himself be convinced that the people are happy about the way he has handled their affairs. After the ballots are counted there will still be a Liberal administration in this chamber.


Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the hon. member who has just taken his seat that when the Conservative party forms a government after the next election-


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I heard that in 1948.


George Randolph Pearkes: -they will be just as generous as his friends on the other side of the frontier, the Americans. Should we find that there is not as much waste and extravagance as we now think there is, we will be quite frank about it and admit that things were not quite as bad as they seemed.
I am prompted to address a few remarks this afternoon on this amendment because of various statements which have been made in the course of the address over the past three weeks. First of all I would like to call attention to the changed conditions in the world today compared with what they were when the debate first started.
I will just refresh hon. members' minds about conditions in Egypt and how Egypt has, in the last couple of weeks, made certain trade agreements with Soviet Russia. We all have

a vivid memory of the death of Marshal Stalin and the incidents on the frontier between east and west during the last few days. Those incidents and events make it quite clear that there can be no relaxation on the part of the western powers in their fight to prevent aggression, and I do not think it would be an exaggeration to say that the situation today is rather more grievous than it was when this budget debate started.
It would therefore appear, and a great many observers have called attention to it -in fact the ministers of the crown have done so-that we are in for a very long struggle, that this is not a struggle which can be decided in a short time. We are in for the long pull. It is so important, therefore, that we do not play into the hands of the enemy, who are anxious to break the western economy, by imposing an intolerable burden upon the western countries so that eventually their economy might break. For that reason Canada and the western powers, while they must still maintain a very strong deterrent to aggression, probably for a long period yet to come, must do so without imperilling the economic foundations of our states.
Mr. Churchill very recently referred to two twin but divergent objectives, financial solvency and military security. Financial solvency would be quite valueless without military security, and military security is impossible without financial solvency. We have got to bear in mind those two twin objectives.
Lord Ismay, when he was recently speaking in Ottawa, is reported as having clearly indicated that there can be no reduction in the efforts of the NATO countries in the future. He went so far as to appeal to the "wealthier" nations, as he described them, to make even greater efforts both in the military and the economic spheres. He did not name any of those wealthy nations. He did not even refer to Canada as being one of the wealthy nations, but he left it to the conscience of all nations to do their utmost and to make the greatest possible sacrifices.
We on this side of the house recognize the need for defence. We believe that the defence programs must be adequate to meet the needs of the defence of our own country and to meet commitments we have taken on, both to the United Nations in Korea and to the NATO organization in Europe. But we feel that the program must be adjusted to our national economy. If we are in for a long struggle, then it is of the utmost importance that we do remove any waste or extravagance there may be and that, as it were, we clear our decks for action.
68108-190i
The Budget-Mr. Pearkes
I have not been particularly impressed by some of the statements made by the ministers to the effect that there has been no waste or extravagance. In fact I feel that their complacent attitude is at times rather annoying. The Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) the other day said that whenever cases of alleged waste had been brought to his attention he had inquired into them and "in every case we found there was no foundation whatever". If these investigations have been thorough, that is encouraging news. I only hope that the investigations were thorough and that some of the larger contracts, some of these cost-plus, fixed-fee contracts have been investigated. While cost-plus contracts may be necessary they are still an invitation to illicit practices.
Reference has been made to some expenditures that have taken place. I know it is nice that we should provide swimming pools for our camps, but is it necessary to spend $22,000 on a swimming pool? Gymnasiums may be necessary, but I cannot help feeling that the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on these have been spent to provide something which is rather of a luxurious nature. The same thing can be said of the $58,000 bowling alleys. Then there is the type of construction that has been carried on in connection with some army barracks and married quarters which require landscaping. This landscaping may simply be the laying down of lawns in front, behind and around the individual houses, but still a great deal of money has been spent.
Then we have heard of central offices in other departments which have been referred to as palaces surrounded by their own parks of some 280 acres. We have read of richly furnished offices containing chesterfields and six armchairs for comparatively junior officials. We have heard of luxurious embassies and headquarters overseas. We have heard of $3 million a month being spent on clothing for the armed forces. On the basis of an establishment of some 100,000 that works out at $30 per month per man. I know that certain stockpiling is going on, but I would also call attention to the fact that these purchases were not at the retail level and probably were not subject to the sales tax. Then there is the advertising for recruits which has cost us from $70 to $75 for every recruit obtained.
Some of these things are amenities which are desirable, but can we really afford these extravagances? I wonder if the government is having any twinges of conscience. These expenditures that I have referred to represent the very high cost of government at

The Budget-Mr. Pearkes the present time. I ask myself and I ask the government to question their consciences in the same way. Are we not playing into the hands of the enemy by gradually breaking down our economy with these heavy expenditures for extravagances and for a standard of living which is hardly justified at the present time? If we built on a less luxurious scale could we not help our allies more in the common battle for freedom?
I have seen no sign in this budget of anything in the nature of an economy drive. When we suggest that there are extravagances the ministers become rather jumpy and resentful of criticism. In fact their attitude recently has been painfully defensive. The other day the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) objected because 1 brought to the attention of the house certain alleged waste in construction. He called attention to the fact that when he was speaking I was not in my seat. I regret that the minister is not in his seat at this time when	these matters are being
discussed.


Brooke Claxton: The hon. member said the Minister of National Defence.


George Randolph Pearkes: I meant the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). I apologize, it was a slip of the tongue. The minister then went on to object to the method which I had adopted to bring these matters to his attention. He referred to my having a sheet of paper in my hand. I wonder if he ever thinks about the thousands of mimeographed pages that he issued to the press gallery before he made his speech. They were paid for by the taxpayer in exactly the same way that my humble couple of sheets were paid for. I did not send mine to the press gallery. I do not think the Minister of Finance is any more anxious or less anxious to obtain headlines than any other member of this house. After all is said and done, calling attention in the press to any possible irregularities or slackness or loose practices may have the effect of tightening up on these practices generally.
There is only one other matter I want to refer to. I shall not take more than a couple of minutes, so you need not get anxious. The minister referred to the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) and myself as being self-appointed guardians of the treasury. Far from being self-appointed, we were elected in our respective constituencies in spite of fairly strenuous efforts by the Liberal party to prevent our coming here. I consider it the duty of every member of parliament to see that there is no extravagance or unnecessary spending. We
[ Mr Pearkes.]

have a duty to perform in looking after the public purse.
As I said earlier, we should maintain our defence effort without breaking the back of our national economy. If we are going to do that we will have to scale down the expenditures. I know a case can be made out for the amenities which are provided, but these examples of high standards of government magnificence, this spectacular spending and imposing display, only result in a high cost of living throughout this country which if continued will break the back of our economy.
The criterion is not what we would like to provide for the headquarters of our various departments, for officials in every branch and even for our servicemen; it is what we can afford to provide at the present time without crippling our economy while maintaining our fight against aggression. I think it is preferable for us to provide departments with something less than palaces and for our troops to forgo some of the amenities than that our whole nation should have to lower its standard of living, or that we should lay ourselves open to a charge that we are not bearing our full share with our allies in the defence of this free world.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. G. R. McWilliam (Northumberland, N.B.):: Mr. Speaker, since I am entering the debate at this stage it is not my intention to deal at any length with the aspects of the current budget, as many thousands of words have been placed on Hansard and everything that can be said pro and con is now on the record. I do wish, however, to make a few observations before I speak on one or two matters of concern to the maritimes and to the constituency of Northumberland.
This year's budget is a national production budget, made possible by Canada's rapidly expanding prosperity, which shows an increase of over a billion dollars in the value of goods and services produced in Canada in 1952-53. The predicted surplus for 1953-54 is estimated at $11 million compared with $48 million in 1952-53. Revenues for 1953-54 are estimated at a record of $4,473 million, and expenditures at an estimated $4,462 million. The principle followed that revenues depend not only on the tax rates but also on the amounts in which the taxes are applied is a sound one, and a principle that is well recognized by the Canadian people.

The tax deductions include an imposing list of concessions at a time when our defence burden is very heavy. Persons who are not in the income tax brackets, as well as persons who pay income tax, find relief in this year's budget. Canada's financial policy is highlighted by the fact that our country's national debt, greatly increased during the depression years of the thirties and the cost of world war II, has in the last seven years been reduced by $2,350 million, saving to the people of Canada $63 million annually in interest charges alone. Canada's finances are in capable hands. The record over the past few years, since the termination of world war II, stands out in our history. Canada leads the world in this phase of government. This is a record every Canadian should be proud of.
To the majority of citizens our fiscal policy is a matter of surplus or deficit. Comparisons are made by the individual as to the amount of tax he pays in relation to the services he and members of his family receive; a comparison as to his standard of living of today with what it was previously; a study of the social security and other services now enjoyed and the realization that our NATO and United Nations commitments must be met. In brief, the average citizen asks himself: What do I get for the taxes I pay? Would I wish to pay less tax, direct or indirect, and do without some, or all, of the many services now enjoyed under our present taxation system, and withhold our support in the struggle for world peace and leave the burden with the other free nations?
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that most, if not all, Canadians desire to maintain their present standards, and are prepared to guard against any change for the worse that might occur. Canadians desire to maintain their present standards, to pay for them in relation to what they earn, and to follow a pay-as-we-go policy in our efforts toward a stable economy and the security and well-being of this great Canada of ours, in co-operation with other free nations, toward world peace.
The reduction in corporation taxes will be a great boon to small businesses particularly, with a resultant improvement in the production, expansion and employment fields. It is hoped that this aspect will have its fullest effect in the general improvement of the Atlantic coast provinces. Production and revenue figures show that New Brunswick is lagging behind most parts of Canada, and that the maritimes generally are not moving ahead with the same accelerated pace as other parts of our dominion. It is a dangerous sign, Mr. Speaker, to have a depressed area within our Canadian boundaries. The
The Budget-Mr. McWilliam government must give special consideration toward keeping the maritimes in step with our national progress.
It is realized that this is not a task for the federal government alone. Provincial governments, municipal and civic bodies must all play their parts. The important thing is that action must be taken now, with the federal government giving direction and assistance where necessary. Initiative and initial financial outlays on the part of the maritimes are essential if these provinces are to do their part in bringing about an increased production. In this regard industries, old and new, should be given every assistance possible by the dominion government and crown corporations. In Northumberland county there is a new industry producing a builder's board that is second to none in Canada in all respects, particularly as to quality, adaptability and economy of use.
This company, Trafalgar Mills Limited of South Nelson, is an example of what can be done by initiative, planning and investment. I feel there is an obligation upon all departments of government and crown corporations that make use of builder's board to have included in their specifications the product of this firm which has the trade name "Plaswood", a type of utility board not manufactured elsewhere in Canada.
"Plaswood" is an exterior sheathing made in 5/8 and 3/4 inch thicknesses. It is also ideal for interior construction, and as an under-lay for linoleum, asphalt tile and similar types of flooring. With the new army camp slated for New Brunswick, it is felt that in the construction of this camp materials manufactured in the province should be given a preference and a priority where costs are met. By the purchase of New Brunswick manufactured goods and the use of services available in the province, for a project to be constructed within its boundaries, encouragement will be given New Brunswick producers and construction firms, something that appears to be lacking at the present time.
Tentative plans are under way to revamp the Miramichi Foundry Machine Works Limited of Chatham, so that certain parts for R.C.A.F. and civilian aircraft can be made and assembled there. When plans are completed and the machinery installed, it is hoped that the aircraft division of the Department of Defence Production will place a share of its requirements with this company.
Much good work is being done by maritime members of the other place in an effort to improve international trade. It was encouraging to listen to the report of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) on his tour of the Latin American countries. Canada's
2988	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. McWilliam export trade to Europe, Latin America and the eastern United States is most vital to the maritimes. An increase in trade with these countries will be of great economical benefit to the maritimes.
It is hoped that convertibility of sterling with the Canadian dollar will soon be brought about. Great Britain's purchases of wood products from sterling countries this year has had serious adverse effects upon the provinces by the Atlantic.
The discovery of base metals and renewed iron ore activities in the northeast area of New Brunswick is encouraging. Needless to say, the citizens of Northumberland, like the citizens of Gloucester, are elated over the mining activities now under way. These developments, if proven worth while, will have a great impetus on this section of New Brunswick and the province as a whole. At present the town of Bathurst and adjacent areas of Gloucester county are all agog over the discoveries, and the prospecting and mining activities.
The staking of claims and exploratory work is also in high gear in the adjacent county of Northumberland. Experts predict that deposits will be found in Northumberland much larger in area that Gloucester county, and that Newcastle will be the hub of the northern New Brunswick mining area. Highways and railroad spur lines can be extended into all mining sections to better advantage from the Miramichi area of Northumberland county, which has excellent natural deep-water terminals.
In previous years when ore was taken from the Bathurst iron mines the product was shipped by rail and loaded on water transports at Newcastle. The town of Bathurst does not possess a deep-water terminal. A heavy initial cost, and expensive yearly maintenance costs, would be necessary to keep available a deep-water terminal at Bathurst.
There is every possibility that the discoveries in Gloucester county will extend westward across Northumberland county, which would mean more extensive deposits in the latter county because of its larger size, with the subsequent result that Northumberland would be the centre of mining activities of the northeast part of New Brunswick.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to voice protests received from New Brunswick producers regarding the 7 per cent increase in freight rates. I listened to the remarks of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) in the house on March 9, particularly as they applied to the board of transport commissioners' decision, and as to what action might be taken by the Supreme Court
[Mr. McWilliam.f

of Canada if this body was asked for a ruling, as well as the suggested action the government should take under the Railway Act.
I also listened with interest to a review of the freight rate increases since 1948, and the minister's statement on comparative rates in the United Kingdom and the United States.
When inquiries were made in this chamber on March 11 about the proposed deferment of the freight rate increase, pending an appeal for submission of briefs, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) stated that in his opinion the government does not have the right by statute to suspend the order. He expressed the opinion that the only way the increase could be deferred, or rescinded, would seem to be by an appeal in the manner provided by the statute passed by parliament.
New Brunswick protests come chiefly from the lumber industry. This industry asked that the freight rate increase be deferred to permit the presentation of briefs on the overall general freight rate structure, so the increase could be distributed equitably over all railroad users, instead of the major part being borne by the maritimes.
The maritime lumber industry claims that this increase in freight rates makes it impossible for the industry to continue shipping to Ontario and Quebec markets against more favourably situated Ontario and Quebec producers. Mr. Speaker, this new increase in freight rates, which became effective today, is another stumbling block to the export industry of the maritime provinces to other parts of Canada.
The lumber industry of the maritimes has suffered a serious drop in the pitwood trade this year. With the present demand for pulp-wood standing at nil, the 7 per cent increase in freight rates has further aggravated conditions in the wood products industry, which has fallen from a peak in 1952 to an abnormal low in the first three months of 1953. In view of the opinions expressed by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport it is evident that before any government action will be taken, and in the opinion of the government can be taken, an appeal must be made to the governor in council.
The house has been advised that seven of the provinces have registered protests with the government. I judge that these protests are in the form of an official appeal. When the government considers these appeals I urge that every consideration be given to the position in which the maritime lumber trade now finds itself, and also urge that consideration be given to the probable drastic results that will ensue if increased freight rates are allowed to stand against the maritimes, which

are now undergoing a terrific struggle even to keep in the wake of our national production.
The situation in the constituency of Northumberland appears to be as follows. The rate from the Miramichi to Toronto on lumber in 1948 was 29 cents per 100 pounds. With the increases since that time the rate is now 57 cents, or an average of approximately $15 per thousand on dressed lumber and approximately $18 per thousand on rough lumber. The last two increases of 9 per cent and 7 per cent made an additional cost of approximately $2 per thousand on dressed lumber and $3 per thousand on rough lumber shipped to the Ontario markets from the Miramichi.
These increases would not seriously affect the lumber producing economy of this area if they could be passed along to the consumer; but unfortunately these increases are not absorbed by the consumer. The extra costs will have to come out of the producer, in the first instance; and what is also very unfortunate, they will eventually come out of the pockets of the men working in the woods and in the saw mills, and others engaged in producing the lumber. It is maintained by some Miramichi lumber producers that the reason freight rate increases cannot be passed on to the eventual consumer is that increases have been based on percentages instead of flat rates.
In the central provinces, I am informed, special consideration is given to areas where there is stiff competition from highway and water transportation. Consequently mills within trucking distances, or with water transport making their products available to the large industrial markets in Ontario and Quebec, are in a favoured position by virtue of cheap rail rates in their areas.
There are many small lumber mills in the maritimes which, because of the loss of the United Kingdom market, due to dollar restrictions, and their inability to compete in the central Canada markets, have discontinued production in the last three or four years.
The maritime situation in the long lumber trade is growing steadily worse, and for the future looks as if it will soon be confined to purely local markets which, unless there is a revival of the British and European markets, or an equalization in freight rates, will mean a very small demand. This industry has been one of the major factors in the economy of the maritimes since our forefathers first settled there. I solicit the government to make a full examination of what increased freight rates will do to the maritime lumber industry and to other industries
The Budget-Mr. Herridge and businesses located in an area of Canada wherein our productive field is narrowing instead of widening.
Mr. Speaker, today I again make an appeal to the government on behalf of the maritimes, on behalf of all the people irrespective of race, creed, colour or political affiliation, to give special consideration to the problems facing the maritimes.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines I want to take about five minutes of the time of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I see the five minutes is applauded, and I do not blame members one bit. But I want to express my complete support of the remarks made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Goode) with respect to the granting of a licence by the board of transport commissioners to Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company to build a branch line into the United States from the main line running from Edmonton to Vancouver. Members of the committee had this in mind at the time the representatives of the company gave evidence before the committee, and I can only say that they misinformed the committee. In the second place, I think the board of transport commissioners in granting this licence has completely ignored the evidence presented to the committee by the officials of the company concerned.
In my opinion there is a principle at stake in a matter like this. Here is a House of Commons committee appointed to deal with a particular bill, to hear evidence and on the basis of that evidence to report the bill back to the house. The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond quoted at some length from the proceedings of the committee, and I think he proved completely that this company led the committee to believe that the pipe line was going to run from Edmonton to Vancouver, that there would be no pipe line into the United States, that the plant would be built in Vancouver and that the crude oil, as the company witnesses stated, would be transported from Vancouver to export points by tanker, barge or other means of that sort.
I am not going to repeat the quotations that the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond placed on the record last Friday, but I want to refer to a couple he overlooked. The witness in this instance is Mr. Sydney Martin Blair, representing the company. At page 86 of the report of the proceedings of the

The Budget-Mr. J. R. Kirk 1951 committee I find the following statement by the witness:
Our proposal is to build the Trans Mountain oil pipe line, which Mr. Laing has so thoroughly described for you previously. It is a line running from Edmonton to Vancouver via the Yellowhead pass. It is an all-Canadian line, of 24 inches in diameter, and approximately 715 miles in length.
Farther down on the same page I asked the witness a question and the quotation is as follows:


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: When we were discussing the Trans-Canada Pipe Line Company, the company in question agreed to an amendment of section 6, that it be provided for and stipulated that the main pipe line of the company would be entirely within Canada. Might I ask the witness if he would be willing, when we come to section 6 of this bill, to have a similar amendment inserted at the appropriate place in this bill?
The Witness:	We would welcome such an
amendment, Mr. Chairman.
I want to emphasize again that the committee considered this matter and every witness placed on the stand by the company assured the committee that the pipe line was going to Vancouver, that there would be no branch lines to the United States and that the terminus of the pipe line would be Vancouver. Now we find that the company has been granted a licence by the board of transport commissioners to construct a branch line from the main line to a point in the United States just south of the international boundary. Before proceeding, may I say that I was most surprised indeed that there was no protest before the board of transport commissioners by the government of British Columbia.
There may be very sound reasons for a change in policy and for the right being given to export oil to the United States through a branch pipe line. In my opinion this procedure is entirely wrong. It is making a mockery of a committee of the house and a mockery of parliament. Therefore I want to protest in the strongest terms against the action of the board of transport commissioners in granting this licence without giving any consideration to the evidence placed before the committee.
I also want to protest in the strongest terms against the attitude of the company and its officials as reported in the edition of the Vancouver Sun which arrived here this morning. Finally I want to congratulate the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond who rose in the house and made a strong protest. In so doing he was protecting the rights of Canadians and of British Columbians, and was speaking in the interests of his own constituents.


Mr. J. R. Kirk (Aniigonish-Guysborough):: Mr. Speaker, when listening to the budget

speech my first reaction was that it was a budget that would, by and large, satisfy everybody, and immediately I had the thought that there would be no occasion for me to enter into the debate. However, when I heard or read the remarks of those who have been criticizing the budget, I changed my mind and decided I would take some part in the discussion.
During the course of this debate there has been much effort on the part of the opposition to label the budget with a slogan. The official opposition has termed it an election budget, a sunset budget, a mink coat budget, while the C.C.F. see it as a rich man's budget, a capitalist budget, and even a good Tory budget. They even describe the opposition amendment as semi-socialist. These contradictions indicate that the opposition parties are having difficulty in finding any ground for sound criticism of the budget, so they necessarily resort to catch phrases in the hope one such phrase will catch the ear of the public.
In the Guysb'oro County Advocate of February 27, a newspaper which has never been noticeably favourable to the present administration, there appears a cartoon which to my mind offers a more fair-minded description of the budget. In this cartoon industry and labour are using a cross-cut saw to cut yet another length from the tax log, while a third person, obviously our genial Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), sits on the log and observes that he would not have been able to obtain this last tax cut for the Canadian people were it not for the combined effort of industry and labour. This bears out the admonition given to Canadians over and over again by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), the Minister of Finance and others that increased production and co-operation between industry and labour is the only way by which Canadians can hope for lower taxes while the international situation remains uncertain and defence costs continue high.
Facts speak much louder than theories, and when we note that our gross national product has increased from $16J billion in 1949 to nearly $23 billion in 1952 we must realize that this is the explanation of the tax reductions that have been made and, in all fairness, give credit where credit is due, to the Canadian people who have brought about this increase in production, and also to the Canadian government for its wise leadership and skilful handling of the nation's finances, which have earned this social dividend to which the Minister of Finance has referred.
No government or minister of finance could or should ever expect to fully satisfy the

opposition, but it is interesting to note what the people of other countries think.
A few days ago the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lesage) quoted several press releases indicating how other nations envy the financial achievements of our government under a Liberal administration. In the Halifax Herald of February 25 appeared the following from the Dublin Daily Irish Independent, commenting on the Canadian budget relief:
"How are such miracles performed?"
Mr. Laidlaw, director of the extension department of St. Francis Xavier university in Antigonish, Nova Scotia, who has recently returned from Europe, after a three months' travelling fellowship awarded by the Carnegie corporation, has this to say concerning Canada's growing prestige in Europe:
Scores of educated Europeans have their eyes on Canada, and Canadians do not appreciate our present prestige in the old world.
In the face of glowing tributes from other sources, one can understand why the opposition is compelled to resort to such feeble or weak criticism of the budget, a criticism which they feel is the duty of the opposition. I would like to make a few observations on those phases of the budget, and of the minister's financial survey, which apply more particularly to the economy of the maritimes and are of special interest to our people.
I was pleased to note that all the changes in the tariff were downward. The people of the maritime provinces, and especially those engaged in farming and fishing, have suffered a great deal from the high tariff system imposed on this country by previous Conservative governments. High tariffs always operate to raise the prices of the things we have to buy, denying us the opportunity of buying on even terms with the people of the United States and other countries. Such a system also tends to close foreign markets for our exports. If we do not buy the products of other countries they, of course, will not and cannot buy the commodities which we have to sell.
In this connection I wish to congratulate the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) for his firm and enlightened stand on the sugar business. Cuba in the past, and right now, is a good market for Canadian products. Cuba's principal export product is sugar, but we cannot sell our fish, potatoes, wheat and other commodities in Cuba if we do not give Cuba a fair chance to sell sugar in Canada. Protectionist interests in central Canada wanted the government to shut out Cuban sugar. There was a threat that if the government did not shut out Cuban sugar, the refineries would close down. Well, the
16, 1953	2991
The Budget-Mr. J. R. Kirk Minister of Trade and Commerce knows a lot about business, as well as about government, and he knew that was an empty threat; that the sugar refiners were doing well and would not close their plants. He was not impressed, so he said, "No", and he was right.
Some years ago our government took the tariff off the main items of farm machinery. There was a great outcry that the farm machinery manufacturers would be ruined. But they were not ruined. They are doing better than ever, and our farmers can now buy farm implements without paying either a duty or a duty-enhanced price. The same applied to items used in the fishing industry. Many were made duty-free prior to this year. Now we have the duty removed from engines for fishing boats, and wire rope and cable; and additional items of interest to .farmers will now enter the country duty free.
The government's policy of reducing duties on the implements of production in the primary industries, fishing, farming, mining and lumbering, is sound. This gives producers a better chance to compete in the world markets.
The world is far from free of trade restrictions, tariffs, embargoes and quotas, but we can take pride in the fact that right through the picture Canada has been a leader in pressing for the removal of barriers to trade, and in opening up Canadian markets to the producers of other countries who wish to do business on a fair and reciprocal basis.
Our best customer, and the customer who also supplies us with many of the things we need, is the United States of America. We have come a long way from the "no truck or trade with the Yankees" slogan of the Conservatives in 1911. Some years ago a new trade policy was inaugurated, with the passing of the reciprocal trade agreements act. President Roosevelt sponsored a policy of lowering tariff barriers, and our Liberal government at Ottawa was quick to take advantage of the chance to negotiate a trade treaty which gave our fishermen access to the United States market. The duty against codfish, for instance, was reduced from a cent to three-quarters of a cent a pound, and later to half a cent. In 1947 came the general agreement on tariffs and trade under which we secured concessions on practically all species of fish- fresh, frozen, dried, smoked and canned- concessions which were enlarged and confirmed in subsequent revisions at the Annecy and Torquay conferences.
I know this tariff problem is not just a Canadian problem. Over a number of years our Liberal governments have been progressively reducing tariffs, sometimes by

The Budget-Mr. J. R. Kirk negotiation with other countries in return for cuts in their tariffs, sometimes on its own initiative, as in the present budget. As a result, Canada is now one of the lowest tariff countries in the world.
In my opinion the Minister of Finance is to be congratulated on the tax reductions he has announced. The radio licence fee had outlived its usefulness, and was costly to collect. Since almost everyone uses a radio nowadays, the cost of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation service can be taken out of the proceeds of taxation on radio receiving sets, with much less difficulty and with more fairness; and similarly, the cost of television will be borne by those who purchase television sets. The removal of the stamp tax on cheques, which was a nuisance, will be welcomed by Canadians generally.
As I have already observed, our friends in the opposition are hard put to criticize this budget. What can they expect? They have been saying taxes were too high. Now that taxes are reduced, they claim the rich benefit more than the poor. But I believe that all fair-minded Canadian taxpayers will agree that the time has come when those who put their capital to work for the general productivity of the country should receive some incentive to invest still more heavily in Canada's development, and thereby increase both production and employment.
Before commenting further on the recent tax reductions and their effect upon the Canadian economy, I should like to speak briefly of several matters of special interest and importance to the people of the maritime provinces, and especially to those concerned directly with the primary industries of fishing and farming.
I am particularly concerned with the everpresent risks which must be faced by those who go down to the sea in ships, to wrest their livelihood from the unyielding ocean. As hon. members may know, I have repeatedly brought to the attention of this house the great need of increased aids to navigation; and, in this connection, I must express my appreciation of the co-operation received from that branch of the Department of Transport. I realize that with shortages of important metals it has not been possible in recent years to provide new equipment as readily as might be desirable. But now that supply has caught up pretty well with demand, it is to be hoped that out of date buoys will be replaced by more modern ones and that the shoals and rocks along our coast will be still more clearly marked for the guidance of our fishermen; for they must venture forth long before the breaking day provides a light 
for their path, and return home after darkness has hidden these hazards from view.
I want to stress once again, also, the need of a coastguard service, to provide improved search and rescue facilities for ships in distress. At present there are, it is true, several agencies of government which provide some such service; but a Canadian coastguard service could combine all these into one well-trained organization which would operate more economically and more effectively, and which could serve in time of emergency as another arm of the naval service. I do hope the time is not far distant when the representations which have been made from various sources in support of such a service will produce results, and a Canadian coastguard service will become a reality.
I welcome the financial assistance which is being made available in the construction of cold storage and bait freezing plants and equipment, by both the Department of Fisheries and the Department of Agriculture. The result of this has been a considerable increase in the number of such plants being installed.
While dealing with our fishing industry, I would like to urge that some form of government-sponsored insurance scheme be considered to protect our fishermen against storm losses. On several occasions during the past two seasons alone they have suffered tremendous losses to their boats and gear, and in some cases even loss of limb or life, through sudden storms, with no way of recouping their losses. Whether this insurance protection should be through federal or provincial legislation, or a combination of both, is a matter for consideration; but it is surely time for some solution of this problem which has always harassed our fishermen.
Another matter which is, in my opinion, of paramount importance, is the possibility of including our fishermen and our farmers under the Unemployment Insurance Act. Some will say that this presents unsurmountable obstacles, but I am satisfied that in this, as in other realms, where there is a will there is a way. The unemployment insurance fund has become a bulwark of protection for many groups of our Canadian wage earners, and none are more subject to periods of unemployment than are those engaged in these primary industries.
Referring to the criticism of the opposition that there is nothing in the budget for the farmer, I may say that the answer to this claim is to be found in the able speech delivered on Thursday last in this debate by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner).

It is a satisfaction to the farmers of the maritime provinces that the federal government has continued to pay a subsidy on feed grain shipments from the prairie provinces. This has been a great boon to our farmers, and all are hopeful that this particular subsidy will not only be continued, but will become a definite part of the federal government's policy, for excessive freight rates make it impossible for the farmers of the east to finance the full transportation charges.
Assistance to the dairy industry, by way of federal purchasing of surplus quantities of dried milk, and price support for that commodity, will be good news to those engaged in dairy farming. At the same time, the government of Nova Scotia has brought down legislation this year banning the manufacture and sale of imitation dairy products, except peanut butter and margarine, which will be of great benefit to our dairymen.
I hope the federal government will follow up this legislation with amendments to its pure food laws as applied to the manufacture and sale of dairy substitutes.
It was good news for Canadian farmers, too, that the United States authorities had lifted the ban on Canadian livestock entering the United States market; and in this connection I would like to add my voice to all those who have acclaimed the federal Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and his officials for the prompt and efficient way in which the disastrous foot-and-mouth disease was banished from this country.
I am in full agreement with various members from all sides of the house who have spoken in support of the removal of the means test from pensions for the blind, and from recipients of war veterans allowances. These are two groups of Canadians who through no fault of their own are greatly handicapped and should not be subject to this test, which is at the least embarrassing, and at the most unjust in many instances. I urge the minister and the government to give very serious and sympathetic consideration to the possibility of removing this means test.
I wish to compliment our new Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) upon setting up a committee to review the whole matter of rural mail services. I hope that as a result of the recommendations which the committee will present to parliament many of the inadequate rates now being paid will be eliminated. We have no group of public servants more faithful to their duties, nor any whose occupational hazards are greater or more numerous. They are subject to all
The Budget-Mr. J. R. Kirk the vagaries of wind and weather, of highway and railway conditions, and I have nothing but admiration for those who deliver Her Majesty's mails to rural post offices and rural mail boxes.
However, I would have liked to see the terms of reference extended to include rural post offices and rural postmasters. The rentals paid for the former and the salaries paid to the latter are far from commensurate with the service involved. They have no basis of comparison with present-day rents and salaries, for they are still based upon what was considered modest remuneration back in the horse and buggy era. I know that our Post Office Department is doing its best to overcome these deficiencies, but it is bound by the legislation which limits its actions.
I feel that these matters could well have been included for consideration by the present committee, and I hope they will be placed before the committee when next it is set up.
It is gratifying to note that the cabinet has under consideration the distribution again this year of federal grants to our universities. However, I hope that the basis of awarding such grants will differ from that used last year. As I understand it, the money voted by parliament last year was apportioned according to the population of each province, at 50 cents a head. Nova Scotia suffered greatly from this system, for the reason that the province has a higher proportion of its population attending university than is the case in most provinces. As a result, the aid per student in Nova Scotia was the lowest of any province. Were this federal aid allocated on a national basis, with the government establishing a national rate per student, the disparity would disappear and a more equitable basis of division be arrived at.
You will note, Mr. Speaker, that my remarks have dealt principally with the primary industries of farming and fishing. These are of special interest to me inasmuch as most of my constituents in Antigonish and Guysborough counties are farmers and fishermen, and the well-being of our communities depends to a very great extent upon the success of these two industries.
In Guysborough county, particularly, where there is no rail connection, those engaged in farming, fishing and lumbering find transportation a very serious matter. You perhaps will recall, Mr. Speaker, the several occasions on which I have spoken in this house of the necessity of completing the Guysborough railway. The first occasion was on February 28, 1939, before the outbreak of world war II. Then, during the war years, I refrained from mentioning the Guysborough
2994	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. J. R. Kirk railway as all our efforts at that time were directed toward winning the war. But when world war II was over I returned to the subject of the Guysborough railway and spoke on it on the following dates:	August 12,
1946; May 20, 1947; March 4, 1948, and November 9, 1949.
With the outbreak of hostilities in Korea,
I again refrained from insisting upon the completion of this railway; but I do want to point out once more that it is impossible for our farmers, fishermen and lumbermen to benefit from the several trade agreements and to share in the general prosperity, without improved transportation facilities. These constituents of mine must provide, at great expense to themselves, trucking service to the point of rail shipment, on top of which they must pay the ever-increasing freight rates from railhead to destination on both exports and imports. This means that they have excessive transportation costs, and one can easily see the great handicap they experience in their effort to carry on.
If the government will not proceed with the construction of the Guysborough railway,
I have one other suggestion to make; that is the provision by the government, or the Canadian National Railways, of highway truck and bus services to existing railheads. With highway and railway services co-ordinated, and the combined movement provided at railway freight and passenger rates, it would materially help to ease the transportation problem. Our products of sea, farm and forest would find easier and cheaper access to their markets and our people would be given an incentive to develop resources yet untouched.
The announcement by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) that a contract has been awarded for the construction of a lock in connection with the Canso causeway will be of particular interest to eastern Canada. However, with the completion of the causeway a new problem arises. The town of Mulgrave on the mainland, and the towns of Port Hawkesbury and Point Tupper on the Cape Breton side, which are railway towns, will suffer greatly from the loss of this means of livelihood and it is their fear that they will become ghost towns. I understand that the resources and development branch of the Canadian National Railways, and the department of industry in Nova Scotia, have been giving some thought to ways and means of attracting new industries to these towns, and I sincerely hope that something concrete will materialize as a result of their endeavours.
There is no doubt that these towns will have one of the finest harbours in the world 

when the causeway has been completed, a harbour free of ice the year round. It seems to me this will provide a particularly advantageous site for industry, with the added features of a plenteous supply of coal, steel, water and hydro power near at hand. Naturally I am particularly interested in the town of Mulgrave, which is in my constituency, on the mainland; and I cannot urge too strongly that no stone be left unturned to bring one or more industries to this area.
In the foregoing remarks, Mr. Speaker, I have tried to stress the need of the following:
1.	Improved and increased aids to navigation;
2.	Canadian coastguard service;
3.	Insurance for fishermen against storm losses;
4.	Unemployment insurance for farmers and fishermen;
5.	Continuance of subsidy on feed grain shipments;
6.	Improved legislation re manufacture and sale of dairy substitutes;
7.	Removal of means test from pensions for the blind;
8.	Removal of means test from war veterans allowances;
9.	Increased rentals for rural post offices;
10.	Increased salaries for rural postmasters;
11.	Distribution of university grants on a more equitable basis;
12.	Completion of the Guysborough railway or, failing that, a highway truck and bus service to railhead at railway freight and passenger rates.
In all of these matters, Mr. Speaker, I have spoken with the utmost sincerity and I do not think that any of these representations can be regarded as exorbitant or extravagant.
It seems to me that the financial statement which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) was able to present in his budget this year means that Canada has definitely and successfully rounded another corner. We are now able to support an expanded defence effort, maintain a sound system of social security and carry a war-inflated debt. The minister, by this series of surplus-producing budgets, and thanks to the steady expansion of the nation's economy, has put Canada in a position to defend itself and to move forward with confidence. We can now look forward to the consideration of further measures of social security, larger grants for hospital construction and health services, as

steps toward the goal of adequate health service for all Canadians, regardless of where they live or what their personal income might be.
Given a continuance of sound fiscal policy and Liberal administration, Canada will continue to grow in population and to expand national production. That will happen if Canada continues to be, as it has been in the past, a good place in which to live and work, a country of freedom not merely from personal and political restraints but from restraints on initiative in business. Then we shall truly attain the goal so ably described by our Prime Minister-"to maintain our country in unity and security, as the homeland of a free people".


Albany M. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few brief observations tonight with reference to freight rates in so far as they relate to the maritime provinces and particularly to the province of New Brunswick. In a. submission dated March 15, 1953, addressed to the government of Canada and presented by certain farmers' unions in the western provinces, I note the following paragraph at page 10:
We strongly protest the most recent freight rate increase of 7 per cent granted the railways by the board of transport commissioners.
And at page 9:
We are concerned that these rates may be raised to the point where the law of diminishing returns begins to operate and thus threaten our entire economy.
May I say that the above citations represent the views of the lumber exporters and other industrialists and shippers of the maritime provinces, particularly the province of New Brunswick. I was glad to hear tonight the remarks made by the hon. member for Northumberland, N.B. (Mr. McWilliam), although I must admit that his remarks on behalf of the New Brunswick lumber exporters and the maritime shippers in general are somewhat belated because the railways did get their 7 per cent rate boost, which was effective today. I would much rather have heard the hon. member for the neighbouring constituency of Northumberland as well as all the Liberal members-and there are many-from the maritime provinces stand up in this house last week and plead the case of the maritime provinces lumber exporters and shippers. But although the matter came before this house on Monday of last week, only two maritime province members stood up to plead the case of the maritimes, and they were two opposition members, the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) and the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis).
16, 1953
The Budget

Mr. Robichaud


An hon. Member:: Two good men.


Albany M. Robichaud: Yes, two good men; that is right. Later during the week I in my humble capacity attempted to bring to the official attention of the government the situation of the lumber shippers of my province and of the' maritime provinces in general through a question which was addressed to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). Again on Friday of last week I put to the Prime Minister another question which was in effect the same as the one I had previously asked on Wednesday, but which was bolstered by the fact that I knew several telegrams had been sent to some ministers of the government by some New Brunswick and maritime provinces lumber exporters protesting against and requesting the deferment of the new 7 per cent rate boost until such time as the maritime provinces lumber exporters and shippers and other industrialists had time to prepare and submit briefs outlining their opposition.
As the hon. member for Northumberland has rightly pointed out in this house, he understood the Prime Minister to have said, as I did myself, that under the statute there was no power under which the government could take any action until a formal appeal had been filed by the provinces or by other interested parties. This is exactly the interpretation I took from the explanation which was given in this house by the Prime Minister as well as by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) on Monday last. But I have found that in section 52 of the Railway Act provision is made giving the governor general in council, at any time, in his discretion, power to vary or to rescind any order, decision, rule or regulation of the board of transport commissioners even without an appeal having been filed; that is, on his own motion and without any application or petition.
This is exactly what the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) and I were trying to bring to the attention of the government in our questions last week. We were trying to get the government's approval of our suggestion that some action should be taken by the governor general in council, which I understand to be the cabinet, so that this order made by the board of transport commissioners, making this 7 per cent railway rate boost effective on five days' notice, would be deferred and suspended until the maritime provinces lumber exporters and other industrialists affected by this 7 per cent boost had been given an opportunity to present a brief and to be heard. But of course nothing was done, and today the new rates became effective.


Mr. George:: Will the hon. member permit a question?
2996	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Robichaud


Albany M. Robichaud: Yes.


Edmund William George: Was the hon. member in favour of the recent increase in wages on the Canadian National Railways?


Albany M. Robichaud: In answer to the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. George) I will say-and in this I shall be repeating the words of the hon. member for Cape Breton South last week in this house-that every member of this house was and is in favour of the wage increase. But I should like to answer what the hon. member for Westmorland probably has in mind, or his innuendo in this question, that the present 7 per cent rate boost has been necessitated by the wage increase. In my submission-and again I agree with the able argument which was put forward in this house last Monday by the hon. member for Cape Breton South-this is not the true and real reason for this 7 per cent rate boost. I wish to quote what he said, because I think the argument put forward by the hon. member for Cape Breton South deserves to be quoted again. As reported at page 2753 of Hansard the hon. member said:
I think if we have a chance to sit down to examine the accounts of the Canadian National, and those of the Canadian Pacific if necessary, we will find that the argument that the wage increases justify the freight rate increases does not hold up.
I agree with that statement entirely. I continue the quotation:
I agree with the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) that in an operation like the Canadian National or the Canadian Pacific the economic experts could sit down and trim their sails in many directions and find the necessary money to meet their wage bills without asking for a flat increase right across the board.
In answer again to the polite question asked by the hon. member for Westmorland, who comes from a railway centre-and I can understand his apprehension-I submit that I hold in my hand tonight in this house an example of one way in which the sails of the Canadian National Railways could be trimmed. I refer to this report which is printed on the most expensive glossy paper, with all kinds of pictures. I submit that this is one concrete example, small as it may be, of waste and extravagance right in the administration of the Canadian National Railways. Compare this annual report of the Canadian National Railways, which I received just at supper time, Mr. Speaker, with the humble report of the Department of Fisheries. The report of the Department of Fisheries is printed on ordinary paper, but it contains everything; whereas this expensive, wasteful and extravagant report of the Canadian National Railways, which is this very day imposing on the shippers and industrialists and finally on the consumers


of Canada, and particularly of the maritime provinces, such a burden in freight rates, is printed on most expensive paper. It is an example that is worthy of consideration. I wish I could put this very expensive report of the Canadian National Railways right on Hansard, because it would be worthy of consideration by future generations.
May I quote, particularly for the attention of the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. George), an article which I clipped from the Moncton Daily Times of March 9, 1953, which reads:
While the commissioners found no evidence that the new increase would work "insupportable hardship" on shippers or on the economy generally, they added:
"The board is becoming increasingly concerned as to the long-term ability of the Canadian economy to continue indefinitely to bear successive increases in freight rates on the scale of the recent past."
The increase, fifth since the war, brings the cumulative total rise to 98 per cent on the traffic to which the hoists apply.
In this excerpt from the report of the commissioners they claim that they had no evidence of insupportable hardship on the part of the shippers. Well, it so happens, Mr. Speaker, that the new rates will impose insupportable hardship on the lumber exporters, the shippers and the industrialists in general of the maritime provinces, and of New Brunswick particularly. If I may be permitted to read into Hansard a telegram which I received last week, dated March 11, 1953, which was forwarded to me by one of the biggest lumber processors and exporters in the province of New Brunswick, the George Eddy Company Limited, I shall proceed to do so. This telegram is as follows:
Bathurst, N.B.
A. M. Robichaud, M.P.,
House of Commons, Ottawa.
Our opinion strenuous efforts should be made defer effective date 7 per cent freight rate increase just announced by board of transport commissioners. Together with cancellation last year milling and transit tariff CN. CF220-2 makes it impossible to operate our new plant which was constructed based on above tariff. Not generally known freight rates increases granted since April 8, 1948 now total 98 per cent and such increases have reached point where becoming impossible for NB lumber industry continue shipping to Ontario markets against more favourably situated Ontario and Quebec producers. BC producers not affected by increase. Respectfully submit increase should be deferred to allow time preparation briefs and overhaul general freight structure so that increase may be distributed over all railway users instead of major part being borne by maritimes. You are fully aware situation this area to reduction pitprop and general export market and this last increase just aggravating present conditions.
George Eddy Co. Ltd.
I also received this morning another telegram from Northumberland county, and the

hon. member for that county will be certainly familiar with the sender. It is dated March 16, 1953, from Newcastle, and is addressed to me. It reads as follows:
A. M. Robichaud, M.P.,
House of Commons, Ottawa.
Have been requested by Chesley Eddy of Bathurst advise you that maritime lumber bureau Amherst which represents all major lumber operators and producers in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick sent sent following telegram to ministers Chevrier, Winters, Gregg on eleventh March "re proposed increase freight rate on lumber consider this increase discriminates against lumber industry in maritimes will result in loss of established markets. Industry already has absorbed an eighty-five per cent increase in past six years. Request that you oppose strenuously this proposed raise of seven per cent effective March 16". In addition many operators wired their members with similar requests postpone rate increase.
Monkhouse Chatham Industries Ltd.
In view of these telegrams, Mr. Speaker,
I hope you will realize why I am on my feet tonight.


An hon. Member:: Why?


Albany M. Robichaud: Can't you understand yet?
I make these remarks in answer to the speech made by the hon. member for Northumberland who in my submission, although I approve of everything he said in that connection, was a little late with his support. I would have preferred him to stand up with other Liberal members from the maritime provinces last week and support our efforts to try and obtain from this government, through an action which they were empowered to do by statute, the deferment of the infamous 7 per cent rate boost which is now effective in Canada, to the great detriment of our maritime provinces lumber exporters, industrialists and shippers.
Before resuming my seat, Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to say a few words in reference to certain remarks which were made in this house this afternoon by my good friend the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart). The hon. member represents in this house a county which is diagonally opposite geographically from my own; that is, he represents one tip of the province and I represent the other tip.


Mr. Sinnotl:: You won't be there long.


Albany M. Robichaud: Who said so? Look who is talking now. You have not even got a constituency to represent the next time.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: You will be surprised.


Albany M. Robichaud: May I say to my hon. friend, even if I am not to be here long I won't mind because I am used to being defeated. I have been defeated five times already.
16, 1953	2997
The Budget-Mr. Robichaud


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: You are a good sport, anyway.


Albany M. Robichaud: The hon. member for Charlotte has referred to what I said about the tobacco tax. Well, I said that the tobacco tax was one of the creations of the McNair government, and this cannot be gainsaid. I said that it was one of the many legacies left to the new Flemming government which has been in office for only five months, and this again cannot be denied. What else did I say? Well, sir, so that there may not be any misapprehension as to what I said-and with all due respect I do not accept the interpretation placed on my words by the hon. member for Charlotte-I should like to quote a small paragraph from page 2669 of Hansard. This is what I said when referring to the taxpayer of New Brunswick:
He is giving 4 cents per pack of 25 cigarettes to the New Brunswick treasury, exactly the same as he paid under the McNair government. This is the true picture.
That is what I said, and I stand by it.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: May I ask the hon. member a question? If under the old price 10 per cent of the retail value was 4 cents a pack and cigarettes dropped to where the 10 per cent would be 3 cents a pack, is that an increase or not? It has never been more than 10 per cent at any time from 1950 until now. Figure the percentage yourself; it is an increase in the tobacco tax.


Albany M. Robichaud: Are you asking a question or making a speech? Because if you are asking a question, then all I can say is that in my speech I never referred to those percentages at all.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I realize that.


Albany M. Robichaud: I just said that the change in the tobacco tax represented one-fifth of a cent for each cigarette, and I stick by what I said. Then my good friend has also referred to the dismissal of numerous civil servants in the province of New Brunswick. Well, the civil service act in New Brunswick was passed by the late McNair government. The hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) has made the sweeping statement that numerous civil servants have been dismissed.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: And I can prove it.


Albany M. Robichaud: Just a minute, now. The hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) took issue with that statement. When asked to give concrete instances of dismissals, in my submission the argument offered by the hon. member for Charlotte was greatly weakened when, for an example, he had to go to his own family and choose his own son as the
2998	HOUSE OF
The Budget

Mr. Rohichaud sole and unique example of a civil servant who had been dismissed.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Could you find a better example?


Albany M. Robichaud: I have every respect in the world for my hon. friend and for his good son, whom I do not know. But might it not be possible that when he was moved from Charlotte county, to use my hon. friend's words, he was simply moved from his own native county? Knowing that the hon. member for Charlotte is the federal member for that county, had I been premier of the province perhaps I would have been inclined to ask his son to move out of the county, but not necessarily to dismiss him. And I say to the house that, knowing Mr. Flemming as well as I do know him, I venture to say that unless the contrary is proven, then surely the hon. member's son was not dismissed purely and simply because he was the son of a Liberal federal member. There must have been some other reason, if he was a civil servant and if he was actually dismissed.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: On a question of privilege-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Albany M. Robichaud: I am going to continue.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: On a question of privilege, the information I put on the record this afternoon was absolutely correct and I will not have it contradicted. And if you want to have a list of those who have been affected by the Flemming administration, just let me know. I will give you a list, and it will be a long one.


Albany M. Robichaud: Is that a question of privilege?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: It is on the record, at least.


Albany M. Robichaud: Until a few days ago, when the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Riley) spoke, and again tonight with the speech of the hon. member for Charlotte,
I had not realized that the famous New Brunswick provincial election of last September had hurt them so much. Now I realize just how much it did hurt them. Our Liberal friends from New Brunswick-and I shall not include all of them because some have not spoken-but some at least who have been so-


Andrew Wesley Stuart: And they will keep on speaking.
(Mr. Robichaud.]


Albany M. Robichaud: Surely, I know; you certainly kept on speaking in the provincial election, and you saw the result.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: You spoke for five years. You were defeated five times.


Albany M. Robichaud: And the more and the louder you speak, the worse will be the results. Our good friends are becoming very touchy. In other words, as we say in New Brunswick, they cannot stand the pace. But they had better prepare, because there is another election coming.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: And you had better watch your step when it comes.


Albany M. Robichaud: I will. We know that over on that side of the house they are now allergic to many things-all the members, from the cabinet ministers right down. They are allergic to horses; they are allergic to railway sidings and as a newcomer I have gained the impression that they are so filled with their own importance, their own omnipotence and the necessity for their being here, that they have come to the point where they consider even the most constructive criticism as something bordering on heresy.
All I can say, knowing the premier of New Brunswick as I do, is that I shall have to be offered very strong proof to convince me that the hon. member's son was dismissed solely and simply because he was the son of a Liberal member of parliament.


Mr. Hodgson:: What about Mitch Hepburn?


Albany M. Robichaud: I do not want to talk about old times; I would rather talk about the present.
One more comment and I shall resume my seat. What I shall say now is in answer to something said by the hon. member for Northumberland, N.B. (Mr. McWilliam). I compliment the hon. member upon having made this remark, because I realize he was fighting in the interests of his own constituency, and I approve his doing so. Indeed, ever since I came to the House of Commons I have been trying to do the same thing-fighting for the rights of my people in Gloucester county.
As I said before in the house, we have now in my county a major ore development. It now looks as though some of the veins are running into Northumberland county, and we are pleased to know that. However, tonight the hon. member for Northumberland suggested that the mineral should be transported by spur line to the Miramichi, a famous river in his constituency, and exported from that point because, as he said- and I shall try to use his words-there is no deep-water terminal available at Bathurst.

Well, according to the best available information, a large smelter is going to be built at or near the town of Bathurst-because, after all, the ore body cannot be moved into Northumberland; it will remain in Gloucester. As I say, the smelter will be built at or near Bathurst, and we are certainly insisting that the export of that mineral shall be carried out from Bathurst and neighbouring ports in Gloucester county. Provided the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) shows any generosity toward us, Bathurst harbour can be made one of the best harbours on the north shore. As I said in my earlier speech, we have deep-sea harbours such as Pointe Marcel and Shippigan in my county, with which any of the harbours on the Miramichi mentioned by my hon. friend cannot compare.
So we have everything in Gloucester. We have the ore body; we will have the smelter and, with the co-operation of this government, we will have the harbour. So through the generosity of the Minister of Public Works the ore can be exported from the county of Gloucester, through the port of Bathurst, and other ports as well, as soon as our ports are made available.


Mr. J. A. Simmons (Yukon-Mackenzie River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to associate
myself with what has been said by other members on this side of the house in complimenting the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). Those of us who are supporters of the government can certainly take some pride in the fact that we are associated in our endeavours to maintain responsible government in Canada, and that the Canadian people have faith in this government as an administration worthy of their endorsation.
In the debate on the budget the opposition members have used two directly contradictory criticisms over and over again. They have said, first of all, that it was an election budget, and, secondly, that it was a rich man's budget. I just cannot see how they can have it both ways. If they say it is an election budget, if the minister is attempting to bribe the people with their own money, then how can it be a rich man's budget, or vice versa? I still think it is a good one. In fact the more I study its terms the more I am convinced that it is one of the very best budgets that could have been brought down under the present circumstances.
The opposition have always levelled some criticism at the fact that in the year 1949, which was an election year, there were certain reductions in taxes. They then glibly state that a year or so later these taxes were restored and they imply that perhaps after the next election the present reductions will be removed and the taxes will be increased.
The Budget-Mr. Simmons This simply is not a fair criticism, because all the people of Canada know that it was necessary to increase taxes in 1950 on the outbreak of trouble in Korea. We all know that the price of freedom is high, and no matter what the cost it is well worth it. It is gratifying to note that, although we are still at war in Korea or engaged in police action there, our congenial Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), by good administration, has been able to reduce the tax level, particularly the income tax level, to what it was in pre-Korea days.
Again let me reiterate that the people of Canada should be proud-and I believe they are-that we have such an able minister to handle our budget affairs. It may be of interest to note that to date I have not received one word of criticism from any constituents with respect to the new budget, and I believe this applies throughout the length and breadth of Canada. The only comment I have received from the north is in praise of the budget. I should like to quote an excerpt from a letter I received this morning from Mr. James F. MacDonald, one of the highly respected old-timers of the Yukon Territory. He says in part:
I am proud that we have the most progressive, honest government in Canada, and I think the best the world has ever known.
That is what our old-timers in the north think of the government and I do not believe they are very far wrong.
I believe that in a very few years the development of our Canadian northwest will be a factor to be considered in the preparation of the budget of the government of this country. This section of Canada, often referred to in bygone days as the frozen north, is without doubt on the threshold of what will be one of the most beneficial and far-reaching developments Canada has yet experienced. I do not refer only to quartz or placer mining or to the development of its timber, agricultural or fishery products. Our great expansion in the northwest is coming in the field of hydroelectric power, with that power actually used in the north for industrial purposes.
More and more electric power is daily being used in developing our natural products, and cheap power in great amounts has become the key to the economics of the recovery and processing of products like aluminum, chromium, iron, nickel and crude oil. There are still many great power sites yet unexploited in Canada, and some of the greatest among these are to be found in Labrador, British Columbia, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. This power is now being considered for development and use in what can be called a metallurgical
3000	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Simmons age. Where available in great quantities it makes possible electric smelting and the manufacture of invaluable alloys using iron, silver, copper, chromium, titanium, tungsten and other base metals that will give metal fabrics and shapes of unheard-of strength, toughness and durability, combined with amazing lightness.
One of the great potential power sites in Canada is in the great Yukon river drainage basin in my constituency of the Yukon Territory and in northwestern British Columbia. Here a high interior plateau with great quantities of water and the Atlin lake and the Yukon river system make feasible tremendous power developments. Ventures Limited, through its associated companies, Frobisher Limited and Quebec Metallurgical Industries, is considering at this moment one of Canada's largest power projects in this area, that will involve eventually the production of from 4 to 5 million horsepower.
It has several great features: First, the water used will be from the great Yukon river drainage basin, including the Yukon and Teslin rivers in the Yukon Territory, the reaches of the Alsek river and its tributaries and water from the Kluane river watershed northwest of Whitehorse. Second, power will be developed in plants in Canada and will be used in large metallurgical processing plants built and operated in Canada. Ores from the Yukon and northern British Columbia areas will be treated, as well as large quantities of ores brought in from different parts of the world. Large quantities of low-priced power and new smelting and metallurgical processes will bring an industrial age to our Canadian northwest. Field surveys by air and ground are being planned and water flow readings expanded with the objective of a rapid and orderly development of one of the northwest's greatest resources, hydroelectric power.
I am naturally delighted that our north Pacific area, and particularly the Yukon and Northwest Territories where the federal government has administrative responsibilities, seems to be coming into its own, and also that this future development will be under the auspices of private enterprise with every attention paid to furthering Canadian interests. I hope that those responsible for the administration of our northern areas will give the fullest co-operation to those actively engaged in the development. I am sure that all relative information in federal government and provincial departments will be readily available.
At this point I wish to mention a need that no doubt the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters) already realizes,


the necessity of increased hydrometric survey work in the Yukon and Northwest Territories. Fortunately, in 1950 the measurement of stream flow in these areas was expanded but present studies are still being hindered by lack of flow data. This is particularly the case in regard to winter flow readings of streams, which is so important in northern latitudes. I would also like to suggest that whenever level lines are run in any Canadian area by federal or in fact provincial parties, a special effort be made to secure water level readings on the main streams and lakes that may be conveniently near or adjacent to the surveys being made. I understand that the geodetic service of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys is now making a special effort to collect this information which always seems to be necessary before we expect it will be required.
Now, Mr. Speaker, just think of what the future holds in new wealth when this potential water power is harnessed and put to work to develop the vast mineral wealth of northwestern Canada. Mining is the dominant industry in these northern areas and is bound to play an ever-increasing part in the economic life of the northland and of Canada, as the vast mineral treasures now hidden are developed, processed and made available to supply the demands of Canada and the other free nations of the world. And this proposed development of hydroelectric power is bound to have a vital effect on the mining industry and on the lives and interests of the people of the Yukon and Northwest Territories for the benefit of this and future generations.
Mr. Speaker, I might digress here and say that the development of the territories is fast reaching the point where local selfgovernment is within the foreseeable future. Hon. members would be the first to agree that no people can be satisfied unless they have complete self-government. No matter how considerate the departmental administration is, resource administration approximately
4,000	miles away cannot be entirely satisfactory. We can now look to the day, and not too distant, when both the Yukon and the Northwest Territories will have their own wholly elected legislatures with all the rights of a province. One of the first considerations should be the transfer of the local administration or resources administration with its many aspects and problems. The very strength of confederation lies in the fact that selfgovernment is enjoyed by the several provinces, though not of course by the territories. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it would be in the best Canadian tradition to resort to local self-government as soon as we have sufficient

population and industry. The majority of the people of the territories definitely are supporters of this view.
I would like to tell hon. members something about the known mineral resources of this vast northland which covers about two-fifths of the area of Canada. The gold placer deposits of the Yukon are well known and the story has been told in song and legend for many years. Up to the end of 1951 the total value of gold produced had almost reached the one-third of a billion dollar mark. In the Mayo-Keno district of the Yukon is a highly mineralized area producing silver, lead, zinc, cadmium and gold. Although the area has not been tested in depth it has the second largest silver mine in Canada, and is believed to be the fourth largest silver producer in the world. In 1952 this one mine alone, as quoted in the Northern Miner of January 29,	1953, produced 1,353,304
ounces of silver, 5,169,235 pounds of lead and 3,284,644 pounds of zinc. In addition there are numerous properties coming into production in this area.
In the Whitehorse district there is a known copper belt extending for about 300 miles from Whitehorse to Alaska. This area was high-graded in the early part of the century around Whitehorse and, incidentally, produced the famous Kennecott copper mine in Alaska. Last summer there was a very rich find of nickel-copper ore near the Alaska highway about 200 miles west of Whitehorse on Quill creek, which, if early promise is fulfilled, should rival the Sudbury area in wealth and production.
In other areas scattered throughout the Yukon there are known to be rich deposits of antimony, tungsten, molybdenum, asbestos, quartz, gold, silver, lead, zinc, copper and iron. With the potential of several million horsepower of electrical energy awaiting development in the Yukon Territory and adjoining parts of northern British Columbia, think of what the future holds in store for the northern part of this great dominion.
In the Northwest Territories we have the uranium production at Eldorado on Great Bear lake; the great gold deposits in the Yellowknife district; the lead-zinc deposits at Pine Point on the south side of Great Slave lake, at O'Connor lake and at the east end of Great Slave lake; the vast nickel deposits in the Keewatin district; copper deposits along the Arctic rim; and a variety of precious and strategic minerals in an area stretching from the east end of Great Slave lake to Chesterfield inlet on Hudson bay.
In addition to this there is a vast area extending from the northern boundaries of British Columbia and Alberta and along the
The Budget-Mr. Simmons Mackenzie river valley to the Arctic coast, which is favourable for deposits of oil and gas. I have been told that approximately 35,000,000 acres have been staked for exploratory oil and gas permits. This gives you some idea of the importance to Canada of the mining industry in the north.
I would like to say a word here, Mr. Speaker, about the role played by the prospectors. Almost every mine of any consequence today owes its discovery to the individual prospector. These hardy, resourceful pioneers are the lifeblood of the mining industry, and the government should do everything possible to afford them encouragement and assistance, both financial and otherwise. Anyone who has been in mountainous country need not be told that those who prospect the area must have a good constitution. They must be able to travel long distances on foot and to endure many hardships on meagre rations. Before them always is the lure of the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Their returns are generally small, but their efforts have provided the mining claims which go to make up the producing mines we have today. Without their initiative and fortitude, combined with the pioneering spirit, there would be very few producing mines in Canada today.
As I have said before, development of the waterpower and mineral resources in the Yukon and Northwest Territories will be considerably accelerated in the near future and is going to play an increasingly important role in the industrial and economic life of the nation. Therefore I hope every encouragement and assistance will be given by this government, and I have every confidence that this government, and particularly the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters), will bring this about.
One of the important requirements for the development of these northern areas is improved transportation facilities. We all know what the construction of the Alaska highway, the Whitehorse-Mayo road and the Atlin road have meant to the recent development of the Yukon Territory and northern British Columbia, and what the construction of the Mackenzie highway has meant to the Northwest Territories. If the development of the mineral wealth of these areas which I have mentioned is to be brought about it will require more and more transportation facilities.
The Alaska highway has completed its tenth year of operation. It has been a key to the opening up of northern British Columbia, the Yukon and Alaska. Much of the industrial development you hear of, such as the Cassiar asbestos mine on McDame creek,
3002	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Simmons was made possible as a result of the Alaska highway. The Hudson Bay Mining Company, the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company and many other companies have been able to speed up their prospecting work through being able to get in quickly to points on the highway near these favourable mineral areas. The same situation applied in connection with the Mackenzie highway from Grimshaw, Alberta to Hay River in the Northwest Territories.
The Alaska highway has become one of the great tourist attractions of the world, and more and more people are planning a summer vacation along that romantic road through the northland. It was built by the United States government in co-operation with the government of Canada, and will stand for all time as a memorial to Franklin D. Roosevelt and Mackenzie King, the two great statesmen who planned it. I have travelled the length of the Alaska highway on several occasions, and each year sees the development of new communities throughout its entire length. We now have modern facilities at the various stopping places. The best of food is served and modern facilities are provided by those courteous people who cater to the strangers who travel the highway.
The highway is being well maintained, and here I must pay a tribute to the Canadian army for continuing to maintain and improve this great public thoroughfare. Army units are established throughout its length and the most modern of roadbuilding equipment is in operation. It seems to me that this is an ideal way to maintain a great arterial highway so important to our national economy and defence.
You will recall that in the early days the royal engineers came out from England to build the great Cariboo highway in British Columbia. They made such a fine job of it that for many miles it continues today, as they left it. In placing the military in charge of the Alaska highway the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) is following an ancient tradition so far as the Pacific coast is concerned. It is to the credit of the army that the heaviest traffic is able to use the highway every hour of every day of the year.
Not only has the Alaska highway been a key instrument in the development of solid materials; it has been of tremendous assistance in the search for oil in northern British Columbia and the Yukon. The Alaska highway offers a safe and swift thoroughfare over which the drilling crews and the geophysical prospectors may proceed. I might say that recent showings indicate prospects of oil and natural gas along that portion of the highway 

from Dawson Creek, British Columbia to Watson Lake in the Yukon Territory. The same conditions apply along the Mackenzie highway from northern Alberta to the Northwest Territories.
If the backlog of wealth which we have in the Yukon, in the Northwest Territories and in northern British Columbia is to be developed for the benefit of Canada and the world, more attention must be paid to providing even more efficient methods of transportation. I think it is about time that favourable consideration was given by the department concerned to the hard surfacing of the Canadian portion of the Alaska highway. Hard surfacing of this highway would reduce the cost of maintenance considerably and would make for greater safety by eliminating the dust hazard, thereby contributing to the better health of the armed services personnel and the public generally. Quantities of asphalt can be obtained in the western provinces, which makes it possible to secure cheap supplies.
While the highway has served and is serving a great need, and while the air lines are steadily helping to open up the country, the major transportation need of the north is that of rail communication. We need a railroad from the heart of America to Alaska. It could very well be an extension of the Canadian National Railways from Prince George, British Columbia, through the great Rocky mountains trench, where a water grade exists, clear through to Whitehorse and on to Fairbanks, Alaska. Military men are well informed of the importance of such a service, and the industrial people will never be able to develop maximum production in that area until a railroad is constructed.
Discovery of oil in the Peace river country greatly simplifies the problem of providing rail transportation north. In the old days it would have been necessary to provide coal for the locomotives over that long haul. Today the diesel engine would use diesel fuel produced north and west of Edmonton, and the cost of operating the railroad would be greatly reduced below the mark estimated by the United States army which seriously considered railroad construction from Prince George through Whitehorse to Fairbanks, Alaska, during the last war.
Absence of a railroad of course provides more and more business for the trucking concerns. I must pay my tribute to those sturdy operators of truck lines throughout the north who brave all weather conditions in order to bring to the civilian population and to the military outposts merchandise of all kinds, without which we would find it a hardship to exist in the north.


Pierre Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Gray don). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver). If I had voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. Goode:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Wylie). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: On division?


Mr. Lennard:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house wish me to put the yeas and nays?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


George Alexander Drew: In view of the position taken by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) in regard to what it means, we cannot allow this motion to pass without a recorded vote.



WAYS AND MEANS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
Progress reported.

Alphonse Fournier: I move the house do now adjourn. Tomorrow we will take up the motion of the Minister of National Revenue to set up a select committee on broadcasting; then the resolution to introduce a measure to amend the Emergency Powers Act; Bill No. 105, respecting the liability of the crown for torts and civil salvage, and Bill No. 143, to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act, 1944.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.10 o'clock.

Tuesday, March 17, 1953