1953-03-04

Mr. J. H. Dickey (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I wish to refer to a statement made in the house on Monday, March 2, by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) as reported on pages 2511 and 2512 of Hansard. He is reported as saying:
This question has been on the order paper for over two months and I am saying that I hope it is not part of a pattern of suppressing information.
Yesterday the hon. member corrected his language by substituting the word "one" for "two" to conform with the actual facts. As the bringing forward of answers to questions, particularly the one referred to by the hon. member, is one of my responsibilities I feel bound to reject categorically any attempt to imply that information is being suppressed.
The records of the Department of Defence Production show that since the opening of this session of parliament-


Mr. Fulfon:: On a point of order-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: The parliamentary assistant is speaking to a question of privilege and I think he should be allowed to complete it.


John Horace Dickey: I repeat, the records of the Department of Defence Production show that since the opening of this session up to Monday, March 2, a total of 120 questions directly referring to the department had been placed on the order paper. Of these, all but 53 have been answered. Of these 53, 34 have been passed as orders for return and the information is in the course of preparation.
Some of these questions have been very complicated, involving as many as ten separate answers. It should not be presumed that these answers can be prepared by clerks. In every case, senior officers of one or more divisions of the department must give the matter their close attention and see that correct and full information is given in reply to the question.
The result of a very rapid survey in the department indicates that so far this session approximately 3,000 man hours, largely of senior personnel, have been required to deal with the questions that have been answered and to do the work already done on questions not completed. With respect to all the questions on the order paper as of Monday, March 2, it is estimated that an additional 500 man hours will be required to complete the answers. It will be appreciated that this is a heavy burden to impose on officials of a department who are all performing important work and have exacting day to day duties and responsibilities. Any seeming delay in answering questions is unavoidable because of limitations of staff and time. Any control we have over these matters is directed towards expediting the work rather than delaying it.


Mr. Fraser:: That is a good election speech.
.Mr. Fulton: Mr. Speaker, on the same ground of privilege as that just raised by the hon. member may I ask him when I will get an answer to that question of mine which was placed on the order paper on January 30 last and has now been on the order paper for over a month.


Mr. Howe:: When we get around to it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I point out to him that
the question deals with the affairs of only one company which two years ago was the subject of what we must assume was quite an exhaustive study, in that at that time answers to questions to that date were given. My question merely seeks to bring the information up to the present date as a matter of public interest. I can only suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if the hon. member feels himself not able to produce the answers because of the tremendous volume of work, then any time he cares to do so he and the whole government opposite might make way for a government who can bring them down in a shorter space of time.


Mr. Sinnoil:: Go hang yourself.


Mr. Graydon:: Put on some more horsepower over there.


Clarence Decatur Howe: How silly can you get?


John Horace Dickey: In answer to the question just asked by the hon. member, if he will read Hansard for Monday he will see my answer.


Mr. Fleming:: Mr. Speaker-

Grain


Mr. Abbott:: Too many competitors for the leadership.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think I should
allow a debate on a question of privilege.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am raising a different one.


Mr. Speaker:: I allowed the hon. member
for Kamloops to state his question of privilege quite fully without interrupting him. I do not think I should allow any further debate at this time. If the hon. member for Eglinton has a question to submit to the ministry he can do so on the orders of the day.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is not a question to the
ministry. It is a question of privilege arising out of something that has been said on the floor of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: This matter was raised by
the hon. member for Kamloops the other day and it was for that reason that I allowed the hon. member for Halifax to reply. I do not think I should allow further discussion on it at this time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I am not
seeking to discuss it. It is a question of privilege based on something that arose as a result of what was said by the hon. member for Kamloops.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member would
like to raise the question on the orders of the day I will allow him to do so.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is not a question, Mr. Speaker; it is a matter of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: If it arises out of the
question of privilege that has been raised by the hon. member for Halifax, I cannot allow it at this time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is something that relates to what was said by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. My point is this-


Mr. Speaker:: I did not hear what was
said by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I think the matter can stand until orders of the day.


Donald Methuen Fleming: With the greatest respect-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Casselman:: Don't steamroller us.


Mr. Speaker:: Presenting reports by standing and select committees.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I desire to make a statement relating to the marketing

of the grain crop. On February 18 and on February 26 I indicated that I was hopeful that delivery quotas in the prairie provinces would be increased very shortly. I thought I should take this opportunity of making a few comments on the revised quota policy which was announced yesterday by the Canadian wheat board.
First of all I want to point out that deliveries of grain in the prairie provinces are now nearing the 500 million bushel mark. Apart from the year 1928-29, this is the largest delivery of grain in the prairie provinces during a comparable period of time, and deliveries this year are very close to the level of 1928-29. Considering that country elevator capacity, after allowing for working space, amounts to about 265 million bushels and that about 135 million bushels of old crop grain were in store in country elevators when 1952 harvesting commenced, I think members of the house will agree that an amazing degree of progress has taken place in respect to the marketing of the 1952 prairie grain crop. With an early opening of navigation on the great lakes in prospect, there will be a large-scale movement of grain out of country elevators in the near future. The transport controller and the railways are already preparing for, this movement and the Canadian wheat board has adjusted its quota policy accordingly.
Yesterday's announcement provided for increasing the delivery quotas on wheat, oats and barley in the province of Saskatchewan to 15 bushels per seeded acre. This brings the Saskatchewan quotas into line with those prevailing in Manitoba and Alberta. In making this quota increase, the board is well aware that a large volume of transportation will be required at Saskatchewan delivery points to make these new delivery quotas effective. The railways have been advised of car requirements and have received a special list of delivery points where cars are required in volume. It is the intention of the board that the coming spring movement of grain to the lakehead and other destinations will, as far as possible, relieve the badly congested delivery points in Saskatchewan. In many cases this will involve the shipping out of all grain stocks in store at the present time in elevators and a large volume of replacement stocks.
Another feature of the delivery quota policy announced by the board has to do with the basis of delivery quotas from now until the end of the crop year. The fifteen bushel delivery quota now prevailing throughout the prairie provinces will be known as the "basic quota". In addition,

supplementary delivery quotas will be established from time to time. These supplementary quotas will be based on seeded acreages and producers may decide whether they wish to deliver wheat, oats or barley or any combination of these grains on the supplementary quotas. After supplementary delivery quotas have been in effect for fourteen days at any delivery point, such delivery point will automatically become an alternative delivery point. Under these supplementary delivery quotas, producers will be given more choice as to which grain or combination of grains they wish to deliver and it is expected that more effective use will be made of all available storage capacity in the prairie provinces. In announcing these changes the board also removed delivery quotas on rye.



QUESTIONS


DEFENCE FORCES


Mr. Harkness:: 1.	How many ambulances have been purchased by or for the defence forces, since January 1, 1952?
2.	What was the number of each made, e.g. Ford, Dodge, etc., and what was the price paid for each make?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Ninety-five (95) units.
2.	(a) Thirty-six (36) from Ingersoll Body Corporation, cars heavy ambulance, standard commercial, complete with metropolitan type body, at a unit price of $5,390.
(b)	Thirty-seven (37) from Flexible Funeral Car and Ambulance Company of Canada, cars heavy ambulance, standard commercial, complete with metropolitan type body, at a unit price of $5,950.
(c)	Twenty-two (22) from Chrysler Corporation of Canada, Limited, trucks ambulance | ton 4x4, M43, Dodge, mounted on M56 chassis, LWB, ST, 4 litter, at a unit price to be negotiated. Estimate based on last unit price $5,833.83.



R.C.N. AMMUNITION DEPOT, KAMLOOPS   CONTRACTS FOR BUILDINGS

Edmund Davie Fulton: In connection with the Royal Canadian Naval ammunition depot at Kamloops, British Columbia:
1.	Were one or more contracts let for the construction of magazines, auxiliary buildings, and water reservoir as designed by McCarter and Nairne?
2.	If so, when, and to whom?
3.	How many buildings of each type did each contract cover?
4.	What was the total estimated cost of each contract?
5.	Has the work or any of it been completed?
Questions
6.	If so, how much has been paid on each contract or portion of the work which has been completed?
7.	When is it expected that any of the projects referred to in part 1 not yet completed, will be completed?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	One contract was let for the construction of magazines, auxiliary buildings, and water reservoir as designed by McCarter and Nairne.
2.	This contract was awarded to Commonwealth Construction Company Limited on December 24, 1951, on a firm price basis as a result of public tender call.	[DOT]
3.	Six magazines buildings; one isolation building and one boiler house building.
4.	Estimated cost $897,335.
5.	This work is complete.
6.	The amount paid on this contract was $722,311.88 with a holdback of $47,466.80 which has not yet been released.
7.	Answered by No. 5.



PIER 3, HALIFAX  EXPENDITURES

Mr. Nowlan:: Exclusive of operating expenses, how much money has been expended for or in connection with pier 3, so-called, in the city of Halifax, since the pier was taken over by the Department of Transport in 1952, and for what purposes have such moneys been expended?


John Horace Dickey: Amount
Capital account	expended
Asphalt pavement laid on roadway leading to pier 3 and sheds 3N and 3S, and on areas behind north and south bulkhead wall	$ 32,539.52
Placing of additional fill on
berm of pier 3	 2,242.79
Shed equipment-lifesaving, fire protection and stevedores rest room equipment, auxiliary fire alarm system, ships' water supply meters, gangways, and ten floating fenders	 7,670.40
Maintenance account
Additional fixed fendering protection and minor maintenance items in connection with pier 3 and sheds 3N and 3S erected thereon	 12,264.71
Total:	$ 54,717.42
C.B.C. TROUBLE CARS, MANITOBA Mr. Dinsdale:
1.	How many Canadian Broadcasting Corporation radio trouble cars are located in Manitoba?

Questions
2.	Where are these cars based?
3.	What districts do these cars cover, and how frequent is the coverage in each district?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1.	3.
2.	Winnipeg.
3.	One car operates in Winnipeg and vicinity. The other cars are used for interference investigations in the remainder of the province, and cover all accessible areas. Coverage is determined largely by the demands for service. Visits are made whenever complaints are received, rather than on a fixed schedule.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS, EDMONTON- SALE OF PROPERTY

Mr. Thomas:: 1.	Has the Canadian National Railways sold any property in the city of Edmonton, since January 1, 1953?
2.	If so, was such property sold by tender?
3.	How many tenders were received?
4.	From whom were tenders received and for what amounts?
5.	To whom was the property sold?


Mr. Benidickson:: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	No.
3.	See answer to No. 2.
4.	See answer to No. 2.
5.	Prudham Building Supplies Limited.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE, PROMOTIONS

Mr. Harkness:: How many officers of each rank in the Royal Canadian Air Force have not received a promotion for (a) three years; (b) six years; (c) nine years; (d) more than nine years?


Mr. Blanchette:: Over 9	9 years 6 years 3 years
years & over & over & over
A/V/M. .	2	6A/C....	... l	4	9	14G/C. . . .	... n	18	24	48W/C . . .	... 21	32	42	126S/L	. . 30	36	44	157F/L	.. 36	50	79	277F/O	. .. 21	33	98	285CIVIL	SERVICE	SUGGESTION	AWARDS	PLAN


Mr. Thatcher:: 1.	On what date was the "suggestion awards plan" for the civil service adopted?
2.	How many suggestions for making savings or Improving efficiency have been received to date?
3.	What is the amount of money actually saved so far, as a result of these proposals?


Mr. Gardiner:: 1.	November 28, 1952.

2.	None has been officially processed to date. The suggestion award board has held 8 meetings and has prepared a guide book and forms for the use of suggestion award committees. To date, 22 committees have been established in government departments and agencies. The suggestion award board is meeting with committees on March 10. The suggestion award program will be officially launched on that date.
3.	See answer in No. 2.



COQUALEETZA HOSPITAL-EXPENDITURES

Mr. Cruickshank:: What amount of money has been expended on the Coqualeetza hospital at Sardis since the fire, including any present contracts?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Laundry and boiler
house	
(Work completed) Water and sewerage disposal system. Alterations and new wing	
Amount of Amount Contract Expended

72,400.00	131.11
609,000.00	620.70



WITHHOLDING OF BUTTER

Mr. Fulton:: 1.	Has the government any information in its possession to indicate that wholesalers or any other commercial interests have withheld their stocks of butter to create an artificial shortage?
2.	If so, what is the nature of the information, and what are the particulars thereof?
3.	If stocks were withheld, is there any indication that there was any agreement, arrangement or understanding of any sort in respect thereof between the commercial dealers or interests involved?
4.	In how many places and by how many dealers was butter withheld?
5.	Has the government any other information as to how this situation arose, or in any other way bearing on this matter?


Mr. Gardiner:: 1.	No suggestion has been made by the government or any member of it to the effect that any particular wholesaler or any other commercial interests have withheld their stocks of butter for any purpose.
2,	3, 4 and 5. Answered by No. 1.



SALE OF C.N.R. STATION, EDMONTON

Mr. Harkness:: 1.	To whom was the old C.N.R. station in Edmonton, Alberta, sold?
2.	What was the price paid for it?
3.	Was the sale made by tender? If not, by what method?


William Moore Benidickson: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	Prudham Building Supplies Limited.

2.	$100,000 (inclusive of freight shed and land area of 1-9 acres).
3.	No. By negotiation.



POSTAL CLERKS, RIVIERE DU LOUP

Mr. Pouliot:: 1.	On what date did candidates for competition 52-M6676 for employment as postal clerks at Riviere du Loup pass their examinations?
2.	What was the number of candidates at such competition?
3.	Is the result of the examination known? If so, what is the eligible list? If not, when will the result of such examination be known?


Mr. Cole (St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville):: 1.	Written examination-November 15,1952. Oral examination-January 20, 1953.
2.	At the written examination-27. At the oral examination-14 called (1 absent).
3.	Yes. The eligible list for postal clerks, grade 2, Riviere du Loup, P.Q., is as follows:
1.	Snaidon, Joseph Louis deSales, 440 Lafontaine St., Riviere du Loup.
2.	Cote, Lucien Alfred, 74 Delage St., Riviere du Loup.
3.	Charette, Joseph Ludger N., 11 Durocher St., Riviere du Loup.
Questions
4.	Nadeau, Wilfred, 60 Raymond St., Riviere du Loup.
5.	Roussel, Jean Marie, 81 Amyot St., Riviere du Loup.
6.	Couturier, Joseph Roger, 26 St. Pierre St., Riviere du Loup.
7.	Darisse, Joseph Paul E. L., 6 St. Paul St., Riviere du Loup.
8.	Plourde, Joseph J. M. R., 46 Delage St., Riviere du Loup.
9.	Marmen, Joseph Rene, 29 Du Domaine St., Riviere du Loup.
10.	Courbron, Fernand, 17 Thibodeau Ave., Riviere du Loup.


Mr. Pouliot:: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I want to say that I received the answer from the civil service commission as soon as the question appeared in the Votes and Proceedings a few days ago.



POWDERED MILK IMPORTS

Mr. Tustin:: What were the total imports into Canada, giving volume and value of (a) whole powdered milk; (b) skim powdered milk, for each of the months since January 1, 1952?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1952	(a) Whole powdered milk (b) Skim powdered milk
Pounds	Value	Pounds	ValueJanuary 	
922	$ 811	-	$ -February 	
1,963	1,807	209,687	23,758March 	
134	160	600	46April 	
1,896	1,634	18,420	1,794May 	
1,474	1,289	24,230	3,193June 	-	-	-July 	
328	228	2,847	533August 	
1,081	866	46,460	7,567September 	
521	380	-	-October 	
3,584	2,801	10,111	1,896November 	
8,747	5,560	36,665	5,817December 	
66	78	17,584	1,796Totals 	
20,716	$15,614	366,604	$46,400



PORTLAND, BIG RIDEAU LAKE    DREDGING AND DOCK

Mr. Blair:: 1.	For what purpose were dredging operations conducted at Portland, Big Rideau lake, recently?
2.	What was the cost of such dredging?
3.	What was the cost of rebuilding the government dock at Portland?
4.	Were tenders called for the construction of the said dock?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	To develop harbour facilities in bay adjoining wharf.
2.	$6,920.86.
3.	$16,950.42.
4.	No, the work was done by day labour.



VETERANS AFFAIRS BUILDING, OTTAWA

Mr. Lennard:: 1.	Is the new veterans affairs building on Wellington street at Lyon, being erected by contract or on a cost-plus basis?
2.	If by contract, what is the contract price?
3.	If on a cost-plus basis, what is the approximate cost?
4.	When is it estimated that this building will be completed?

Questions


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	The veterans memorial building is being erected by contract.
2.	(a) Contract price tor general excavation is $164,940.09. The work is completed, (b) Contract price for the superstructure is $5,185,000. The work is under construction.
3.	Answered by No. 1.
4.	It is expected that this building will be completed late in the year 1954.



CHEESE IMPORTS

George James Tustin: What were the	total imports of	cheese into
Canada during the value and countries Mr. Mcllraith:	year 1952, indicating volume, of origin?	
Country	Pounds	ValueUnited Kingdom	
18,307	$ 13,959Australia 	
1,008	346New Zealand . ..	
5,958,925	1,652,886Argentina 	
138,070	54,704Belgium 	. ... 185	104Denmark 	
912,097	356,071France 	
74,544	43,614Italy 	
972,727	470,734Netherlands ....	
731,244	302,853Norway 	
47,312	17,577Sweden 	
3,427	1,419Switzerland ....	
2,666,844	1,728,956United States ...	
562,074	299,911Totals ...	
12,086,764	$4,943,134



IRRIGATION-SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN PROJECT- PUMPING STATIONS

Mr. Argue:: 1.	Was there a cost item for pumping stations in any earlier draft of the royal commission report on the South Saskatchewan river project?
2.	If so, what was the amount of such item?


Mr. St. Laurent:: 1.	There is no information in the possession of the government on which to base an answer to this question.
2.	Answered by No. 1.



IRRIGATION


Mr. Argue:: 1.	Did Commissioner Widtsoe object to certain parts of an early draft of the royal commission report on the South Saskatchewan river project and refuse to sign such draft report?
2.	If so, were changes made to meet Dr. Widtsoe's objections, and of what nature?


Mr. Si. Laurent:: 1.	There is no information in the possession of the government on which to base an answer to this question.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
[Mr. Lennard.l




Mr. Argue:: 1.	Is the report of the royal commission on the South Saskatchewan river project identical with the report signed by Dr. Widtsoe?
2.	If not, what words have been added to or deleted from the report signed by Dr. Widtsoe?


Mr. Si. Laurent:: 1.	Yes, with the possible exception of the correction of typographical errors.
2.	Answered by No. 1.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Edmund Davie Fulton: Since the establishment of the Department of Defence Production:
1.	How many contracts have been let for the hard-surfacing of parking lots?
2.	How many parking lots are covered by these contracts?
3.	What has been or will be the total cost under the contracts let to date?
4.	What is the total in square feet of the area of parking lots surfaced or to be surfaced under such contracts?



Edmund Davie Fulton: Since the establishment of the Department of Defence Production:
1.	How many contracts have been let for the hard-surfacing of roads at or in connection with defence installations?
2.	How many roads are covered by these contracts?
3.	What has been or will be the total cost under the contracts let to date?
4.	What is the total number of miles of roads surfaced or to be surfaced under such contracts?


DEFENCE PRODUCTION-HARD-SURFACING PARADE SQUARES
Edmund Davie Fulton: Since the establishment of the Department of Defence Production:
1.	How many contracts have been let for the hard-surfacing of parade squares?
2.	How many parade squares are covered by these contracts?
3.	What has been or will be the total cost under the contracts let to date?
4.	What is the total in square feet of the area of parade squares surfaced or to be surfaced under such contracts?


John Horace Dickey: Mr. Speaker, these three
questions on today's order paper deal with contracts for hard-surfacing of parade squares, parking areas and roads since the establishment of the Department of Defence Production. All construction contracts are the responsibility of Defence Construction (1951) Limited and the president of that

corporation has advised me that it is not possible to answer the details of these questions which involve four separate inquiries each, a total of twelve, except by tabling the following list of all hard-surfacing and paving contracts awarded by this corporation since its inception. These are all firm price contracts with the exception of items 29 and 30 which are in isolated areas and on a cost plus fixed fee basis, and No. 39 which is on a straight cost basis, being performed by the federal district commission. These firm price contracts are based on unit prices which include a variety of items such as curbs, catch basins, sewers, water mains, etc. Some of the contracts are completely new projects but in many other cases repairs to existing roads, etc., are included with new work.
Moreover, there is a wide variety in the specifications of the work required. Some specifications call for penetration, others for cold mix and still others for hot plant mix. It would be extremely difficult to determine the actual hard-surfacing costs on the basis requested because of the mingling of costs of related work. To obtain total costs of hard surfacing it would be necessary for the engineering department to review the tender documents of each particular contract, and then to analyse the progress claims which have been paid in order to establish the actual cost of hard-surfacing as distinct from other costs under the contracts. This, of course, could be done, but it would require considerable time and would involve the fulltime work of a number of technical personnel who are fully engaged on current work and not available for other assignments at the present time.
In view of this explanation, Mr. Speaker, I move that these three questions be orders for returns now tabled.


FINANCE
Mr. Starr:: What amounts of public money, indicating the department and source of each item, were held in suspense accounts at the end of each fiscal year, since March 31, 1949 and as of February 19, 1953?


Mr. Lesage:: Return tabled.


VEGETABLE OIL IMPORTS
George James Tustin: What were the total imports of vegetable oils into Canada during the year 1952, indicating volume, value and countries of origin?


George James McIlraith: Return tabled.
Motion for Papers MOTION FOR PAPERS


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Edmund Davie Fulton: For a copy of all reports, findings, recommendations or other conclusions of all investigations or surveys made since June 30, 1948, dealing with the army works services, the Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps, and/or the administration of the Department of National Defence, on which said investigations or surveys $1 or more of public money was spent.


Hon. R. O. Campney (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, this motion is so broad and general in its scope that it would be entirely impractical, if not impossible, to give effect to it. In essence it asks for a copy of all reports, findings, recommendations or other conclusions of every kind, of all investigations or surveys made in and for the Department of National Defence in the past four years and eight months which involve an expenditure of more than $1.
Surveys and studies are going on continually throughout the department and throughout the services-including the army works services and the Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps which are specifically mentioned in the hon. member's motion. Reports and recommendations are continually being made. These run into great numbers and are spread through commands, area commands, units, reserve units, the defence research board and all branches of the department. The preparation of all these reports and recommendations involve, directly or indirectly, of course, the expenditure of public jnoneys. Just how one would determine which instances would involve $1 or more I do not know. As a matter of fact, they are mostly made in the course of duty and are not segregated as to cost. Tens of thousands of files would have to be examined in service units throughout Canada as well as in the department to comply with this motion if it were passed. From the material that would be thus collected would have to be segregated all privileged documents. Added to this there would still be the task of copying, comparing and compiling all documents remaining in the category of reports, recommendations, etc., which would be required to be tabled under this motion. That would be a long and costly business as all hon. members will realize. All the work that would be involved, covering this period of almost five years, would mean either that many extra people would have to be engaged, or what is more likely, many persons would have to be taken off their present duties for a long period of time to the detriment of their regular duties in the department or in the services. This would

Motion for Papers
not I believe be in the public interest. For the above reasons, I would ask that the motion be rejected.
I might add, Mr. Speaker, that if the hon. member is looking for an alleged report to which he referred in the defence expenditure committee on February 26-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Ralph Osborne Campney: -and which was the subject of an article by Mr. Blakely in the Montreal Gazette of February 27-in which article Mr. Blakely purported to quote from such report-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Ralph Osborne Campney: -I would inform the house that no such report was ever made to or received by the Department of National Defence at any time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, it had occurred to me that since-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It has been brought to my attention that this motion is not debatable. That is correct, but I think it is only fair to allow the member who has made the motion to make a statement at this time. I propose to allow him to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
With respect to the argument advanced by the minister that the motion is too wide in its scope, I should say at once that it was not my desire to obtain copies of reports or investigations made within the department. I can quite realize that there would be an enormous volume of work involved there.
I have in mind reports made on the department by government agencies or private agencies-other than the department itself. That, of course, would narrow it very considerably. For that reason, I would ask the minister whether it would be acceptable to make a small amendment in the motion, which would then confine it within the scope which I actually have in mind. The motion would then read:
For a copy of all reports, findings, recommendations, or other conclusions of all investigations or surveys made since June 30, 1948 into the army works services, the Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps, and/or the administration of the Department of National Defence-
So far, the words are practically the same as in the motion on the order paper, and then these words would follow:
-by any agency or person outside of the department and excluding the R.C.M.P., on which said investigations or surveys $1 or more of public money was spent.
I might just say in passing, Mr. Speaker, that that would confine this to investigations,

reports, etc., made by persons other than persons inside the department. With respect to the report to which the minister specifically referred, if that report has not yet reached the department of defence it is another example of inefficiency in the government.


Ralph Osborne Campney: The hon. member has
drafted his motion, and I think the objections which I have mentioned still obtain in respect of the period of time covered by it. In any event, I would not be prepared to accept his amendment on the spur of the moment.


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


Donald Methuen Fleming: As amended.


Mr. White (Middlesex East):: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. McCubbin). Had I voted, I would have supported the motion.
Little
Macdonald (Edmonton East)
MacDougall
MacKenzie
MacLean (Cape Breton North and Victoria) MacNaught Macnaughton McCann McCulloch McCusker Mcllraith Mclvor McMillan McWilliam Major Maltais Masse Monette Mott
Murray (Oxford)
Mutch
Nixon
Parent
Pinard
Pouliot
Proudfoot
Prudham
Ratelle
Richard (Ottawa East) Richard (St. Maurice-Lafleche)
Riley
Roberge
Robertson
Robinson
Rochefort
Rooney
Ross (Hamilton East)
Rousseau
St. Laurent
Schneider
Simmons
Sinclair
Sinnott
Smith (Moose Mountain) Smith (Queens-Shelburne)
Smith (York North)
Stick
Studer
Tremblay
Valois
Viau
Ward
Warren
Weir
Whiteside
Winkler
Winters
Wood-151.
Inquiries of the Ministry make. I think it might be the desire of the house to continue the debate on the budget tomorrow and Friday. With the consent of the house I would move:
That in relation to the adjourned debate on the motion of the Minister of Finance that Mr. Speaker do leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of ways and means and any amendment or amendments thereto, on the budget brought down Thursday, February 19, 1953, the provisions of standing order 28 be suspended for Thursday, March 5, and Friday, March 6, next.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) in a position to say whether the applications that are reported in the press as having been made for television stations at Hamilton, London, Sudbury, Windsor, Quebec city, Saint John and Sydney, Nova Scotia, are such as, under government policy, would permit of private television stations being established in those centres?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I know nothing about the applications being made to the Department of Transport to which my hon. friend refers.


John George Diefenbaker: Then, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Transport whether, under the government policy announced in the speech from the throne, those particular centres qualify for applications for private television stations.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, this question is one which, normally, I should think would require some notice. But I can say from memory that applications have been received from at least two or three of those communities he has mentioned. I am not able to certify as to the others. I would have to make inquiries, and perhaps I had better do that and give a reply at a later date.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Righi Hon. L. S. Si. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, if I might have the unanimous consent of the house to do so, there is a motion which I should like to



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, March 3, consideration of the motion of Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the
[Stage Direction]
The Budget-Mr. Montgomery 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. G. W. Montgomery (Vicioria-Carlelon):: Mr. Speaker, just before the adjournment last night I had been referring briefly to the history of the background of confederation as it applied to the four original provinces, and the important place transportation held in those discussions.
This brings up the question of freight rates, which enters into the economy of our provinces by the sea, in relation to other parts of Canada. The freight rates are not the only handicap; there are other items which enter into the set-up, although I do not think they are so important from the national point of view.
The people in the maritime provinces depend upon imports and exports to a large extent, and are deeply interested in freight rates. This is particularly true of our farmers. And I would make special reference to our potato farmers, because potato farming is the greatest industry in my constituency. It is an industry which must depend upon outside markets and railway transportation. Farm machinery is imported to my part of Canada, mostly from central Canadian industries. As hon. members know, modern farm equipment is expensive and heavy, and this means that the freight charges on the transportation of that equipment constitute a major item in the cost of production.
Trucks, tractors, tractor equipment and trailers are all part of modern farm equipment. Then, to get a good crop the farmer must use fertilizers, and this product also is affected by freight rates. These freight charges become a factor in the cost of production.
The market for our product is most important, and the potato farmer must look either to central Canada or to other export markets. If he exports outside of Canada, the United States becomes his chief market- with the exception of a limited amount of seed. To get access to the American market our producers must pay an American tariff of 37 J cents per hundred pounds, on a quota basis; and for table stock that quota is in the vicinity of a million bushels, whereas for seed it is about two and one-half million bushels. This amount may be increased in any particular year in which the American crop falls below three and one-half million bushels, according to the September estimate. We find that in the last few years we have not reached the quota. But once that quota is filled, the American tariff against our
[Mr. Chevrier.l

potato shippers and producers is 75 cents per hundred pounds.
Contrast that with the position of American producers of the same product. They can ship into Canada their American potatoes free of duty, with the exception of about six weeks in the year. The American shipper also enjoys the premium, such as there is, on Canadian money.
This puts the maritime producer in a precarious position. So, again, I say the freight rate structure, according to the intention of the confederation set-up, should come to his relief and permit him to enter his home market in central Canada on a competitive basis.
From the tables I have looked up, the record for the years 1949, 1950 and 1951 with reference to table potatoes-because that is the item about which I am talking-is most interesting. If necessary I shall refer also to the position with respect to seed potatoes.
The record shows that in 1949 we exported to the United States potatoes to a value in round figures of $1,600,000, and that in the same year our imports from that country were valued at $872,000. In 1950 our potato exports were valued at $2 million and our imports $2,185,000. In 1951 we exported to the United States potatoes to a value of $1,120,000, while our imports were valued at $1,750,000.


Mr. Brooks:: That does not coincide with
what the minister said the other day.


Gage Workman Montgomery: So, taking these figures
for the last three years, we see that we imported into Canada $87,000 worth more of potatoes for table stock than we shipped out. And I should add, in connection with this, that the potatoes we shipped out had to reach the American market over a tariff barrier of 37J cents per hundred pounds while, at the same time, American potatoes, with the exception of six weeks between June 15 and August 1, were permitted entry into Canada free of duty.
Is it any wonder the potato growers down east feel that they are not getting a square deal? Potatoes are a product that must be moved within six to eight or nine months. With high freight rates and other charges, as well as growing competition in the central Canadian markets, and when potatoes may be shipped from the United States free of duty except between June 15 and August 1 each year, there is little comfort or stability for the farmer, and no assurance of a stable or even a small profit.
It seems to us that the government should make some effort to get Canadian potatoes into the United States market free of duty,

or on the same basis as their potatoes enter the Canadian market.
Then, we know that as freight rates increase they act as a barrier, and the potato producers in the Atlantic provinces become isolated from their home market. Every increase in freight rates means less income for our potato growers. This continues until the saturation point may be reached, and to a point where many may be forced out of the production of this valuable food product. Thus the door is opened wider to importations of potatoes from our neighbour to the south.
We in the maritime provinces feel that this is a national problem, that we are in the family of provinces that make up this nation, and that the spirit of the confederation agreement is not being adhered to.
I should like to refer to the recent increase in freight rates which went into effect on January 1 last.	How do they
actually affect us? Well, it will mean eleven cents extra on a barrel of potatoes moving from my constituency to Montreal, and thirteen cents on a barrel going to Toronto. That means anywhere from $27.50 to $32.50 more freight on a carload of potatoes. A normal car holds about 250 barrels. This represents the profit on two or three cars of potatoes in a normal market. It represents the cost of two-thirds of a ton of fertilizer. It may mean the difference to a farmer as to whether he should plant a crop or should reduce his acreage during the coming season. These are facts which our farmers have to face in future years if there is no change in this situation.
Hon. members may say that this increase does not extend beyond the Quebec border. That is partly true, but the fact is that the minute we cross that border the increased freight rates do apply. I am informed that the figures I have just given are the actual rates that shippers have had to pay. It will be seen why we in my province view so seriously this freight rate question. The economic unit which the planners of confederation had in mind and the markets of central Canada for the Atlantic provinces' products are disappearing in the realities of a growing nation. I believe that the problem of markets for the maritimes is a matter for the serious consideration of this parliament.
We depend upon the long haul and it seems that the railroads give little heed to the pleas of our people because the profits to keep the railroads in the black must come from this type of business. In the areas of short-haul traffic there is the competition of highway trucking and the railway managements are busy working out ways and means
The Budget-Mr. Montgomery to meet this competition. The whole natural scheme from an economic standpoint works against the producer in the provinces by the sea.
Referring again to potatoes, I would point out that we have to use the reefer car for which a fee is charged. I am sorry the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) is not in his seat. I want to say to him that it is not always easy to get these cars when you want them. I have here a resolution passed by the Northern Tobique seed potato growers of Plaster Rock, N.B., which reads:
Whereas: There is no reefer car charge in exporting potatoes, or any other farm produce to the United States of America, and
Whereas: There is no charge on reefer cars for shipment in Canada other than on potatoes and turnips, and
Whereas: There has recently been an increase in freight rates.
Therefore be it resolved: That this organization (Northern Tobique Seed Potato Growers) go on record as strongly in favour of abolishing reefer car charges completely.
Kenneth C. Machines, Secretary.
The charges may be small and may be justified from an economic or business point of view, but nevertheless they play havoc with getting our products into the home market on a competitive basis and permitting a fair return to the farmer, which is what every other worker feels he should have.
I should like to turn for a moment to another product which the farmers of New Brunswick were successful in developing, the bacon hog. Up until 1950 there was a good market in the United Kingdom. In 1949 Canada exported some $23 million worth, and in 1950, $24 million worth. Then apparently the market was lost because exports fell to slightly over $500,000. There seems to be no market at the present time and the farmers in the province of New Brunswick who had gone into the bacon business, feeling that they had good prospects, have been forced out of it.
Is it any wonder that the farmers in the maritimes consider that they are neglected? We claim, and we feel rightly, that there is an obligation on the government to assist in securing markets for maritime products that will give a fair return of profit and some stability. The home market is the best because it is more stable. But as the freight rate problem and transportation act as a barrier I feel there is a responsibility upon the government to seriously tackle this problem and reinstate and retain the markets of central Canada in accordance with the undertaking entered into at the time of confederation.
I associate myself with the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Riley), who suggested that the Minister of Trade and Com-
2612	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Cruickshank merce (Mr. Howe) should sponsor a trade conference which would provide us with markets. We are dependent upon exports. We can produce stuff down there if we can get markets. The farmers and those dependent upon them ask only for a square deal so that they can be placed on a parity with labour and industry in other parts of Canada.
There is just one more subject with which I should like to deal, war veterans allowances. So far this session we have not been told that legislation will be brought down to give relief to many war veterans who find themselves in very destitute or serious circumstances brought about by the ceiling of $1,200 on their total income. If a veteran who is receiving a war veterans allowance gets a small job he is discouraged from earning over $1,200.
There is another serious feature to this. A man on pension may have to go to hospital and while there he draws his full pension. His family might not realize that he will have that charged against his war veterans allowance when he gets out and they go ahead and buy extra clothing and food which they need. Then when the veteran gets out of hospital he finds that he has no income or very little income for the remainder of the war veterans allowance year.
I cannot see why this ceiling should not be raised. I have been one of those who have more or less advocated at times that there should be no ceiling at all. Very few veterans who can qualify for veterans allowance are able to earn a great deal of money. The Legionary, the publication of the war veterans, has advocated that the ceiling be raised to $2,000, and I think that is a very reasonable request.
There is no need of my taking further time on this subject. I imagine that most hon. members receive this publication regularly. If you read it you will see that specific cases of hardship are consistently brought before us. It seems to me that this situation should be dealt with right away, and I certainly urge the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) to give consideration to the matter at this session.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Speaker, as you know, I never break the rules of the house and I have never yet read a speech. First of all I should like to thank the Speaker and his immediate associates on the staff for the courtesy and co-operation they have extended to me, possibly because I do not break the rules. The other day my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Laing), was called to order by the ambitious young member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) because of the fact that, as the hon. member for Kamloops saw


it, the hon. member for Vancouver South had not shown proper respect to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) by addressing him as such. I want to explain through you, Mr. Speaker, to the ambitious young member for Kamloops that it is not always easy to tell from this side of the house who their leader is because they change their leadership so often over there. The situation has become even more complicated now because the mayor of Ottawa has announced herself as a candidate, I presume for Carleton constituency, and possibly she might be the leader. There is a Tory candidate in Ottawa West so it must be Carleton to which she is aspiring.
The other day in another parliament a man was called to order for calling one of his colleagues a stupid idiot. I believe that is not parliamentary, but I have looked at Beauchesne and May and I can see nothing there that does not permit anyone to think what they might think. Of course you cannot give a description of a member but personally I can think. I believe in the freedom of the press but I believe it can be carried too far. For instance, the Montreal Star said that the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) had a simple mind. I would not go quite that far. I think it is unfair. If the mayor of Ottawa should become a member of this house I would be a little worried.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You would be.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Yes, I am. I will
admit that in some ways the hon. member for Kamloops could qualify under what I am about to say while the rest of us could not. The mayor of Ottawa may decide to clothe us in these "Charlotte" gowns. Among other things-and I am only going by the press- the Ottawa city council is going to have three-cornered hats. The first thing that any man does if he is buying a hat is to see that it fits his head. It is not a laughing matter when 18 aldermen decide to robe themselves in this fashion and at the same time come here and ask little municipalities like Chilliwack to pay excessive taxes in order to increase the grant to the city of Ottawa and so that the mayor and the 18 aldermen-I am very interested in this-can be resplendent in their ceremonial colours of brilliant red silk, maroon and blue. I want to read what is found in the Ottawa Journal of March 3 because the people of the west, who pay most of the taxes unfairly, do not get that paper. In it I find the following: Resplendent in their ceremonial colours of brilliant red silk, maroon and blue, tricorn and cockaded hats, their trimmings of gold lace, ermine and velvet-

I should like to see some of them in that lace.
-Ottawa city council will be on public view some time towards the end of May.
Then there is a further description of what they will wear. I am sure this will look fine. The mayor's costume is described as follows:
Red silk floor length gown, faced with miniver fur, which Mayor Whitton defined as "summer ermine"-
I do not know what summer ermine is unless it grows out in Carleton.
-black satin and gold-stripe sleeve borders; lace ruffled jabot at the throat; three-cornered hat with gold trim; chain of office.
Then I come to the controllers. Incidentally, Ottawa is the city that wants us to increase their grant by $1 million and yet they have 18 aldermen, I do not know how many controllers, and a mayor. We are able to run the third city of Canada, which is also a great seaport, with one mayor and eight aldermen. But what are the controllers and aldermen going to wear?
Controllers; Maroon gown of panama cloth, faced with gold lace; cockaded hat with band of gold knitted buttons.
Aldermen: Blue gown of panama cloth, with black velvet facing and sleeve borders; cockaded hat with black band.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that of all things you have stuck up for the clerk of the house, and I think the clerk of the city of Ottawa is being unfairly treated. This is the description of what he is going to wear:
Black gown of corded silk, with ruffled sleeves. No hat.
That is not fair. Imagine how that can be carried to the extreme if the mayor and the aldermen in their gorgeous uniforms, and I have no doubt followed by their staff in Bikini bathing suits, once a month make a pilgrimage around the town looking for a site for a city hall for which they want us to pay. If by any misfortune we should ha-ve a certain member of that council in this house she might want to put us in uniform. Just imagine how ridiculous it would look. When we go over to the other place we walk down the hallway together irrespective of party. Suppose the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), who stretches one way, and the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Gauthier) and myself, who stretch in another direction, were to parade down the hallway in these uniforms. It is utter nonsense, but apparently it is an example of Tory thought spreading from this house out in the city.
I want to speak about the budget for a few minutes. I do not want to take up too much time on it. You need not laugh yet.
The Budget-Mr. Cruickshank I could have brought down the only satisfactory budget so far as the people of Canada are concerned because I would have wiped out all taxes. You may wonder how I could do that.


Mr. Sinclair:: Social Credit.


George Alexander Cruickshank: It is a very simple matter. I would go to the financial critic of the Social Credit party, borrow their machine and manufacture as much money as we needed.


Mr. Wylie:: You are being silly now.


George Alexander Cruickshank: If I am, it is the only language you understand. As to the financial critic of the Conservative party, apparently he agrees with me that this is an excellent budget because he says the vast majority of the people of Canada approve of it. He said it is an election budget. Certainly if it is an election budget we can expect the vast majority of the people to approve of it.


Mr. Mclvor:: It is a good one.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Certainly it is a good one. What do the C.C.F. think of the budget? The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) is their financial critic, and admittedly is best fitted for the job. I always believe in building up a person before I tear him down. This is what the Calgary Herald-has to say about him:
We do not pretend to know how Ross Thatcher, C.C.F. member for Moose Jaw, ever became a member of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, still less how he remains one; but we hold Mr. Thatcher in very high regard. In the past few months he has given voice to more good sense about the need for genuine economy in government than all the other members of the House of Commons put together.
Is that not giving him a fair break? Of course there are other quotations. I have one from the Trail Daily Times of December 12, 1952. Trail is one of the leading cities in the province of British Columbia. It reads as follows:
From time to time politicians find themselves embarrassed because their political philosophy is out of tune with some particular interest which they are supporting. Take, for instance, the recent case of Ross Thatcher, who is the C.C.F. member for Moose Jaw in the dominion House of Commons.
I am not going to read it all. The last paragraph reads as follows:
Mr. Thatcher of course was attacking the fiscal policy of the Liberal administration not so much as a C.C.F.'er but as a businessman who could see the fallacy of overtaxation. Unfortunately Mr. Thatcher does not carry his reasoning to the ultimate conclusion which is that business and socialism just aren't compatible.
Then there is another brief quotation to be found in the Sentinel of February 23, which I understand is the joint newspaper
2614	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Cruickshank of the Conservative-Social Credit party. It reads as follows:
Regardless of Canada's present financial stability, there is a growing hesitancy on the part of Canadian businessmen to expand, and this is having a detrimental effect upon our business activity.
High taxation is bringing the small business man to his knees. If a new expansion project is successful-
I am quoting the member for Moose Jaw.
-the government takes 52 per cent of the profits but if the project is a failure the financial stability of the whole organization may be jeopardized.
Every member of parliament, Mr. Speaker, dreams of having his name appear in Time magazine. I quite well remember when I had the great honour of appearing in Time magazine twice, and how envious my good friend, then a junior member and now the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair), was.


James Sinclair: Nonsense.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Every member wants his name to appear in Time magazine.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Tell us how you got yours in.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Just by making a
sensible speech, as I am making now-something I hope you will emulate at a future date.
The article reads:
The Colonel Blimps of socialism sputtered with rage. Gad, sir, it was almost too much to bear. Rebellion-or something dashed close to it- had struck in the ranks of the C.C.F., Canada's socialist party. The culprit: Ross Thatcher, the hon. member for Moose Jaw.
Thatcher caused the furor with a parliamentary speech on Canada's $4-5 billion budget. When Finance Minister Douglas Abbott invited suggestions for budget economies, Thatcher took him at his word. He suggested cuts in the appropriations for old-age pensions and baby bonuses, . . .
As I say, every member likes to get his name in Time magazine but the member for Moose Jaw surpasses us in that. No doubt it is because he is considered to be among the ten best dressed men in Canada- and here he also has his picture, dressed as a western Saskatchewan millionaire should be dressed. The heading above the picture is "The	Parliament-Maverick from Moose
Jaw." I will not go any further than that; it would not be fair, although there is a lot more beneath.
Now I want to say something about the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). When I first came here in 1940 I sat over in the rump.


An hon. Member:: You are still there.


George Alexander Cruickshank: There were many distinguished members there at the time, and I was surrounded by a galaxy of stars who have since risen to great heights. We did


not have much else to do in the first two or three weeks we were here so we played a little game, a little contest of our own, to select the man most likely to succeed. I understand they do that at universities, select in the year the man most likely to succeed. We picked the present Minister of Finance and although we did not know him personally at that time, we have had no occasion to regret the choice. I believe that the present Minister of Finance is one of the finest ministers of finance that we have ever been privileged to have.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I want you to notice those words, and I hope the present parliamentary assistant is listening with a great deal of attention to what I say. I said we have one of the finest ministers of finance that we have ever had. I believe that, and I also believe that he has an excellent opportunity to be a great minister of finance.
He can be a great minister of finance and his name would really go down in history, because there is still time to amend the budget. I believe that the Minister of Finance, an old soldier himself, is a humanitarian and that he should take some action on the war veterans allowance at this session and not at the next session. He will become a great minister of finance if he does that. He has demonstrated this feature by reducing our debt and reducing our taxation.
I believe that as far as the people in my riding are concerned we would have been willing to continue this year to pay a little extra tax if the minister had removed the means test from pensions for the blind. I can see no reason why the Minister of Finance, this government and this parliament have as	yet not	taken	that	action. I
sincerely hope they will.
As I come from a dairying district I want to say something about dairy and milk producers. I am very proud of the fact that I represent milk producers. I am going to quote a few figures, although I do not like to quote figures, just to show how important the dairy	industry	is to	the economy ofCanada.	At the	present	time	we haveroughly 450,000 dairy farmers in Canada. We have	2,968,000	dairy	cattle	and their
value to the commerce of Canada was $750 million last year. Too often hon. members forget that fact. There is a great value to the economy of Canada in the dairy industry. We produce over 1J billion gallons of milk; 281 million pounds of butter; 65 million pounds of Cheddar cheese; 41 million pounds

of processed cheese; 217 million pints of ice cream; 348 million pounds of concentrated whole milk products; and 121 million pounds of concentrated milk by-products.
The reason I want to put these figures on the record, Mr. Speaker, is that I honestly believe too few members realize their value. I am not depreciating the value of various industries in Canada to our economy but I am afraid that too many members do not realize the value of the dairy industry to Canada.
I am not going to say anything at any length about margarine because I have expressed my opinion on margarine here before. I do, however, want to point back to the fact that some years ago, when the supreme court first gave their ruling in connection with margarine-and if you will check back on Hansard you will find this-I stated that the fact that they would be able to make synthetic butter was not the most serious matter facing the dairy industry. I said that the very ruling by the supreme court led to the fact that other by-products, even fluid milk, could be manufactured from oils. That has been done in the city of Toronto already. Fluid milk has been manufactured.
I am sorry to say that at that time, and it is a matter of record on Hansard, I particularly appealed to some of my colleagues from Ontario and Quebec. I even went further-I begged some of them to back me up

and I do not like begging; because I could see exactly what was going to happen.
We have followed out the disastrous effect that margarine has had on the dairy industry in Canada, but it is here to stay, and I am not going to take more time in discussing it. Fortunately a few other members and a few leaders have seen the value of the dairy industry to Canada and at least three provinces, including my own, have brought down legislation that prohibits the manufacture of ice cream, whipping cream and other dairy products from synthetic oils. Enough damage has been done to the dairy farmer already and if action is not taken on behalf of the dairy industry in other provinces that industry will be ruined.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to discuss another matter that particularly affects my riding, and I make no apology when I refer to my riding. I was elected to represent those people to the best of my ability and, of course, to go along with any legislation I thought was in the best interests of my province and Canada as a whole.
In my particular riding the most important thing facing us now is dike and river bank erosion. Here again I am sorry that I have
The Budget-Mr. Cruickshank
not had the co-operation of some members from whom I think I should have had it. I am sorry that I have not had co-operation from the mayors of the cities of Vancouver and New Westminster, their boards of trade and other important organizations. You have heard a little discussion in this house about the disastrous effects of the strike of the grain handlers in the cities of Vancouver and New Westminster. Mr. Speaker, they would amount to nothing compared with what occurred when our dike was out. That was proven in the disastrous flood of 1948. It is nothing compared to our two great trans-Canada railways being out.
Just before I came into the chamber I heard certain news about Russia. Nobody knows what is going to happen in international affairs. Nobody knows what we may need in the way of supplies on our trans-Canada railroads and highways to the Pacific coast in the month of June to help our allies and ourselves in Korea. I would say to the people of British Columbia, no matter from what part they may come, I would say to the members from western Canada in particular; your terminals in North Vancouver, the cities of Vancouver or New Westminster, your great industrial development on the Pacific coast, are of no value to you if we do not protect these railways. I believe this is the most important thing, not only for the Fraser valley but for the entire province of British Columbia.
To show you that this matter has not been just taken up now, I am going to read a letter from myself to the Right Hon. Mackenzie King dated June 10, 1936. It is quite lengthy, so I shall only read part of it but I want you to follow the date; that is the reason I am quoting it:
If the Matsqui dike fails to hold annual spring freshets, the Canadian National Railways main line will be out of action for several weeks.
This I consider warrants my asking your personal attention to the necessity of consideration of essential and economical safeguards we have been asking for during the past many years.
That is all I shall read from that letter, but I want you to notice those dates. I am going to quote a telegram I sent to the then prime minister of Canada, Mr. King, on February 3, 1937, eleven years before the disastrous floods of 1948. I am going to put this telegram on the record because I hope every member from British Columbia will co-operate with me in seeing, not that my riding alone is protected, but that the economy of their own ridings is protected, by getting action in this connection. The telegram reads:
Request your serious consideration my requests re Matsqui dike June 10, 1936. Surely not policy government to allow yearly repetition of floods. Last damage from winter flood cost government

The Budget-Mr. Cruickshank over $500,000. Matsqui dike and farmers within saved again last year as in Ohio floods, by emergency sand bags. $50,000 would save $1,500,000 damage. Surely present situation in states warrants consideration-loss	of homes, possible lives,
monetary damage, consequent appeal Red Cross- not consistent with Canadian ideals of justice when possible to prevent same. Urgent work be undertaken before spring freshet.
That was signed by myself as reeve of Matsqui. I am very proud, Mr. Speaker, that I have here letters from the members then representing constituencies in British Columbia, endorsing what I said and offering every assistance. I have letters from Mr. T. Reid, now a senator; Hon. Harry H. Stevens, then a member; the late Mr. J. S. Woods-worth, then leader of the C.C.F. party; Mr. A. W. Neill; Mr. H. J. Barber; the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis). Those letters contain offers to do everything possible to assist, and that was in February, 1937. My reason for introducing those letters is to prove that this is not a new idea, not a new request. It now amounts to a demand.
Here is a letter that I received on June 17, 1936. It reads:
Dear Sir:
The Prime Minister has asked me to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of June 10, with respect to safeguarding measures in connection with the Matsqui dike.
Mr. King has noted the representations contained in your letter, and is bringing them to the attention of the Hon. C. D. Howe, Minister of Railways and Canals.
That was on June 17, 1936, and that minister is still here. I have a reply from him which reads as follows:
Your telegram of February 3, regarding the Matsqui dike, to the honourable the Prime Minister has been referred by him to me.
Your request, as I understand it, is that the board of railway commissioners shall be given power to compel the Canadian Pacific Railway to contribute towards the maintenance of this dike.
The powers of the railway commission are now defined by the Railway Act; therefore an extension of these powers would require an amendment of this act. Any such amendment to extend1 the duties of the board would have to be based on general necessities throughout the whole of Canada and could not, I think, be based on one specific case such as you mention.
Now, I think I have something in that connection from the then board of railway commissioners which is rather interesting. I am sorry to delay things by doing this, Mr. Speaker, but the matter is of vital importance to the people I represent and, I believe, to the people of Canada as a whole. Apparently I have not that letter from the board of railway commissioners. I believe the chairman, Mr. Carvell, at that time said that in his opinion the Canadian Pacific Railway had a bounden duty to protect not only the


farmers' dikes but their own interests. Unfortunately, he did not have the authority to order the work but if he had-his exact words were:
If I had it, I would not hesitate for one minute to order them to bear their fair share of the cost.
That was in 1936, and nothing has been done as yet.
Here is a rather interesting letter because it comes from a department that has, at odd times, given me a few dollars-I do not mean given me, but the people of my riding. This letter comes from the Department of Public Works. This Department of Public Works is a very interesting place to approach, because they have more languages and more means of saying yes and meaning no than any other branch. This letter is dated February 12, 1937, and reads as follows:
Your telegram of February 3 to the right honourable the Prime Minister in regard to Matsqui dike, has been referred to the Minister of Public Works for consideration.
The department has no appropriation available to undertake the work suggested in your telegram. However, the engineering branch has been instructed to submit a report, and when this is received the matter will have most careful consideration.
That letter was signed by E. Fournier, private secretary. Apparently today, in a spirit of evolution, we have a different initial and a different position.
I want to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that I am appealing particularly to my colleagues in western Canada. You will note that in 1937 I said $50,000 could possibly obviate $1,500,000 of future costs. In 1948 this government, on behalf of the people of Canada, had to put up $10 million for the dikes in the Fraser valley. Those dikes, and I want to repeat this, were never constructed solely to protect the farmers behind them. They are to protect the whole economy of the Pacific coast, and those of you in central Canada who ship goods to the Pacific coast. Do not forget that. What we are asking and what we have been asking is an expenditure of say $100,000 as insurance to protect $10 million. I do not think you would believe me, except for the fact that I can produce estimates and records to show that, year in and year out, we have fought hard to get $5,000 or $7,000 to protect the $10 million investment made to build the dikes in 1948. Surely that is not good enough.
We have one dredge out there which belongs to the government. It is on the Fraser river, and that is within the jurisdiction of the federal authority. This dredge is over 40 years old, and it can only handle 400 yards of dirt in a day-that is when it is not in for repairs, as it is most of the time. Surely that is not good enough in this day

and age. I want to appeal to my friends- I hope all hon. members in this house are my friends-for support.
I am sorry the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) is not here. So far as the St. Lawrence seaway is concerned it will not contribute one dollar directly to my riding, but on behalf of the people of the riding I have the honour to represent I am prepared to support it because we consider that to be in the best interests of Canada as a whole. In the same way we are prepared to support the people of Saskatchewan in their request for a dam. It has no direct bearing on British Columbia, but anything that is good for one part of Canada should be good for the whole of Canada. Surely we are only reasonable in asking eastern Canada to look at our problems, not forgetting the fact that if the dikes are out, you cannot ship one car of grain.
As to the great lumber industry and the great fishing industry so well represented in this house by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson), not one case of fish or one carload of lumber can be shipped out of British Columbia if the two great railroads are put out of action by floods. In the interests of his own riding, the largest lumber riding in the province of British Columbia, he should follow me as soon as possible and say he will do his utmost to see that this government takes some action. May I say that goes for every other hon. member from British Columbia.
I now want to speak briefly about trade. I am not an authority on international affairs, nor am I an authority on military affairs.


Mr. Thatcher:: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Cruickshank: But I have had a great deal more experience in military affairs than has the hon. member who just said "Hear, hear".
I want to speak about what I believe is probably the most serious problem we have, something which is preventing us from having peace or what will really be peace. I refer to trade barriers. I know I have been accused of saying that a certain thing should be barred from the country, but I believe in free trade. I do not expect to see it brought into effect in my lifetime, but I believe that we should work to that end. There is no tariff I know of that is not causing an injustice to some individual or to some portion of our economy. I believe that tariff barriers have been the cause of distrust among nations more than anything else. There is one thing that is probably affecting peace, and that is that we who happen to live in what is a "have" nation are not doing
The Budget-Mr. Cruickshank our full share for the "have-nots". We have done much under the Colombo plan, but we should do a great deal more. I am not a financial expert-


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Cruickshank: By my good inheritance and success, some day I may yet own a chain of hardware stores. Notwithstanding that I do not understand financial affairs, I believe there is no reason why we could not ship our surplus fish, grain, cheese and so on to Great Britain and hold sterling as an investment. I am one of those who have not yet given up hope that the British empire is not going to fall apart and that the credit of Great Britain will be restored. If we cannot do it in that way, I should like to be told why we could not send our surplus grain, cheese and canned milk to Great Britain. Today the government is buying ten million pounds of powdered milk. Why could we not send it to the old country and store it?
I know something about war. I know at least a little bit about it; and I know that the cost of the loss, if war should come-if you look at it from a dollars and cents point of view-of two ships in a convoy would pay for all this surplus if we stored it in Britain and then, if peace should .come, threw it away. I think everybody will agree with me that the value of two transports would more than equal the cost of this surplus.
But, Mr. Speaker, so far as I am concerned there is a greater value than that. In comparison the dollars and cents point of view is immaterial. I do not care whether our surplus is sent over there and stored or whether under the Colombo plan we donate it to Greece or some other country that is badly in need of food, or to our starving allies in Korea today. If we wait until war comes, if it should come, and then attempt to send these goods over there, the loss of one or two transports would be far greater in monetary value than would be our loss if we dumped it. But so far as I am concerned the loss of the lives of Canadians who man one boat is something which is of greater concern; their lives are far more valuable than any possible loss in dollars and cents.
I think it is time we did something about our trade barriers, particularly when we have been given a lead by such a man as Mr. Henry Ford, Jr. Some thirty or forty years ago Henry Ford, Sr., was asked by a reporter of the Border Cities Star whether we could produce in Canada everything that went into a Ford automobile as it was produced in the United States, and he said yes, he could produce everything but rubber. This reporter asked him this question: "Why do

The Budget-Mr. Cruickshank you charge us $200 more, Mr. Ford, for a car in Windsor than you do in Detroit?" Mr, Ford, Sr.'s answer was this: "If somebody offered you $200, young man, would you take it?"
We now have a golden opportunity. In my opinion, the statement made by Henry Ford, Jr., will have a more far-reaching effect on trade barriers than any statement that has been made by any politician of any country in the past 40 years. I certainly want that opinion to get on the record. I only wish we had in Canada a great industrialist of the calibre of Henry Ford, Jr., or that we had a statesman who was also an industrialist of the calibre of Henry Ford, Jr. Do not forget this, Mr. Speaker; and may I say that I am not betraying any party secrets because I think it was not just Liberal followers who were worried but that every good Canadian was just a little bit worried about what was going to happen to our trade barriers when Mr. Eisenhower was elected President of the United States. Do not forget that Henry Ford, Jr., was not only an active worker on President Eisenhower's committee but also contributed heavily to Mr. Eisenhower's campaign. This is what he said:
Ford Urges U.S. Scrap All Tariffs
Henry Ford II, president of the Ford Motor Company, today urged that the United States take the lead in promoting free world trade by scrapping tariffs and other import restrictions.
He proposed this four-point program:
1.	"A new law without loopholes encouraging the most rapid possible elimination of all tariffs."
2.	"Abandon completely the quota system" on imports.
3.	"Abandon the buy-American Act" limiting government buying of foreign goods.
4.	"A workable law for simplifying the customs procedures", thus lifting "a virtually impenetrable barrier of red tape".
Ford set forth his free-trade proposals in a speech at the mid-winter meeting of the inland daily press association.
"We accuse our foreign neighbours of lacking the kind of spirit that has made American industry great. We implore them to follow our example and get off our backs. So, I just say, let's practise what we preach, where it will do us and our allies some real good.
"Let's give our friends a fair crack at the American market."
I think that is of tremendous importance at this time. Briefly I should like to quote a Financial Post editorial containing a statement by Mr. L. D. Wilgress, Canadian under secretary of state for external affairs:
"The most effective manner in which the United States can provide bold leadership is to reduce its tariffs further and to simplify its customs laws and regulations. In doing so it can require in turn other countries to give up those forms of quantitative restrictions which have been doing so much to throttle trade since the war."

The editorial continues:
In his recent message to congress, as well as in earlier references, President Eisenhower has indicated clearly his personal support for freer world trade. Whether he can convert the U.S. congress to his views, however, still remains to be seen. Within that body there is powerful opposition, remnants of the old guard which literally strangled world trade in the 'thirties with that colossal piece of economic stupidity, the Smoot-Hawley tariff.
Mr. Speaker, my time is just about up, but may I say that I think if we are going to show that we have great statesmen in our country and great industrialists, it is time we followed the example of Mr. Henry Ford, Jr. There is no reason that we should be sacrificed with respect to the price of our automobiles. If I mention Mr. Henry Ford, Jr., much more he may send me a Ford convertible to show to the people of Canada. If we had a statesman and industrialist like Mr. Henry Ford we would have the same kind of car, and it would not be dumped in Canada. I thank you for being patient, Mr. Speaker.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Will the hon. member permit a question?


George Alexander Cruickshank: Surely.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I wonder if the hon. member realizes that one of the reasons Canadian cars are so high in price is that there is a 10 per cent sales tax and a 15 per cent luxury tax which do not exist in the United States.


James Sinclair: Is that a question or a statement?


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad, if I had more time, to go into the question in detail with my hon. friend. I could even give Mr. Ford some advice. I could say that in my opinion the Ford car should be manufactured in one factory, the Mercury in another factory and the Lincoln in another factory. And there are lots of reasons for it. The hon. member is an industrialist, himself, in a minor way, and he has been doing exactly what Mr. Ford is asking us to wipe out.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: You did not answer it.


Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I hope some of the advice the hon. member for Fraser Valley has given to his colleagues today will be listened to and acted upon. Yet when the chips are down and the vote is taken on the budget, the hon. member and all his colleagues will support it. And there is no reason why they should not, because the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) has brought down a really excellent example of a capitalist budget.
I am surprised to find such opposition to the budget in the ranks of the Progressive

Conservative party and the Social Credit party, who are strong adherents of free enterprise and capitalism. This is a capitalist budget because, to those who already have, it gives much more; and to those who have net-and that comprises the great majority of the underdogs in Canada-it throws a bone. The Minister of Finance might have been kind enough to leave a little meat on the bone, but it has been scraped clean.
I said that this is a good example of a free-enterprise budget and, being such, of course there was an element of double talk in it. The most glaring example of that was when the Minister of Finance came to the house and said, "Not only do I have a balanced budget, but I actually have a surplus of some $48 million."
That, sir, was only achieved by some financial juggling, by taking $100 million paid out of the consolidated revenue fund for old age pensions last year and placing it in another account called "cash and other assets" and pretending that this amount, at some time in the future, would be repaid. As a matter of fact I am certain the amount will never be repaid; and I am sure that from the point of view of good financing this $100 million should have been charged against last year's budget. But if this had been done the minister would have been faced with a deficit, and he might have felt this would have been rather a pity since it is his last budget.
There is a certain amount of juggling of words, too, when the minister tells us that the index of consumer prices declined last year by 2 per cent. I say on the other hand that the price index was 2| per cent higher than the previous year. It so happens we are both right; for, although we are dealing with the same figures, we are dealing with different phases of them. The minister says there has been a decline, comparing January with December of last year. On the other hand, comparing the whole year of 1952 with the whole of the preceding year we find that last year there was an increase in the price level to the extent of 2J per cent, and not the decrease which we are led to believe by the minister has taken place.
This year he is budgeting for another surplus, and we are bound to ask ourselves where this surplus could best have been applied from the point of view of society as a whole. What could have been done? Could not the Minister of Finance have given more to help the blind pensioners in this country? He did not do it. Could not the minister have done something to help those who are incurably ill in this country, and have no means of sustenance? He did not do it. Could not the minister have spared a little pity for the burnt-out pensioners in
The Budget-Mr. A. Stewart this country? He did not do it. Could not the minister have helped the young men and women desiring to go to universities, by offering scholarships? He did not do it. Could not the minister have removed the sales tax and thus benefited all members of the community? He did not do it. Could not the minister have instituted a health scheme which would have been of benefit to all Canadians? He did not do it. Could not the minister, with this surplus, have given something in aid to the underprivileged nations in their fight against communism? He did not do it.
Apparently he preferred to give help to the corporations of Canada. I said two and a half years ago, when that budget came down, that more consideration was being given to the corporations of this country than to our fighting men. I repeat that at this time. It is obvious that the government is prepared to consider the men who are fighting for freedom in Korea differently from the corporations who are fattening on the sacrifice of those fighting men.
An article appeared recently in the Financial Post of October 25, 1952 under the heading "Ottawa Seeking Cure to Defence Headaches." One portion of the article states:
In some quarters there is a feeling that new incentives may have to be found. If schedules are to be maintained it is clear that priority must be given by industry to defence contracts. Over the short period this might be possible at profit margins which at present are ranging down to 6 per cent. But over the long haul the question is this -Can the industrialist afford to sacrifice his commercial business to this priority?
Let me repeat those words, "Can the industrialist afford to sacrifice his commercial business to this priority"-the priority, of course, being defence. Now let me use different words. Can the young Canadian fighting today in Korea afford to sacrifice his life to this priority?-the priority being defence. We know what will happen to him if he refuses to'do so. He will be taken out of the line and shot. But the industrialist at the hands of this government receives a vastly different treatment, for this year his reward for refusing to sacrifice will add up to some $85 million in tax cuts given by the present Liberal administration.
When I spoke two and a half years ago as to the fundamental immorality of this approach, I was challenged by the statement that we could not possibly increase the tax burden on industry because it would almost wreck it. It was also charged that higher taxes would kill incentive. Well, let us see what has happened; and for my purpose I shall take the years 1949, 1950, 1951 and 1952. What happened with respect to investment
2620	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. A. Stewart income? Let us see how incentive was killed here with a higher tax-which, of course, should have been much higher.
In 1949 investment income in Canada was $2,445 million. In the next year it was $3,148 million; in 1951 it was $3,667 million and last year $3,746 million. In other words since 1949, so far as investment income is concerned, comparing that year with the year just past there has been an increase at the rate of 50 per cent. And when we add up the table of investment income for the last three years we find it reaches a level of almost $10,500 million, a sum approaching our national debt.
I was told two and one half years ago that extra taxes would discourage savings by business. Let us look at the figures again; and, may I add, all these figures are taken from the government white paper. We see that in 1949 gross business savings amounted to $1,925 million, that in the next year they rose to $2,486 million, that in 1951 they rose to $2,505 million and last year they were $2,662 million. In other words, again comparing 1949 with 1952 there has been an increase in the rate of business savings of about 38 per cent. The total business savings in the last three years has been the equivalent of 70 per cent of Canada's national debt.
I was told two years ago that additional taxes would hinder the expansion of industry in Canada. Let us look again at the figures of investment in machinery, equipment and new construction, taking the same four years. The investment in 1949 in these fields was $2,226 million, rising to $2,415 million, rising to $3,029 million, and rising last year to $3,335 million. Again comparing the first and last years there has been an increase at the rate of 50 per cent. The money invested in machinery, equipment and new construction in Canada in the last three years was the equivalent of 80 per cent of our national debt.
The government professes to be alarmed about industry, and apparently it is ready to go out of its way to help the corporations. Why? In 1952 it seemed that corporation profits, after taxes had been deducted, were falling. Profits, after the deduction of taxes, in 1949 amounted to $1,175 million, rising to $1,467 million in 1950; they were $1,432 million in 1951, and last year $1,325 million. Perhaps that drop alarmed the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott); so what did he do? He gives back approximately $85 million to industry, which should bring its profit position back roughly to what it was in the other two years. It would appear that this government believes in a guaranteed annual income
(Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North).]

for industry, but it is lamentable that it does nothing to ensure a guaranteed annual income for the workers of this country. This is an example of Liberal justice, of course.
The minister professed great anxiety for the position of small corporations in Canada. Here I am going to depend upon a most valuable publication called "Taxation Statistics for 1952", which deals with the tax year 1950. On analysing some of the figures in this volume we find that 57 per cent of Canadian corporations earned less than $10,000, and that this 57 per cent pay only 1 per cent of the corporate profits tax. One would have thought that if relief was to be given to the small corporations, since they are the majority, it would have been appreciably more than that given by the Minister of Finance.
But he also extended aid to corporations earning less than $20,000 a year. In terms of percentages they amount to 72 per cent of Canadian corporations and pay a total of 2-4 per cent of all the corporation taxes. It is becoming more and more evident that whatever tax relief was given, it was not given to the small corporations. They are the ones who really need help. Had the minister meant to help them he could have given greater tax relief in the way of a differential to corporations earning less than $10,000, with a modified differential to apply to corporations earning from $10,000 to $20,000 a year. He could have recouped what he needed quite easily at the other end of the scale.
If 72 per cent of Canadian corporations are earning less than $20,000 a year and paying a little over 2 per cent of the corporate income tax, it is obvious that 28 per cent of the corporations are paying over 97 per cent of the taxes, and are in position to pay it. We can see that when we realize that slightly over 2 per cent of Canadian corporations earned 67 per cent of the corporate profits in Canada while -2 per cent of Canadian corporations earned one-third of all corporate income in this country. So when the melon was being split it is quite obvious that the great advantage went to the small minority of companies who are sufficiently big, who are sufficiently powerful and who are sufficiently wealthy. This must be another example of the Liberal concept of justice.
The 2 per cent of corporations earned some 67 per cent of the corporate income, or a total of $1,570 million; and perhaps for the record I should state that those corporations paid $534 million in taxes or roughly one-third of their declared income. It is quite obvious that it is not the intention of this government to help the small corporations, and I doubt very much whether it is the intention of the government, in fact I know

it is not the intention of the government, to help the small taxpayer.
When the Minister of Finance was speaking one got the impression that he was quite worried about the situation of widows and orphans in this country and thought he was going to benefit them by giving certain tax remissions, for instance on investment income which they might receive from Canadian corporations. As was pointed out by my leader the other day, those who really got a tax remission were those fortunate individuals who are receiving about $10,000 a year by way of unearned income from Canadian corporations. Under this scheme of Liberal justice they will have to pay no tax at all.
When we analyse the statistics of dividends paid in Canada we find that 30 per cent of the taxpayers in Canada-and as one would imagine, the top 30 per cent-get 90 per cent of the dividends, and -27 per cent get 32 per cent of the dividends. Some widows! Some dividends! If we want to put these percentages into actual figures, 6,390 taxpayers with a taxable income of almost a quarter of a billion dollars pay an income tax of $100 million, or roughly 40 per cent of the total.
As I pointed out earlier, the man with an independent income of some $10,000 a year from Canadian corporations is going to have a tax remission of almost $1,200, whereas the average man in my constituency who earns $50 a week for 52 weeks in the year, thus receiving an annual income of $2,600, is going to save three cents on every pay cheque this year. That man's tax would have been $55.50; this year it is going to be $54, so his saving will be $1.50 or, as I said, three cents on every pay cheque. That is what the average worker in North Winnipeg is going to save this year.


Jean Lesage: What is his family status?


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Married, with two children.


Jean Lesage: How much does he receive in family allowances to offset this?


Alistair McLeod Stewart: This has nothing at all to do with family allowances. Are you arguing that family allowances is a gift from the Liberal party to the people of Canada, or are they not given by right to the people of Canada by the parliament of Canada? Family allowances or no family allowances, what we say is that those who are primarily responsible for the production of wealth, goods and services in this country are getting virtually nothing. That is not quite right. They get a slap in the face. Corporations are allowed to start their tax reductions on January 1 of this year, while the individual taxpayer cannot start until July 1.
The Budget-Mr. Murphy
In Winnipeg there are 19,000 heads of families earning less than $2,000 a year. With prices where they are, how such a man can clothe his family properly, give them sufficient shelter and the adequate food which our own Department of National Health and Welfare thinks is necessary, is completely beyond the scope of my imagination. If help was required by the majority of people in Canada, surely it would have been advisable to give it by means of a cut in the sales tax and so provide benefits right across the board. Just the other day the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance told us that an average family might save as much as $15 a year had there been a 2 per cent cut in the sales tax. But the government did not choose to do this because it has no social conscience. It has no regard really for the needs of the mass of the people who are earning under $3,000 a year, and they amount to 75 per cent of the heads of families in this country. There has been no help given to them. It may be argued that they are getting some remission on the cigarette tax, but the people who smoke cigarettes are not those in the lower income categories in this country.
When one examines the whole budget, it is the sort of budget on which I should be delighted to fight an election. I can only hope that the government will defer the election as long as possible, because the longer they put it off the more certain is their defeat, and that will be welcomed by a great number of people in this country. Defeat would be appropriate, for if this is justice then it is harsh justice. If this budget is justice, it is capitalist justice. If this be justice, "then judgment has fled to brutish beasts and men have lost their reason."


Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lamblon West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take the time of the house for a few minutes to discuss some aspects of the budget. First of all I want to refer to a situation which exists in my riding, and which I think can be found in several ridings in Canada. We are very fortunate in having a crown company, the Polymer Corporation, which was no small factor in the winning of the last war. It was established at that time because of our shortage of raw rubber. I have at all times paid tribute to the foresight of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), and I make no apology for repeating that tribute in the house now because with that particular industry we have become more or less independent of raw rubber in Canada.
The point I wish to make concerning crown companies is this. Unfortunately we

The Budget-Mr. Murphy have had in Canada a more or less archaic law exempting federal property in any municipality from taxation, and not even providing for payments in lieu of taxes. In the fall of 1949 the present government, through the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), announced a government formula whereby crown companies in any part of Canada were obligated to come to an agreement with the municipalities in which they were situated on a basis that was fair and equitable. I should like to say now that I have praised that formula in the past. As I have said, the Polymer Corporation is in my constituency, and almost from the time I first came into the house, realizing the obligations falling on the different municipalities surrounding that corporation, I urged that some relief be given to them because of the increased cost of roads, schools and everything else involved in municipal administration.
It seemed to me that for several years I pursued a rather lonesome course because I do not recall any support for the idea; and I was greatly relieved, as were the taxpayers of Sarnia, when this formula was announced in the fall of 1949. This same formula applies to other municipalities in Canada, and in the current year the Polymer Corporation, which was formerly in the township of Sarnia, will be paying to the Sarnia municipal treasury some $260,000 odd. Last year the amount was $125,000 and the year before it was $45,000. That was the first year the corporation was in the city of Sarnia. Prior to that it was in the township of Sarnia, and I think it paid $25,000.
It is true that the Polymer Corporation appealed against their assessment this year, as did many other taxpayers in the city, but only a few days ago they announced the withdrawal of their appeal, and I understand that they are prepared to accept the assessment of the city assessor. In all fairness may I say that I think industries and other sizeable properties in Sarnia have received fair consideration because the city did bring in an experienced and well-recognized firm of engineers to deal with the problem of re-assessing property in the city of Sarnia.
What I have said applies to the city of Sarnia, and we are benefiting this year to that extent. It represents a good deal of money, but may I say that I have contended over the years since I have been in the house that crown companies should assume their responsibility in any municipality because they demand the same services that private or other public corporations require.
I do hope that principle will be further extended. I think every hon. member will


agree with me when I say that municipalities in Canada today find themselves in very dire circumstances because of the limited field within which they can obtain revenue. I have said before in the house, and I regret to have to say it again, that the time is almost approaching when it is hardly desirable for a man to own property in some cities because of high municipal taxes.
While we in Sarnia are going to get some $260,000 from this particular crown corporation, I hope other municipalities that have crown corporations will receive similar treatment from such crown companies in their municipalities. It may be that they will be subject to some pressure, but I think the government formula is acceptable to industry. I am happy to see that this particular crown company, of which I am so proud, has accepted that formula; and while they did not pay the same amount in 1950 or 1951 I can say that the management of the Polymer Corporation have now recognized their responsibility to the city of Sarnia and the city of Sarnia is grateful for that recognition, feeling that they are entitled to what they are to receive.
However, they have not gone quite far enough. I do not think any member of the house will disagree with my viewpoint when I say that crown property can be found today in most cities or municipalities in Canada, and it does not seem fair to me, nor do I think it would to any hon. member, to have two properties, one across the corner from the other, one being owned by the federal government and the other being owned by commercial people, both performing the same service, but inasmuch as one does not come within the 4 per cent formula the municipality does not get any revenue from the federal government.
I think today that governments on the high level must recognize the serious situation in which municipalities find themselves. They should, in all fairness to a municipality, give assistance in the way of relief. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that regardless of where federal property may be in the Dominion of Canada it should be subject to the same formula that applies to crown corporations. I do not think there is anything wrong with that suggestion. I am going to say that when this debate on the budget is finished and when the resolutions are being considered, it is the responsibility of the government to bring in the necessary amendments in order that relief may be given now.
I do not like the spectacle of the government refusing to give relief now in the form of payment of municipal taxes on federal

property and relief from sales tax on purchases by municipalities-I intend to deal with that later-and three or four months hence on the political platform promising to do these things if it is returned to power. We have had enough of that in the past, and I say let us have action now, Mr. Speaker. We can do it this session, and probably in the next week or ten days. I repeat that the time for action is now.
It has been customary in the past to make changes and I hope that the minister will consider these proposed changes at this time. I repeat:	Do not defer these necessary
courses of action, essential to relieve a serious situation affecting municipalities of this country, until the eve of an election, three or four months hence, and then hope to buy your way back into power by promising what I am sure is justified in the opinion of all individual members of this parliament, regardless of party. Action should be taken now.
I want to pursue this argument a little further because I think it is to the interest of every member in the house. Several members have already commented on it, and yesterday we heard a most interesting speech by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes), who quoted facts and figures which were a revelation to me and, I think, to all members. He gave illustrations which pointed out the necessity at this time for some action by the government to relieve municipalities of sales tax. Various members of our party have gone on record to that effect and it seems like repeating, Mr. Speaker, but I do not mind repeating facts such as these if repeating them may mean action by this government at this session. It oftens happens that these sound arguments bear repetition.
I am going to say, and I think I express the opinion of every member in the house, that in each constituency there are cities and towns which are faced with the necessity of buying large quantities of material in order to keep up with the ordinary level of administration. Those purchases are subject to the payment of sales tax. We do exempt provincial governments from sales tax, so I think we have a sound precedent. I hope the government will take action now and not wait until the eve of an election to promise relief for the municipalities. As I said a while ago, it can be done on the resolutions.
A few moments ago I was in touch with our city manager, and he told me that he thought purchases by the city of Sarnia last year which would be subject to sales tax were about $1 million. I will say, Mr. The Budget-Mr. Murphy Speaker, that I expected a telegram confirming the statement before this moment, but there must be municipalities in Canada whose purchases, subject to sales tax, would amount to a great deal more. Mr. Speaker, in these days there must be some relief for those municipalities and 1 would hope that, before the resolutions are finally disposed of, the necessary amendments can be made so relief may be brought to municipalities from this form of taxation, which I think is very unfair. I do not believe any member in the house will quarrel with that statement.
The figures have been quoted before by the leader of my party and by our financial critic when he was referring to revenue from the taxation dollar as it was divided by different levels of government. I think it is awfully important that the figures really sink in because they are astounding and astonishing. If there is a trend here something is bound to happen, and something is bound to crack. In 1939 the federal government took 51 cents, the provincial government 19 cents and the municipalities 30 cents of the taxation dollar. In 1952 the federal government takes 77 cents, the provincial government 12 cents, and the municipalities 11 cents.
Mr. Speaker, in 13 years the municipalities have lost the difference between 30 cents and 11 cents of every dollar, practically two-thirds of the revenue they were collecting. This cannot go on. It is no wonder that municipalities today are crying through their provincial governments to have a dominion-provincial-municipal conference; because if this thing is to go on, how can they build schools, how can they build highways and streets?
I do not mind admitting to the house today that in the city of Sarnia-and there we have a very progressive city, one that has probably grown faster than any other in Canada during the last five years-our municipal problem is so serious that when we were asked to build and construct a sewage system, we told the federal government that we were not in a position to construct a sewage disposal plant. That is the position we are in.
So far as schools are concerned, we know that we must educate our children. No one in this house or in this country wants our children to suffer from lack of education. The costs are high. True, there are some grants from the provincial governments, but the situation is very difficult as I have found it in my part of the country. I have been through a good deal of the western part of Ontario and those areas are all in the same position. It is becoming unbearable.
2624	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Murphy
I want to say too, Mr. Speaker, that the matter ot municipal taxation does not apply to cities only. I happen to have a little interest in a farm in a township. Four years ago the taxes were $57 but last year they were $197. This problem of taxation applies to farm areas as well as to urban areas. It is no wonder, Mr. Speaker, that there are leaders of provincial governments in this country who have been very much concerned about the situation. As a matter of fact only recently one provincial government appointed a royal commission to inquire into the situation. They have appointed a most responsible body of men to get the viewpoints of the different municipalities. According to the press reports this commission is to inquire into and consider the distribution of tax revenues as between the federal authority, the provinces and municipalities and school boards.
This situation does not apply to one province only, Mr. Speaker; it applies to every province in the dominion. I hope when this commission begins hearing evidence someone here in Ottawa will establish a listening post, because the evidence is bound to reflect the situation which so many of us have painted in the last few days concerning what is happening to the municipalities and the taxpayers in those municipalities. I repeat that if the government did nothing else by way of amending these resolutions-and they have already been amended-but take care of this problem, it would bring relief to the municipalities and would be greatly appreciated not only by those municipalities but by every member in this house.
By way of further argument, may I say that the various cities in this country have co-operated with the provincial and dominion authorities in respect to civil defence. It is true that many people believe civil defence is a matter within federal jurisdiction. After all is said and done, however, the municipalities have agreed to co-operate with the higher levels of government. They have pledged themselves to purchase equipment in order to play their part in civil defence. I wish to point out something that does not coincide with my idea of fair play. The municipalities are obliged to pay sales tax on the equipment they purchase. I do not think that is fair, and I do not think the municipalities believe it is fair.
There are a few other matters which I wish to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker. The budget resulted in a decrease in the duty on cigarettes. Reference has been made to this matter by other speakers from this party. I want to say that since I came


into this house I have made speeches advocating that the tax on cigarettes be reduced. I live near the border and, as a matter of fact, was in the tobacco business, wholesale, retail and manufacturing, and I know the impact caused by a cheaper cigarette in the United States. I advocated continually that the tax be reduced. As a matter of fact when this government increased the tax, Hansard will record my statement informing the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) that his revenue would be reduced because of the law of diminishing returns. He said he thought he was doing fairly well, but as a matter of fact he did not do so well, as the figures prove. I still say that so much of our population lies close to the border that, in the interests of the revenue of this country as well as the tobacco industry as a whole, the tax might well be reduced another $1.50 per thousand. When I say that, I am thinking of the tobacco grower as well.
Statements have been made before to the effect that no relief has been granted to the pipe smoker. This is true, but I hope even that may be reconsidered before the resolutions are finally voted upon. It is not everyone who can afford to smoke cigarettes at the price they are today, and many people do enjoy a pipe or even rolling their own cigarettes.
The radio tax has been removed. I have no hesitation in saying here that I, along with several members of our party, have advocated the removal of that nuisance tax ever since I have been in the House of Commons. I shall not make any reference now to the suggested tax on television, because I hope that will never appear on the statute books of Canada.
We have in Sarnia, as have many other municipalities, a number of employees working for the federal authority. There are the customs and immigration men, post office workers and so on. In this chemical valley most employees are on the five-day week. The banks are open for only an hour on Saturday, but I understand they are going to be closed all day before too long. I hope the government will give serious consideration at an early date to seeing that these civil servants are placed on a five-day week.
In Sarnia we are very proud of these customs people. I should not single them out, but for this purpose I will. The first people the United States tourist encounters when crossing into Canada are the customs and immigration men. It is important that we have good men. I want to tell the minister that he can well be proud of the officers, not only in the customs branch but

also in the immigration branch. This has been brought to my attention by many people who have had occasion to interview them when crossing into Canada.
Because of the publicity Sarnia has obtained as a result of the huge development of the chemical industry there, I want to mention some facts today which might be of interest to hon. members. Construction to the value of about $50 million is now taking place, and that is not a small amount even with the dollar worth only a few pennies. I hope that some time this year the members of the house will have an opportunity of visiting Sarnia. I would be very glad to see that they are properly taken care of, if such a visit could be arranged. Possibly there could be a boat trip to Detroit for a ball game, and then a tour of this industrial empire. I am not paying for it, and I shall tell you that now if you are looking around at me.
We do have industries there in which many people are interested. We receive Alberta oil. We have the Polymer Corporation. The Sun Oil Company is now constructing a $30 million refinery which will be in operation this fall. The Canadian Oil Company has just finished a $30 million refinery. Just this week Imperial Oil allocated another	several	millions for
improvements, in addition to the $14 million project now under way. I am mentioning these figures because they are important, and I believe many members would find a visit to Sarnia very interesting. I hope something of that sort can be arranged.
There is another point with respect to this particular area with which I should like to deal in the little time I have left at my disposal. We have under consideration by this parliament the St. Lawrence seaway scheme. I should like the house to know that 19,000 ships passed Sarnia in 1952. That may sound like an astounding figure, nevertheless it is a fact. I am sure that when the St. Lawrence seaway is completed that figure will be increased in no small measure. We have also, of course, the Blue Water bridge. Across that bridge last year came 910,000 automobiles. It is no wonder that I have always been interested in the tourist industry in Canada. I hope at a later date to make some contribution to that debate.
Mr. Speaker, I have just had handed to me a note which I wish to place on the record. It was a phone message and is to the effect that Sarnia's purchases subject to sales tax were $606,689, and their sales tax on that amount was slightly over $60,000 in 1952. That is not peanuts for any 08108-1674
The Budget-Mr. Murphy municipality. It is true enough that in my area we have a crown company but I have made out my case in the past, and I need not repeat it now, that they are making their contribution to the municipality. I think the greatest relief the government could give to the municipalities of this country, on the basis of these figures, would be to cut out the sales tax on any purchases made by any municipality in Canada.
The people out our way are, as they are all across Canada, concerned naturally about the budget. They woke up two or three days after its delivery and had a different opinion of it. It is true enough that they may have had a wrong impression the night of its delivery or the next day; but looking at it as they do now, accepting the bare facts as presented by the budget and realizing what their income is, they are disillusioned. Many of them are disappointed.
I want to say here that while the employees in Sarnia are drawing the second highest daily or weekly wage in the province of Ontario, there are many people outside of the city of Sarnia who do not enjoy that particular standard, and they are greatly concerned about the present level of taxation. Take the case of a married man with two dependent children; at $2,400 a year his income tax is reduced $1 this year. Take the man with two children and earning $3,000; he will save $4 this year. I understand that 75 per cent of the earners of this country receive $3,000 or less per annum.
However, we find that a man who may be enjoying, from dividends from Canadian companies, an income of close to $10,000-and who makes not one other contribution to his country except to sit on his big fat fanny and draw those dividends-pays not one single cent to the treasury of Canada. I do not think it is quite fair, Mr. Speaker, that a man drawing $2,000, $2,500 or $3,000 should accept the responsibility of the man who is fortunate enough to be able to draw say $10,000 and contribute nothing to his country.
The farmers in my section of the country are also discouraged. They know that their income is down. I am told that in 1952 the income of the farmers of this country dropped by some $25 million. That is a drop of 12 per cent from 1951. I could go on and mention other figures with respect to^ taxation but my time is limited, and I think our party has made an excellent case.
What concerns the little fellow in the back concession, on the side road and in the small towns and cities is this. What value are we getting for those dollars? They seem to have the idea that they are not getting value; and who can blame them, Mr. Speaker, for
2626	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Murphy getting that idea? Through the press, through the radio and through various committees we have had revealed to us what is taking place, and it is no wonder that the voter back home is just waiting for the opportunity to cast his ballot at the next *election.
They are disturbed when they read of a single nursery getting $250,000 for landscaping some defence property. They wonder whether that is necessary. A tile flooring at Churchill required a contract for over $92,000. They wonder about that sort of thing, because they do not have those things in their own homes. For alterations and additions to the officers' mess at Kingston the bill was $340,000. If the bill was $340,000, and it was warranted, let some evidence be given before this house that that expenditure was warranted and we will accept it.
Even the men in uniform are wondering today what in the world the government is doing with all this money. They are wondering as well as the taxpayers back home; and it is no wonder. We have eight prefabricated buildings in Alberta costing over $1 million. We want to know the size of those prefabricated buildings. We understand it was an enormous price. It is no wonder that we have heard about some 231 contracts on a cost-plus basis amounting to over $106 million. Those are government contracts.
I am going to say to this house right now, Mr. Speaker, that it is not too hard for an individual such as any one of us here to enter into a contract with a contractor, on a cost-plus basis, to build a home or a building, because we can give it the necessary supervision. But when the government does this sort of thing and spends the taxpayers' money, they certainly do not get value for that money. That fact has been admitted by senior officials of the government.
We find here 25 contracts for landscaping various government buildings at a cost of more than $1 million. At Wainwright, Alberta, for a swimming pool, $22,000 was spent; for a gymnasium, $280,000. For water at this camp, $1,830,000 was spent; at Whitehorse, $701,000 to erect 30 prefabricated houses. I know a little bit about building homes, Mr. Speaker, and I would love to get one of those contracts. If I did, I think I could retire from the House of Commons.
Five hundred huts were built at Bouchard, Quebec, for $3,555,000. They were not houses; they were huts. In my opinion, that is ridiculous. That works out at over $7,000 a hut. The sum of $314,000 was spent to


replace sub-floors in various R.C.A.F. buildings at Greenwood. Construction of a single mess at Camp Borden cost $560,000.


Mr. Byrne:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Joseph Warner Murphy: Does the hon. member want to build a hut? I have only about five minutes left. Will the hon. member not allow me to finish?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I should like to ask a question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Unless the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy) gives way, I cannot allow the question.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Go ahead. What is it?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I am wondering whether the hon. member can tell me how many soldiers are housed in huts.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I would say that it would depend on the size of the huts and on the size of the soldiers.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: It would also depend on the cost.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Does that answer the hon. member's question?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Very poorly.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I think the hon. member will have to accept it.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: You would expect that kind of answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I do not mind the interruptions, Mr. Speaker; I just love them.
This year the United Kingdom is to spend $4,478 million for defence, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell). This certainly impressed me, as I am sure it impressed all hon. members. Over there they have 880,000 people in uniform. We expect to spend about $2 billion, and we have about 100,000 in uniform. In other words we spend about half as much as they do, but we receive for that expenditure only about one-ninth as much.
No wonder the men in the services are disturbed; because after all is said and done, they do not get their dollars too easily. They, too, would like to save for tomorrow. I doubt, too, whether the small wage earners in this country will ever be in a position to save money, so long as this government is in power.
Inasmuch as my constituency is on the route of the seaway, and due to the fact that in a debate of this kind one may deal with a variety of subjects, let me say that we on this side of the house are most enthusiastic

about not only the start of the seaway project but also its completion. The minister is not in his seat at the moment, but I have brought up this matter before. I understand $300,000 has been set aside this year for harbour improvements at Sarnia. My suggestion would be that, inasmuch as the seaway project is almost under way, any harbour improvements along the 2,000 miles of the system should have regard to the whole system, if and when it is completed. I am one who believes firmly that there are some parts along that system which will be, so to speak, a second Ruhr. Those of us in Sarnia, along lake Huron, and especially along the river St. Clair, will probably find ourselves in what I have described as a second Ruhr in this country, because in that area we have those facilities so necessary for successful production.
As has been admitted by the authorities, we are the centre of the refining industry in Canada. With the projection of the facilities of the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company from Superior to Sarnia, with a capacity of
300.000	barrels a day, we have before us no small project. I think the planners of that project have in mind a greater and bigger Ontario, because in view of our recent expansion our refining capacity today is almost
100.000	barrels per day. I feel, however, that the possibility of a refining capacity of 300,000 barrels per day may be some distance in the future, so far as Sarnia is concerned.
With the output of this pipe line coming to Sarnia I believe Sarnia may become one of the first outlets into the United States for Canadian crude oil. Because of the low tariff on Canadian oil entering the United States I believe that we in the Sarnia area are in a position to compete with oil produced in that country. I would hope that before too many years roll along we could supply the great demand in Detroit, Cleveland and Toledo with oil from western Canada.
I think it unnecessary to speak at greater length at this time.
(Translation):


Mr. David Gourd (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments and suggestions on the budget brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott).
But first, I wish to call to mind the coronation of our gracious sovereign, Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada. The county of Chapleau, which I represent, is probably the youngest in the country, but it is made up mainly of Canadians who have been in this country for generations. While learning to love their country, they have also learned to respect authority, of which the crown is
The Budget-Mr. D. Gourd the highest symbol. Therefore, I rejoice that the coronation is to take place this year and I congratulate particularly the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) for his statesmanship in taking the necessary steps so that our queen may bear a title showing what she is truly for us: the Queen of Canada.
I listened to the remarks of the members of the opposition on the budget and found their criticism both destructive and inconsistent. This government, since it has been in power, has enacted various social welfare measures in order to give assistance to the less favoured classes, to those who need the help of the country and deserve it, while protecting always private enterprise.
The same people who criticized the government for having enacted family allowances and anti-inflation measures, in order to protect the less favoured classes against the rising cost of living, are today blaming it for granting tax relief to corporations, alleging obviously without sincerity that the tax reductions should have been granted mostly to the people in the lower income brackets.
The social security legislation enacted by this government shows that before anyone else, better than anyone else and in spite of the opposition of any other party, it is aware of the needs of the people and is concerned about it. Nevertheless this country has become great under a system of free enterprise and private initiative which is so much in accordance with Christian tradition and which constitutes our best defence against communism. Our government must see to it that private enterprise is encouraged. There is no better way of ensuring that those of more modest means, wage earners for the most part, will actually receive their salary which will rise as these private businesses develop along with the country.
Instead of attacking those reductions which were necessary for the development of the industries on which the prosperity of this country depends, the opposition should realize that the budget not only brings about an 11 per cent reduction in personal income tax which directly favours low income Canadians, but that it is directly favourable to the consumer in several cases, for instance through the abolition of the stamp tax on cheques, of radio licences, the reduction of the tax on cigarettes, etc.
I will give an example which shows that the low income groups of taxpayers are not as badly treated as the opposition would have us believe.
A married taxpayer, with two children and an income of $2,400 a year, will pay $15 in income tax, but will receive $135 in family

The Budget-Mr. D. Gourd allowances. This bonus of $135 is being added to his income of $2,400, and so on, according to the increase in family allowances. However, a taxpayer whose income is $50,000 a year, will pay $21,000 in income tax and the one whose income is $200,000 a year will pay $125,000.
I wish to point out that in my constituency, thanks to the Family Allowances Act, the government has paid yearly to those who have children, and who consequently need it most, the sum of $1,450,000 for 20,000 children. To our citizens in the 70-year-old category, the government has paid $900,000 to 1,875 persons and $100,000 to those between 65 and 69. In pensions to the blind, it has paid out nearly $15,400 to about 30 people.
Under the national health program, the government has also contributed $196,723.02 for the erection of the Hotel-Dieu hospital of Amos, as well as $291,138.82 for the erection of the Macamic sanatorium, not to mention $167,435.43 granted to the organization which looks after tuberculosis control.
Another group of the opposition takes us to task for not having socialized business concerns in this country. What better evidence is there that Canada was right in not indulging in socialistic experiments, which have failed elsewhere, than the political, economical and social stability and prosperity which this government has been able to give the country. The Canadian government has been able to reduce the national debt, from 1946 to 1953, by $2,285,000,000. Moreover, the Hon. Minister ox Finance has been able to reduce taxes, since 1949, by $350 million, not to mention the fact that our dollar is at the present time the soundest in the world, in spite of the tremendous amount of money which it was necessary to earmark for the building up of our defence against our outside enemies, and more particularly against communism. On this occasion, I congratulate the Right Hon. the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), as well as the head of the Canadian delegation to the United Nations, the Hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). I congratulate them for the part they have played as Canadian representatives, in the common allied effort, directed against the menace of communism, war and invasions, more particularly as regards the Atlantic pact organization and of the union of western countries. We naturally hope that, in a foreseeable future, the peril of communism shall have lessened sufficiently to enable us to reduce our national defence

expenditures, in order to spend larger sums for the development of our national resources, as well as for social welfare, more particularly for family allowances, old age pensions and help to the crippled and the disabled.
May I, at this point, urge the government to take the steps which are necessary to create a diversified market for our surplus production. My impression is that Canada has to sell to other countries about 40 per cent of its production. We have had, in that connection, many unhappy experiences. More recently, the monetary situation of the sterling countries, that of Great Britain especially, has created difficulties which justify the suggestion which I am now making. I praise the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) for the efforts he made in that connection recently, on his good-will trip to South America.
Mr. Speaker, the Chapleau riding which I represent is one of the largest in size and one of the most important in respect to natural resources, such as timber stands, mines, hydroelectric power as well as agriculture and dairying. That same riding is certainly one of the most important of all on account of the development which it is now undergoing and of its increase in population. The Canadian National Railways line crosses it from east to west, from Rapide Blanc to the Ontario border, the distance between those points being 365 miles. In the north-south direction, my riding is at least 200 miles long. I need hardly say that in such a vast area, the rapid utilization of our natural resources and the increase in population have created many urgent needs. Since I have been elected to represent the riding, the government have improved the facilities of the Canadian National Railways; stations have been repaired, a new one having been built at Senneterre, an important junction point. They have repaired or built post offices. They are organizing a rural mail delivery system, which will soon come into operation. They have installed, for our national defence, radar equipment at Senneterre and Parent. Rivers have been dredged in order to prevent floods, many wharves have been built or repaired along our lakes and rivers. Many buildings have been completed, cr improved wherever they were most appropriate for the welfare of our Indians. A school will soon be built in my riding to facilitate their education, the measure being one of many which the government is taking in order to raise the standard of living of the Indians both from

the educational and the financial points of view. Moreover, the government has given substantial assistance to hospitals and sanatoria in the county; it has also made certain grants for warehouses and, in order to help the agricultural people, it is also prepared to give subsidies, as provided for in the Cold Storage Act. Such facilities are urgently needed owing to the large agricultural production of Chapleau county. We encourage farmers' study groups, the agricultural society, the co-operative societies and public bodies to endeavour to obtain as much as possible by way of grants for the construction of cold storage plants.
If we take into account the size of my constituency and its natural resources, we can say that the progress made is but a beginning. For instance, when one realizes that the
65,000	people of my riding are living near the railway line that crosses the southern part of my county, it is easy to foresee the possibility of establishing hundreds of new parishes, that will add thousands of people to our population, as soon as we have the required transport facilities. We will need roads and railways. To cope with the needs, a railway has been built from Barraute to Beattyville; taking into account the distance it covers, it is the most profitable line in Canada.
Unfortunately, the extension of this railway from Beattyville to Chibougamau, is now long overdue; this delay is detrimental to the development of our forest, mineral and hydroelectric resources. There are at present along the proposed route of this trunk line, between Beattyville and Chibougamau, at least 80 mining companies, a great number of which are in operation while other companies are ready to start operations. I would like to mention, in particular, the Opemiska Mining-a subsidiary of Dome Mines-Chibougamau Explorers, Campbell Chibougamau and Merill Island.
Most of those companies have to resort to airplanes for the greatest part of their transportation. Moreover, the Opemiska Company is sending every day by road 80 tons of concentrates from Chibougamau to St. Felicien and, by rail, from St. Felicien to Noranda, to the Noranda smelting works, a distance of 800 miles which could be cut down to 300 miles and, according to the statistics I have consulted, the companies now operating at Chibougamau could ship by the new railway, through the trunk line I have suggested, a minimum of from 300 to 400 tons of concentrates a day to the Noranda smelting works.
This is only one aspect of the necessities, and of the revenues which justify the construction of this extension. There would be
The Budget-Mr. D. Gourd added the hauling of ordinary freight and thousands of feet of dressed lumber and millions of cords of pulp wood.
According to certain experts, the construction of these 164 miles of trackage 'would cost approximately from $85,000 to $90,000 per mile, which gives a total of $14 to $15 million. The annual operating costs and the interest charges would reach approximately $4 million. The same experts predict that the revenue which would be derived from the mining and lumber concerns: now interested in the possibilities of this area would be a little over $5 million. This would seem to ensure a revenue from the very beginning of operations for the railway line in question. Along with further development, it could be expected that the revenue would increase.
Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated to the house the various reasons of national importance which would justify this government taking up with the Ontario government the matter of completing the road between Norembega, in the latter province, and the town of La Reine, in Quebec, a distance of 47 miles. It is not my intention to repeat these arguments; I do believe, however, that the dangers threatening our country and the invention of modern weapons which have justified the establishment of a screen of radar stations, two of which are located in my constituency, require direct action on the part of the Department of National Defence in order to complete this road and establish a communication system between the two provinces. In a time of emergency and of national danger, if transportation by railway should become impossible, the situation would be ridiculous. It would be necessary to go down from La Reine to Rouyn-Noranda, a distance of about 100 miles, and from Noranda cross over to Ontario, take the Cochrane road and come back to Norembega, a total distance of over 500 miles. In other words, communications would be impossible.
We therefore suggest that the Department of National Defence should see to it that this distance of 47 miles along the border of the two provinces be linked at once by a direct road.
On numerous occasions, Mr. Speaker, I have suggested that the federal government should help our gold-mining industry, which is in dire straits because gold is selling at a fixed price, whereas labour, materials and equipment necessary to produce gold have all undergone tremendous price increases.
The government must, of course, proceed with caution, and I congratulate them for what they did in this regard a few months ago. I suggest however that they consider

The Budget-Mr. D. Gourd this question once more, in view of recent developments in that field, and that new steps be taken in order to cope with the further needs of the mining industry.
I would not want to resume my seat, Mr. Speaker, without mentioning once again, as I did in my recent speeches, the necessity for Canada to be represented at the Vatican state.
Well-nigh all the countries of the world have their representatives in that state; moreover, the whole universe recognizes, without any religious or national prejudice, that the Holy See is a factor of union and of peace between nations; that is why I am convinced that if Canada appointed such a representative it would be a help to our country and a contribution towards world peace.
I submit, moreover, that the present government would comply with the wish of most Canadians and would be following its usual "Canada first" policy if they provided the country with a national flag. We are a sovereign member of the British commonwealth of nations; by virtue of certain amendments to the British North America Act our Supreme Court has become the final judicial authority. The Queen's representative in Canada, the Governor General, is a native-born Canadian. So that it would seem that the creation of a national flag would complete the evolution of Canada.


Mr. Boisvert:: Would the hon. member allow a question?,


David Gourd: Certainly.


Maurice Boisvert: Are you suggesting an extension of the highway which now goes from Toronto to the Quebec border and from there to La Reine, in the province of Quebec?


David Gourd: What I have said is this. Norembega is about 22 miles from Cochrane and there are 47 miles between Norembega and La Reine. These 47 miles are therefore in Ontario. Now I explained to the Department of National Defence that if our country should be invaded from the north and certain railway bridges destroyed, no direct means of communication would then be left between the two provinces. I believe that if the province of Ontario does not build that highway, which should have been done long ago, the Department of National Defence should build it. Should there be an invasion and the railway destroyed such a road would be necessary.


Mr. Raoul Poulin (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, on February 19 last, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) made in the house a most interesting budget speech. Needless to say, I do not pretend to qualify as a financial expert


and I would not dare speak in an authoritative way about that document. I shall, however, venture some personal opinions on the budget speech, even though -they may have been voiced already by those who have preceded me in this debate.
In a first chapter entitled "Economic Trends", the Minister of Finance spoke of the commonwealth economic conference held in London last December. The countries member of that group then stated that their aim was, and I quote Hansard at page 2117: ... to secure international agreement on the adoption of policies by creditor and debtor countries which will restore balance in the world economy on the lines of "trade not aid" and will by progressive stages and within reasonable time create an effective multilateral trade and payments system covering the widest possible area.
And I wish to lay more emphasis on the last part of this last sentence:
... an effective multilateral trade and payments system covering the widest possible area.
Personally, Mr. Speaker, I endorse with pleasure that statement. I would even go further and say that, if Canada has to make financial and economic sacrifices in order to promote and extend to the greatest possible number of countries that multilateral trade system, it should not hesitate to act along that line. While I am speaking on that subject, I would like to say that I am pleased with the efforts made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) in order to increase and diversify our trade relations with Latin American countries. I believe that identical efforts should also be made to obtain the same results with countries in Europe and Asia, even if in trying to achieve that purpose, we would suffer a slight reduction in the volume of our trade with our friendly neighbour, the United States.
Nowadays, we hear a great deal about coalitions of countries, spheres of influence, the iron curtain, etc.-ominous signs of war. A good way to break up such coalitions, which are a threat to peace, would be to extend international trade beyond the protective walls of those countries or groups of countries, provided, of course, that this be physically possible.
We know from history that countries which engage in honest trade-I repeat honest trade-seldom fight one another. As a rule, war threatens only when such countries, for some reason or other, break off their trade relations. From that angle the United Kingdom is perhaps not so much to blame for having kept open her trading post in Hong Kong and for trying to establish commercial relations with the U.S.S.R. It is quite another matter when the United States send gifts to Tito, the dictator; here, transactions are

based on something quite different and they pursue perhaps a different aim.
However, if we are ready to make sacrifices in order to promote international trade, thus hoping to banish the menace of war, those sacrifices should be compensated in our country by a reduction of our defence expenditures. But the minister's recent budget shows that those expenditures will not be reduced by more than $930,000, or less than a million on expenditures totalling $2 billion. How long is Canada going to continue along that road? Have we not now reached the extreme limit which it would be dangerous to exceed, or even to maintain? Have we not come to the point where we are building up external security at the expense of internal security?
I am under no illusions whatever, Mr. Speaker, about the way in which these words will be greeted in almost every political circle, if, indeed, they are not merely contemptibly ignored. It would nevertheless be wise to remind ourselves that the most elaborate budget speeches, the most responsible, the most realistic and, let us say it, the most honest, have not always warned us in time of certain dangers, as cruel as they were unexpected.
And what with this exorbitant, and to me unjustified war budget, we realize with some
The Budget-Mr. Poulin bitterness that the Canadian people will have to pay more taxes in the next year than in the year 1952-53.
Certain rates were changed or reduced, but the amount to be paid is going to increase to such an extent that Canadians will pay next year, in income tax, for example, $1,350 million as against $1,187 million in 1952-1953. In excise tax, $280 million will be paid instead of $257 million; in sales tax, $590 million instead of $568 million. And thus, by way of comparison, Canadians of all classes will pay next year $335 million more in tax than they did this year. If this is made possible through a greater effort on the part of the Canadian people as a whole, the reward for this effort, it will be recognized, will rather smack of bitterness which will perhaps discourage them from keeping it up.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to call it six o'clock.
On motion of Mr. Poulin the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we shall continue this debate.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
2633
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March 5, 1953