1953-03-10

Hon. George Prudham (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege. In view of the interest that has been shown in my personal and business affairs, I think that I should make a statement at this time.
When I was elected to parliament in 1949 I was conducting two modest business enterprises in Alberta with headquarters in Edmonton. One was called the Prudham Construction Company Limited and the other, which is still in operation, Prudham Building Supplies Limited.
When I was made parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters) I sold, and was paid cash in full for, my interest in the construction company with the provision that when the current contracts were completed the affairs of the company would be wound up and the name discontinued.
From the time of my election until the company was sold, the company had no dealings of any kind with the federal government. Since the time of the sale I have had no financial interest whatever in that company or any other company or individuals doing construction work for the federal government.
Prior to the election Prudham Building Supplies Limited had the opportunity of tendering on federal government building supply requirements in northern Alberta and in the Northwest Territories.
When I first came to Ottawa I requested all departments of government to instruct their purchasing agents to delete the name of our company from all requests to tender and from all purchases. The officers of the company were given strict orders not to tender or to accept orders from any purchasing agent of the federal government. That policy is being strictly adhered to.
Prudham Building Supplies Limited was established in 1944. From a small beginning the business soon expanded to outgrow the original site, which is located between 81st and 80th avenues in south Edmonton on the
east side of 104th street which is the main highway leading south from the city to Calgary and the Leduc oil fields.
The company bought additional land on the west side of the highway for lumber storage. In 1946, three years before I was elected to the House of Commons, the Prudham Building Supplies company entered into a lease agreement with the Canadian Northern and Canadian Northern Western Railway companies covering the use of land immediately south of the original Prudham site and adjacent to the old station building and freight sheds at a rental of $125 per year plus taxes. The lease was later amended to raise the rent to $300 per year plus taxes and the term extended until December 31, 1955. There were also discussions about possible purchase.
During the early months of 1952 the officials of the Canadian National Railways informed the building supplies company that having completed arrangements with the city of Edmonton the railway was establishing a new freight terminal in south Edmonton and that the railway no longer required the station building for its own use and that the railway would consider selling the building as well as the land under lease.
The station building is a brick building which was built in 1913. It was built for the needs of passenger traffic of that day and, although substantially built, it is in need of repair and is obsolescent for the purpose for which it was built and is of very little use for other purposes.
The railway company informed Prudham Building Supplies Limited that as it had a lease on the vacant property that it would be given an opportunity to buy. As regards price, the agent for the railways stated that the railways would have an appraiser from their own staff make a valuation and also have appraisals made by independent valuators.
A few weeks later the agent of the railway companies informed the Prudham Building Supplies company that the appraisals had been completed and that the price asked by the railways for the land under lease plus the station building and site was $85,000.
After carefully considering the proposal the building supply company informed the agent of the railways that the price was unreasonably high and that the Prudham Building
2782	HOUSE OF
Privilege-Mr. Prudham Supplies Limited would prefer to continue as lessee under the existing lease with the railway companies, which still had almost four years to go.
After a few weeks the agent of the railway companies again approached the building supplies company and asked for a reconsideration of the proposal. The officials of the building supplies company, once again, stated that in their opinion the price asked was beyond reason, but that if the railway company would include the old freight shed and the property on which it stands the building supplies company would entertain a further proposal.
The freight shed is a building approximately 40 x 200 which was built in 1913. It is in a bad state of repair, having been built on a foundation of wooden blocks. Adjacent to the freight shed is a timber platform used for unloading purposes, which is also in bad repair.
After a further delay the agent of the rail companies advised that he had received word from head office that the railway companies would consider selling the whole property including the land, station building and freight shed.
Prudham Building Supplies Limited engaged Weber Brothers Agencies Ltd., a competent and reliable Edmonton real estate company, to make an appraisal of the property, who appraised the land, station building and freight shed at $88,300. The city of Edmonton valuation of this property for assessment purposes is: 1.88 acres of land at $4,500 per acre, $8,460; two buildings at $22,566; making a total of $31,026 for the entire property.
Early in September, 1952, the railways quoted a price to the Prudham Building Supplies company of $105,000, for the entire property. On September 16, 1952, the Prudham Building Supplies company countered with an offer of $100,000 for the entire property. This was later accepted by the railway companies.
The building supplies company has no knowledge of the appraisal made by the railway company officials or by the private concerns they engaged to make the valuation, but based on the appraisal by the Edmonton firm employed by the building supplies company, and comparative real estate and the city of Edmonton valuation, the company considers that it paid a very high price.
The railway company at no time indicated whether they were offering this property to anyone else. Prudham Building Supplies company did tender on the property and the tender was accepted.


At this point I wish to say that it was on my suggestion that an announcement was made to the press.
This was strictly a hard-boiled business deal for the railways. They were out to get the last dollar possible for the railway company. Their points of argument were that the building supplies company needed the property very badly and that it could make better use of it than anyone else and therefore they expected it to pay more than anyone else. The building supplies company could not dispute those arguments. I believe that the railway company officials made an excellent deal for their company. I am confident that any competent appraisal made of the property would show that the railway company made an excellent sale.
From the Prudham Building Supplies company's standpoint, this high price was justified because heavy traffic conditions which have developed on 104th street, which is now a four-lane highway leading south to the oil fields and Calgary, have made it extremely hazardous to cross this thoroughfare to the lumber storage property which the company has been using on the west side of the highway. In other words, the property that the company has been using is divided by a four-lane highway. The building supplies company operations involves the shuttling of loads of lumber, as well as foot traffic.
During the past summer one of the employees of the Prudham Building Supplies Limited was killed in a traffic accident while on duty. Since that time employees of the company have been extremely nervous and fearful of the highway crossing and have repeatedly made representations to me about the danger of crossing the highway during the course of their work both from their standpoint and that of the travelling public.
I should like to emphasize that the building supplies company, having a lease on the railway property, which did not expire until December 31, 1955, was not contemplating a move at this time except for reasons of safety. On the other hand, the railway company, when it took the initiative in this matter, knew that it was assuring an indefinite . continuance of the freight business of the building supplies company, which last year amounted to more than $77,000 to the C.N.R. alone. Obviously no one will dispute the propriety of this.
It is obvious from the figures I have quoted that the Prudham Building Supplies could have carried on comfortably until December 31, 1955, under the lease at a yearly rental of less than $500 including taxes for the railroad property excluding

buildings. This $500 per year is less than one-half of 1 per cent of the purchase price which the building supplies company paid the railway. On the other hand, the purchase of the property will make it possible to make a permanent concentration of all company operations on one side of the highway and thus avoid the hazards to life and property.
In order to consolidate the company operations on the site of the railway property, it will be necessary to incur heavy expenditures, in addition to the $100,000 purchase price, for extensive filling and drainage and also to relocate the railway tracks. These expenditures would not have been possible or warranted under the lease. In the light of these factors, it was considered advisable to pay the high price demanded by the railway company.
I wish to state as emphatically as I possibly can that at no time did I, or anyone on my behalf, or on behalf of the Prudham Building Supplies company, attempt to exert any influence, politically or otherwise. I have no doubt if anyone wishes to make further inquiries to get the railway's side of the story they will have an opportunity to do so in committee. So far as the Prudham Building Supplies company is concerned, the C.N.R. is just another company competing for transportation business.
I am in entire agreement with the principle, Mr. Speaker, that a member of parliament and especially a cabinet minister should not do business with the crown; but when the crown goes into the railway business, it is difficult for a businessman doing business on a Canadian National Railways line to avoid shipping freight over that railway, and it is also difficult for him to secure trackage property that is essential to his business except by buying or leasing it from the Canadian National Railways.
If he cannot do either of these things without incurring criticism, it simply means that it will be difficult to induce active businessmen to run for parliament. A strict application of this principle to a publicly-owned transportation system is likely to put active businessmen, who are in the House of Commons, out of business or out of the house.
I realize, Mr. Speaker, that it is the duty of members of parliament to act as watchdogs of the nation's business, but I am also beginning to realize why it is becoming increasingly difficult to persuade many capable and honourable business and professional men to offer their services in public life.
I wish to state that at no time have I ever, directly or indirectly, used my position to further my own financial interest.
Income Tax Act
Last evening, the hon. member for Wetas-kiwin (Mr. Thomas) demanded my resignation. In the last election campaign I had as opponents one of the outstanding leaders of the Conservative party in Canada, and a man representing the Social Credit party who, in my opinion, is equal to or above the average in ability, intelligence and integrity, of the members of that party. I also had an able C.C.F. opponent.
If anyone wishes to eliminate me from the House of Commons he will soon have the opportunity to try once again in West Edmonton.



INCOME TAX ACT


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, it is not customary to refer to details of a proposed bill until that bill is introduced into the house, but in view of the question asked on March 5 by the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) concerning the deductibility of certain provincial taxes for income tax purposes, I wish to make the following statement.
Under section 12 of the Income Tax Act, provision is made that specific corporation taxes paid to the government of a province or to a municipality are not deductible as an expense in computing income. These taxes which are not deductible are defined by regulation. The present regulation defines such corporation taxes to be those which have been imposed since September 1, 1941, or, alternatively, the amount of any increase in such taxes which applies following September 1, 1941. The regulations do not single out any particular tax for disallowance.
For some time, the government has been considering this present limitation and believes that it would now be appropriate to remove it. Accordingly, it will be recommended in the bill to amend the Income Tax Act that, with effect for the 1953 taxation year, the prohibition on the deduction of provincial or municipal corporation taxes will be withdrawn and any tax imposed on corporations by a provincial government or municipality which has not rented its rights to impose such tax and which, under ordinary rules, would be regarded as an expense of doing business, will in future be deductible.
This amendment is being recommended in conjunction with the proposal which I announced in my budget speech of increasing the credit for corporation income tax from 5 per cent to 7 per cent in accordance with the principle that nothing in federal legislation shall in any way discriminate
2784	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry against a province which does not enter into a tax rental agreement. This is in line with the declared intention of the federal government that nothing should be done which could be interpreted as pressure, direct or indirect, on any province to accept or renew a tax rental agreement.



THE CORONATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Is it the minister's intention to recommend that representatives of veterans of the South African war be sent to the coronation.


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, most careful consideration was given to the matter of official veterans representation at the coronation, by the coronation committee, the formation of which was announced some time ago by my colleague the Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley).
The committee recommended that the two large veterans organizations in Canada, the Canadian Legion of the British Empire Service League, and the National Council of Veterans Organizations, would be asked to nominate two candidates each. These two organizations have within their membership veterans from the South African campaign, as well as veterans of world war I and world war II. These four veterans have already been chosen and recommended by their respective organizations and arrangements are being completed for their travel and accommodation.



IRRIGATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: should like to ask the Prime Minister whether or not any further investigation is now going on as to the advisability of the South Saskatchewan power and irrigation project. If so, who is engaged on the work?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, if by "investigation" the hon. member means whether any attention ' is being given to the problem at this time, I can say that that is being done, that I am personally considering the representations contained in the brief submitted by
(Mr. Abbott.]

the Saskatchewan government and comparing those representations with the pertinent parts of the report, and with recommendations that have been made about the project by the engineers of the P.F.R.A. organization. If the hon. gentleman intended to ask whether anyone had been engaged to make further engineering studies at this time, then the answer would be in the negative.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the Prime Minister be prepared to table the suggestions made by the Saskatchewan government?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Well, I was informed by the premier of Saskatchewan that he was forwarding copies of the brief to every member of parliament.


An hon. Member:: He has done that.


An hon. Member:: We all got one.


John George Diefenbaker: I must have been left out.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Well, I got two of them, and I shall be happy to send one to my hon. friend.


John George Diefenbaker: That is real co-operation.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, March 9, consideration of the motion of Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood), and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. W. J. Ward (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I had almost finished discussing the address of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) when the house adjourned last night. However, there was one reference he made upon which I should like to comment.
He read from the New York Times, in support of the arguments he made a week ago Tuesday. If the hon. member has been a continuous reader of the New York Times he perhaps read an article that appeared about a year ago in that newspaper to the effect that that publication believed that Canada had the best government in the world. They commented upon our good Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott).
Perhaps at this time I might tell of a conversation I had a short time ago with a man from Washington. He was commenting upon this budget, making reference again to our good Minister of Finance, and said, "If you will let us have your Doug Abbott we will send you a carload from Washington."

I should like now to turn my attention for a moment to the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe). The wild, extravagant language and epithets our opponents have been using lately do not seem to ring true. Have hon. members ever seen a drowning man? If they have they will have observed that he went through about the same antics as did the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), as the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) does occasionally, and as the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness) did last night. It looks to me as though these men are just wise and bright enough to know that the grave is lying just ahead for them. They are simply whistling to keep up their courage. Anyone who thinks that the public of Canada are going to swap what is facing us in this house for what we have over here, a potential prime minister in every front seat-


An hon. Member:: In carload lots.


William John Ward: I returned from my constituency just the other day and while there I attended a gathering in the home of a good Conservative friend. I have many warm social friends in the Conservative party. In fact about one-third of them vote for me. The conversation turned to politics and one farmer, a lifelong Conservative, who was present, after listening to his fellow farmers and others talking, said, "In my judgment we have the best government in Canada today that we have ever had; you will never beat this government while times are as good as they are now."


An hon. Member:: He is not a lifelong Conservative; he is a dead Conservative.


Mr. Harkness:: That is what the Democrats said in the United States.


William John Ward: I am glad to know that I am
getting a rise out of hon. members over there. I should like to refer now to the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe. He said that every businessman in this country wants to know how this enormous tax burden is being spent. In dealing with this matter I am going to make reference also to the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), the hon. member for Eglinton, the hon. member for Calgary East, and my good friend, the hon. member for Lake Centre.
The hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe said that businessmen want to know where these enormous taxes go. I should like to turn back for a moment to what our taxes and expenditures were in 1939. I think the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Thomas) referred to that and then made a comparison 68108-177i
The Budget-Mr. Ward from there on. The hon. member for Assiniboia told the Minister of Finance that 70 per cent of this budget was for the rich man.
I looked up to see just where this money goes. I found that $4,000 million out of the $4,500 million was irreducible. Would my hon. friends reduce the $127 million that is paid out in pensions to soldiers? Would they reduce the $27,250,000 paid out in war veterans allowances? Would they reduce the $37,750,000 for the maintenance of veterans hospitals?


Mr. Ferguson:: Take the horses off.


William John Ward: I will come to that in a
moment. I think it was the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) who referred to our bill for pensions for soldiers and to the fact that in 1939 it was $40,650,000 whereas today it is $127 million. I read a speech which the hon. member for Lake Centre made somewhere in the west when dealing with his pet subject or theme, the bill of rights. He went on to say that what we needed was what he called more intellectual liberty.
I do not know what he was referring to. I cannot think of any intellectual liberty that the hon. member is not enjoying. I cannot think of any intellectual liberty that the people of Canada are not enjoying. We allow communists, socialists and everybody else to nominate candidates who run for every kind of office in the country. What more intellectual liberty could there be? They have a public press and they hold public meetings and all the rest. I could not help but think that he would have been more to the point if he had suggested that there should be a little more intellectual honesty.
That makes me think that my hon. friends opposite are threshing around in an atmosphere of death. Otherwise they would not be making these wild, extravagant statements like the hon. member for Assiniboia, who said that 70 per cent of this budget is for the wealthy people of this country. That statement was made in the face of the fact that $1,000 million is being spent on the poor people of Canada, the people who need it, in the form of old age pensions, family allowances and so on.
The kind of talk that is going out from this house is doing to the people of Canada generally just what it did to a young man who came into my office about a year ago. He was making out his income tax return and was feeling rather sorry for himself because he had to pay $164 in income tax.
I happened to know something of his domestic affairs and after he told me his story
2786	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Ward I said, "George, what family have you?" He said, "I have five children." "All under 16?" "Yes." I said, "You will be getting just under $500 a year in family allowances, will you not?" He said, "Yes, pretty near that." I said, "Tell me, isn't your father getting the old age pension?" I knew the father was living with him. He said, "Yes." He began to twig something. I said, "Look, your family is getting almost $1,000 from the national treasury and yet you are objecting to paying $164." I said, "Where do you think the balance of that $1,000 came from?"
I suppose he had been listening to the speeches of my hon. friends opposite. He was an honest man but he just had not understood it. I said, "Your neighbours have been subsidizing you to the extent of over $800 a year." He left my office feeling sorrier for himself than when he came in and I too was sorry for him.
A young fellow came in to see me about the same time. He had a little article which he had bought in the hardware store and he said, "Mr. Ward, do you know what I paid for this this morning? I paid $6." I thought there was something back of it, so 1 just kept looking at him. He said, "Not very long ago I could have got it for $2."
I said, "About 1935?" He said, "You are right, I could have bought it for $2 in 1935." I said, "Jimmie, did you have the $2 in 1935?" He said, "No, Mr. Ward, I did not." "Would you like to go back to the day when you could have bought it for $2?" He said, "Not by a damn sight."
These are just a few things that indicate that the people of Canada are not going to go Conservative, which is a party without a policy. They the people may go Social Credit if they agree with the funny money policies of the Social Credit party. They may go C.C.F. because they know that the leader of the socialists has said that every vestige of industry in Canada will be brought under the hammer of socialism.


An hon. Member:: Including the farmers.


William John Ward: Including the farmer. But unfortunately the Conservative party has no policy. They are completely bereft of anything by way of a policy. I recall when the resale price maintenance matter was before the house. They grabbed at that. That was to be the thing with which they were going to whip the Grits, but it had a terrible kick-back so far as they were concerned, so they dropped that.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Not as much as the horses' kick.


William John Ward: When I went home for Christmas two years ago one of my good Conservative friends came to see me. They all come to see me. He said:	"What is wrong with
that party of ours in Ottawa?" I said: "What are you referring to?"


Mr. Rowe:: I do not know why he would
ask you.


William John Ward: He said, "Resale price maintenance. Imagine our party opposing this measure to do away with resale price maintenance." Well, they failed in that. The next thing was redistribution. I can recall the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr Diefenbaker) getting up in the house and making eloquent speeches. All their friends in the country said: What is the matter with those fellows of ours in Ottawa? Have they lost confidence in themselves? Are they afraid they cannot win new ground? Have they lost the art of political summerfallowing?


William Earl Rowe: That is not what they said.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: You have never lost that art. You are the best summerfallower we have heard in a long time.


William John Ward: They failed again. They were still without a policy. Then along came foot-and-mouth disease and they were going to get the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). His was the first head they were going to chop off, but through the efforts of our ingenious and enterprising Minister of Agriculture and his staff the foot-and-mouth disease was cleaned up in less than six months, eighteen months less time than has ever been the case in any other place in the world. The United States market is now open to the livestock of this country, thanks to the Minister of Agriculture. They failed again. Then it was the Petawawa thefts.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Now, don't mention that.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: That is just peanuts.


William John Ward: 
William Earl Rowe: Oh, no, he did not.


William John Ward: He stated that there were horses impersonating men on the payroll, that C.N.R. tracks had been stolen. Well, their faces were about this long when the Currie report was presented and they found that there were no horses on the payroll, that there had been no impersonation, and that there were no C.N.R. tracks within miles of the Petawawa camp-


Mr. Adamson:: They were not there
because they had been stolen. That is why they were not there.


Mr. Fraser:: They were miles away.


William John Ward: -and that instead of the thefts and pilfering amounting to $7i million the figure was only $50,000. That is a lot of money. I know if I had $50,000 it would be a lot of money to me, but I saw a statement in the Financial Post some time ago to the effect that the average daily pilferings and thefts in private life throughout Canada amounts to $50,000. The Financial Post is a pretty good authority, and it is a paper that usually supports my hon. friends opposite. As the Minister of National Defence pointed out some time ago, on the basis of the investment at Petawawa the thefts there amount to 40 cents for each $10,000 of investment.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: You have the figures.
There is no doubt about that. Keep it up and you will become an expert.


Some hon. Members:: Quack, quack.


William John Ward: In my opinion the Conservative party is very sorry today that they ever dealt with the Currie report as they did.


William Earl Rowe: Not half as sorry as the government. That is why they do not want any more.


William John Ward: Having failed again, the official opposition and the C.C.F. turned their attention to the South Saskatchewan river dam. That was the thing. Why, even fellows from away down in the eastern part of the country were making speeches on it. They did not know where it was and had never seen it but they were making speeches in favour of the building of the South Saskatchewan river dam. I think they have pretty well failed. So far as the South Saskatchewan river dam is concerned, if the report is correct it will cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of $100 million to build the irrigation project alone, if we do not attempt to use the power at all.
I want to point out to the house that for an investment of $15 million on the Opasquoi flats, through which the Carrot and The Pas rivers flow, a million and a half acres of
The Budget-Mr. Ward far better land than that along the banks of the Saskatchewan river could be irrigated. I have the word of good engineers that a million and a half acres of land could be reclaimed. The most optimistic I have talked to say that with 20 years of work the most land that can be irrigated along the South Saskatchewan is a quarter of a million acres. Suppose it is half a million acres. With an investment of $15 million and by going a little farther north you can get a million and a half acres of far better land, and it will not be troubled by drought. It is good land.


Mr. Graydon:: There is your expert.


William John Ward: The South Saskatchewan river dam having failed, the last thing my hon. friends grabbed at, and which I think is also going to fail, was the emergency powers bill. They said it was a terrible thing for the government to have power to deal with emergencies without coming to parliament.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think the hon. member should discuss that matter. It is before the house.


William John Ward: I will not, Mr. Speaker.


Gordon Graydon: He is just coming to the Gallup poll now.


Mr. Chevrier:: You do not like it over there.


John George Diefenbaker: He has given his expert views on the dam.


William John Ward: To conclude so far as the emergency powers are concerned, may I say that if emergency powers are of any value-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


William John Ward: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker; I will discuss that subject later. I should like to say a word, however, about the means test on war veterans allowances. I appeal to the government to remove the means test from war veterans allowances.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Now you are saying something.


James Arthur Ross: You have your feet on the ground now.


William John Ward: I should like to support the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. MacDougall), who made a very fine plea in support of such action.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: This is your last chance to make a speech in order to get some votes.


Mr. Speaker:: I must inform the hon. member his time has expired.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Bang goes another prime minister.

The Budget-Mr. Ward


Mr. Hees:: He cannot take it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: You cannot laugh yourself out of this speech.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


William John Ward: At the beginning of my remarks today I pointed out some reasons why I was certain that the people of Canada were not interested in the pure twaddle and the epithets and adjectives that my hon. friends have been using so extravagantly. The people of Canada are far too intelligent to be interested in that sort of thing. I think our friends opposite are not treating the Canadian people with due regard to their intelligence when they talk in that way.


Mr. Howe:: You should be an expert.


William John Ward: In 1934, the year before the last Conservative government went out of office in this country, our international trade was $850 million.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Where did you get those figures?


William John Ward: From the dominion bureau of statistics.


Gordon Graydon: You got them from Truman.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Who added them up for you?


William John Ward: This is very interesting.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: You are $3 million out.


William John Ward: Our total national product that year was $2,380 million. What is it today? Twenty-four billion dollars-or ten times greater than it was then.
Are the people of Canada so simple, so credulous, as to return a government which left us with a trade picture like that in comparison with what we have today? We can thank men like the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), one of the greatest salesmen on earth. We can thank the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) for having saved the economy of our livestock people during the last year.


Gordon Graydon: Give him better than that.


William John Ward: If it bad not been for the fourway meat deal he made involving Britain, New Zealand, United States and Canada, beef in Canada might have dropped to 10 cents a pound. That has been avoided through the ingenuity of our good Minister of Agriculture, who is always on the job, always on top of the responsibility that is given to him in his department, and he saw to it that nothing of that sort did happen. We are very, very fortunate, and every farmer and every stock raiser in Canada should go down on his knees and thank God we had a Jimmy Gardiner.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Agar Rodney Adamson: For Jimmy Gardiner.


William John Ward: I am pleased to note that our friends over there think I am right.
I have a lot more figures, Mr. Speaker, which I could give the house which would be of interest, I am sure; but you have been very patient and the house has been very patient so I will just say that I appreciate your consideration very much.


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Speaker, after the modest claims made by the previous speaker I think we ought to get back to a little sanity and a little reality.


An hon. Member:: Where are we going to get that?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: You had better sit down then.


William Joseph Browne: We are confronted here with an array of potential prime ministers. I hope there will not be -the same argument about succession here as there has been in Russia, since the death of their leader the other day.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Nobody wants to succeed your leader.


Gordon Graydon: Quiet, Postmaster General.


William Joseph Browne: The previous speaker has brought up a number of points on which discussions took place in this house during the last couple of years and, sir, if we were to be diverted from the business before the house we could go into those discussions again and have a very interesting time. Not everything that would be said would be in favour of the points brought up by the hon. member.
Now, sir, it is not quite three weeks since the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) brought down his budget. Since listening to him I have read it over a couple of times and I must say that it is a very interesting document until he comes to the disposal of the prospective surplus for the 1953-54 year. I think it is true to say that most of the correspondents throughout the country had his budget surplus distributed for him before his announcement of it in the house. Everyone expected that we were going to get a little bit off the income tax, that corporation taxes were going to be reduced, that the tax on cigarettes was going to be reduced, and that the radio licence was going to be taken off. All these things were anticipated and I saw many references in the press before the budget indicating that these things were going to be done-which was an indication that the public generally, and certainly the intelligent members of the press, expected that in an

election year the Minister of Finance would try to do things which would give him the best returns politically.
At the beginning of his speech he paid a graceful tribute to the late Dr. Clark, former deputy minister of finance, and I noticed that he stated that gentleman was appointed during the time when the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett was prime minister and minister of finance. During the 20 years that Dr. Clark acted as deputy minister of finance we have had an upturn in the material prosperity of the world and especially in Canada. It seems to have engaged the attention of many of the previous speakers and also, outside the house, of members of the government as well.
Today I would like to make some references to the changes which have taken place in those years. They have been used by the previous speaker, in his closing remarks, to illustrate the superiority of this government over any competitor that could possibly come upon the scene in Canada. I think, sir, when references are made to the government of this country, we should remember that behind the facade of the government there is a very brilliant civil service. It is largely to them, to their ability, to their honesty, to their integrity and to their industry that this country owes its success. I think that was implicit in the remarks which the Minister of Finance made about his late deputy. There are other men in the civil service about whom nothing has been said. I suppose that they must wait until they die to have such things said about them. Having had a lot of association with members of the civil service in Newfoundland, I know that they are deserving of recognition of their valuable services before they die.
The other day a deputation went to see the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) about higher wages and better conditions but it was not opportune to grant these concessions at the present time.
It is my impression that the civil service association, representing the civil servants of this country, is doing a magnificent job for the members of their organization but I feel satisfied that they are up against great difficulty when they go to negotiate with the government for better terms. It seems to me that some way must be found so that they may obtain justice for their claims; for it has always been my experience that they do not receive justice. They always get increases when it is too late and the increases which they get are always less than they deserve.
It is only natural that errors and scandals are to be found in a civil service as large as that in Canada where there are 160,000 civil servants. If they do occur I do not
10, 1953	2789
The Budget-Mr. W. J. Browne altogether blame the individuals concerned. For instance, there is the example of the army works services mentioned by the previous speaker in connection with Petawawa. In my opinion, the responsibility in that case should be placed upon the shoulders of the minister in charge of the department where those people are engaged.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), in a radio talk given over the C.B.C. about one month ago, made this statement:
When the Liberals came into office in 1935, we were still in the depths of depression from which the Conservative policies of Mr. Bennett had failed to lift us. Three weeks after taking office, Mr. Mackenzie King had reversed Mr. Bennett's Tory policy of "blasting" our way into world markets, by making a two-way trade agreement with the United States, followed in rapid succession by some twenty other such trade agreements with other countries.
Since that time Canadian trade and Canadian income have gone up every year.
The hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Thomas) last night made the statement that it was Liberal policies prior to 1930 which put Canada into the depression and that Conservative policies did nothing to take Canada out of the depression. I think we ought to look at things here from the point of view of a sense of justice with regard to what actually occurred. In justice, I think it must be agreed that the Liberal government had nothing whatever to do with putting Canada into the depression and that the Conservative government moved heaven and earth to try to take us out of the depression, that the country was just on the way out of the depression in 1935 when the Liberal government came into office. If they are honest men-and I am sure most of the hon. gentlemen on the other side normally are honest men; I am speaking now of intellectual honesty-they must admit that their government or the previous government of Mackenzie King in 1929 did not put the country into the depression, and they must admit that it was not the fault of the Conservative government if we were not riding the waves of prosperity as we are today.
Let us remember those things. There are in the house young men perhaps who do not remember those days and who do not appreciate the difficulties of those days; but I well remember 1929, and I remember the stock market crash in October of that year. I remember it for a special reason. I was a practising lawyer at the time and I had a wealthy client whose will I made. He had a large amount of Canadian and United States stocks. The next day the stock market broke and his fortune was lost. The day before the stock market broke, as solicitor
2790	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. W. J. Browne I had made lor a client a contract with the International Power and Paper Company to purchase a mining interest in Newfoundland. The next day the stock market broke and the deal was off. Those were just two personal incidents in my life that impressed upon me the tremendous effect of that stock market crash. But who cannot remember the suicides that followed it, the companies that went into liquidation, and the depression that followed over the whole wide world? Not a country in the whole world, as far as I know, was exempt from the terrible depression.
The people of today who are not familiar with these facts do not know what depressions are; they do not know what the depression was that struck Canada at that time, or of the millions of people that had to be given relief. In Newfoundland, which was quite close to Canada and whose economy was somewhat the same, we had a third or over of the population on relief. I am sure there must have been about a quarter of the population on relief in this country. That condition prevailed until the beginning of war in 1939 with some upsurge. It did not matter what government was in power between 1929 and 1939, in Canada or elsewhere; the story would have been much the same.
I remember other things in connection with that particular time. When the stock market broke in New York, all prices dropped. Goods became unsaleable. The farmer could not sell his wheat except at a sacrifice price. The farmer could not sell his potatoes; he could not get rid of them except by giving them away.
If I may make another personal reference, I may say that in 1932 when the late Viscount Bennett called the imperial economic conference which met here in this city, we were invited to send a delegation from Newfoundland. I was a member of the government in Newfoundland at the time, and it was accidental that I did not come here then. Someone else came and I acted as minister of finance while the minister of finance was up here. I know of the terrible ordeal that we were going through down there, and of the efforts to try to get a barter agreement with England, to exchange pulp, wood or iron ore for coal, or to try to have a three-way agreement of barter for this and barter for that.
I know of the run that would have been made on the banks, if people had known their rights, to try to get gold for deposits they had there. We never got the gold. We had $26 million in the savings banks and our government could have demanded about 36 per cent more for that money because we
TMr. Browne (St. John's West).]

had not gone off the gold standard at the same time as Canada had. But our government played ball with the government of Canada and went off the gold standard too; and the people lost that amount of money. I mention these little things, which were tremendous in those days, in order to show how terrible the depression was.
In 1930 you had these conditions all over the world. What did the governments do when they were faced with unemployment and with poor trade? Everywhere trade went down. I defy any hon. member-even the potential prime ministers who, except for the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann), are all absent at this time-to contradict one statement that I am making. All over the world the countries began to try to raise revenue by putting up their tariffs. Every country to which Canada was exporting its produce had higher tariffs against Canada than they had ever had in Canada's history before that.


Mr. Sinnolt:: That is all history.


William Joseph Browne: Yes; that is all history; but that is something which we have to recognize. When the Bennett government came into office this is what they had to face. Our party has been charged with being a high-tariff party because the Bennett government had high tariffs. But the Bennett government had to face high tariffs, and the Bennett government had the responsibility for feeding over one million people who were on relief for several years, and they had to try to take this country out of the terrible depression into which it had fallen, through nobody's fault. It is no use for the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) or the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) or those other spokesmen for the Liberal party or the Social Credit party to try to blame the Conservative party-


Mr. Blackmore:: Social Crediters do not say that. Social Crediters have sense.


William Joseph Browne: The hon. member for Wetaskiwin said that last night. It is in Hansard. I read it today and I heard him say it last night. It is as absurd to say that the Liberal government put the country into the depression as it is to say that the Conservative government did nothing to take it out of it. Read the speech of Mr. Rhodes in introducing his budget in 1935, and you will find that he gave facts and figures there to show that the low point of the depression was reached back in 1933. If you want to look at any of the calendars for the period- here is an almanac for 1938; it gives the dates of the low of the depression in all the

countries; it gives the comparative figures for trade, imports and exports, debt, the cost of living and everything. From a comparison of these things you will see that Canada came out of the depression under the Bennett government better than did any other country in the world. Mr. Speaker, I think it is only justice that that fact should be recognized by everybody-by the Liberals as well as by ourselves. It seems to me that speeches like the one which has just been made by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward) are simply nonsense, just a matter of people flattering themselves and saying: we are the best government in the world, the cabinet ministers are all potential prime ministers. Is it not absurd for men to be praising themselves like that and not acknowledging any right at all or any quality of good in those who are opposing them?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: They will be growing wings.


John Horne Blackmore: They were just using sucker bait; that is all.


William Joseph Browne: The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance opened his remarks by saying that he had read in the New York Times an article that was written, I believe, the day following the budget, in which the editorial writer had stated that the people of New York were green with envy after reading Mr. Percy Philip's account of Mr. Abbott's budget in Canada. In the New York Times they have an amusing editorial written at the end of the serious ones. It must have been from the amusing editorial that the parliamentary assistant was reading, because I was in New York-not in New York city, but in New York state-the day following the budget, and the people over there were absolutely indifferent to it. There was an article about the budget in the newspaper in the city where I was and I read it. They pointed out that while it was all very well for the Canadian government to bring in a budget which showed a surplus and for some Americans to think that the same thing could be done in the United States, it should be remembered that a comparison of war expenditures and the aid which the United States was giving the world showed that it was very much greater than what Canada was doing. It was pointed out that while the population of the United States was about 11 times that of Canada, the total budget was seventeen times as great and the amount of money being spent on war expenditures this year was $46 billion compared with $2 billion in Canada, which is 23 times as great. Their armed forces number 3 million as compared with
100,000	in Canada.
10, 1953	2791
The Budget-Mr. W. J. Browne
If the hon. members of the Liberal party across the way are going to be honest they must recognize that at the present time Canada is going through a boom period. Let us examine Canada from one end of the country to the other. We passed a bill last year giving the British Columbia Telephone Company power to raise $100 million to extend telephones alone. Just imagine $100 million being spent just to extend telephones in one province. The Aluminum Company is spending $500 million on a power development in one province, British Columbia. Did the government have anything to do with that? Does the government take responsibility for that? Down on the borders of Quebec and Labrador the Iron Ore Company is spending $300 million to build a railway before they will take one ton of that ore out of the mines that are 250 miles back from tidewater. Is the government responsible for that? Does the government take credit for that?


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: Sure; the people have confidence in the government.


William Joseph Browne: They did not have anything to do with the government. They go ahead and they do it.


George Matheson Murray: They have confidence in the government.


William Joseph Browne: They have confidence in the mine. The hon. member for Cariboo has an anguished look on his face when I make these statements, but let him compose himself, let him keep calm and remember that people put their money into ventures of that kind because they have confidence not in the government but in the mine.


George Matheson Murray: Everybody in Cariboo has confidence in the government.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: That is not what Duplessis says in Quebec.


William Joseph Browne: I do not
think the parliamentary assistant to the Postmaster General will take any objection to this. In Ontario they are hungry for electric power; they have not enough power to run the industries because they are expanding so rapidly. The power people *cannot keep up with them, and they are clamouring for the development of the St. Lawrence seaway. Is the government initiating that, or is it the clamour that is coming from Ontario that is forcing the government to go into this development?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: National policy.


William Joseph Browne: I do not
deny that the government deserves certain
2792	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. W. J. Browne credit for initiating that legislation, but if there was not an outlet for that power there would not be any sense in going ahead with the seaway. The seaway is going to depend to a great extent for its revenue on the ships bringing iron ore from Seven Islands and from this mine on the border of Labrador and Quebec.
Then in Alberta, in the province from which the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) comes, we have had an unprecedented discovery and development of oil and gas-


Mr. Studer:: And sugar beets.


William Joseph Browne: There has been nothing like it in the history of the continent, not even in the United States. Does the government of Canada take any credit for that expansion?


John Horne Blackmore: They will take the credit.


William Joseph Browne: Yes. This country had a wheat crop of 650 million bushels of wheat last year, a record crop. Does the government take credit for raising that 650 million bushels of wheat?


James Arthur Ross: Yes; the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is responsible for the fair weather.


Irvin William Studer: For disposing of the crop.


William Joseph Browne: I have been giving instances of products that have been or will be produced without any assistance from the government. The government has had nothing outstanding to do with the boom, the business conditions that are existing in this country today. It takes no wisdom to balance a budget when conditions are booming as they are at the present time.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: You had better go to Washington and tell them that.


Mr. McLure:: Bow, wow, wow.


William Joseph Browne: The parliamentary assistant brings me back to those figures that I must really put on Hansard.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: He has lost his place.


William Joseph Browne: No, he has
not lost his place, nor has he lost his face. The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance is repeating statements of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), making claims about the business prowess of the federal government. He said:
Liberal policy has always been to work out trade agreements with friendly countries and to try to remove barriers here in Canada and elsewhere in order to encourage the expansion of our exports and all world trade generally.


Irvin William Studer: Hear, hear.


William Joseph Browne: The hon. member for Maple Creek applauds the statement which I have just read from the remarks of the parliamentary assistant.


Irvin William Studer: Hear, hear.


William Joseph Browne: I ask him
as a reasonable man; what would be the duty, what would be the function, or what would be the desire of any government that was running the affairs of this country? Would it not be to see our trade prosper? Do you think you are going to get a crowd of morons in the country who would like to see trade decline?


Mr. McCusker:: It would, if there were a change.


William Joseph Browne: If the Conservative party are returned to power,^ and I feel sure they will be in the next election-


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: What a joke.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: What year?


William Joseph Browne: -they will devote themselves as far as in their power lies to developing markets. The members of this party have been speaking in favour of that and have urged measures which would bring about an expansion of the trade of this country.
Going back to Mr. Bennett and the imperial conference of 1932, which was held here in Ottawa, may I say that it was responsible for selling our produce in parts of the British commonwealth which are beneficial to Canada even today. Canada has today, in Australia and New Zealand, certain markets which were obtained as a result of the 1932 conference. It was a wonderful thing that the Conservative party was able to bring about those agreements at that Ottawa conference and open up various other markets. But the Bennett government made treaties with other countries.
In opening his address the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) drew attention to the agreement which was being negotiated with the United States. I understand that he is going to refer to it further in reply to the remarks of the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward). There is no doubt at all that the Conservative party, when they were in office between 1930 and 1935, in the most difficult period that this country has ever endured, showed by their actions that they were not only interested, they were actively interested, in furthering the trade of this country in every avenue that it was possible to explore.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: The people did not believe it.


William Joseph Browne: The parliamentary assistant went on:
The tremendous expansion of our trade during the last seventeen years, during which our party has been in office, is the best proof of the success of our policy.
Now, sir, I have examined figures in the statement given out by the United Nations, and I am almost sure that almost every country in the world could have the same thing said about it. Take our little country down by the sea, Newfoundland, with only
365,000	people. In 1932 and 1933 the government down there had expenditures of $8 million and revenue of only $6,500,000. That was about the size of our revenues and expenditures at that time. I will tell the house how bad things were at that time. We had to cut war veterans pensions. And hon. members will know how desperate we must have been to do that. The amount for education was cut down to $650,000 a year. Do hon. members know that expenditures on education down there now equal the total revenue of 1932-33? It is ten times as great today.
I just give those figures to show that the parliamentary assistant is making a claim which no one should make. Money has not the same value today as it had in 1932, 1933 or 1934, in those depressed times. He said:
Since 1935 our total exports have increased from $738 million to $4,355 million in 1952. Since 1946 they have almost doubled.
If we were to analyse that statement, it would mean that it took from 1935 to 1946 to go from $738 million to $2 billion, or almost three times as much. And then in the last six years it has doubled again. Well, we all know that the cost of living has doubled in the last six years in this country. Therefore we are just back where we were six years ago. Is that not plain to anyone?
Let me give some comparative figures of expenditures. What were the expenditures in 1935? In that year the exports were valued at $738 million and our expenditures were $356 million. Expenditures in 1939 were only $553 million, but today they are $4,750 million. In other words, expenditures today are over 13 times what they were in 1935. On the other hand trade is only 6 times as great-and I am quoting from his figures-our total exports are only 6 times as great, but our expenditures are 13 times as great.
What does the parliamentary assistant say about those figures? Or I could put it this way: that in 1949 the trade of this country was very much less than it is today. But
68108-178i
The Budget-Mr. W. J. Browne I could say that it is greater today because Newfoundland came into confederation in 1949, and Newfoundland would account for some of that trade. Or I could say that in 1935 the Social Credit party took office in Alberta, after a Liberal government had been in office, and found things in a dreadful state. Look at Alberta today-the most prosperous province in Canada. Would it be entirely as a result of the Social Credit party in Alberta that these prosperous conditions exist out there today?


An hon. Member:: Sure.


William Joseph Browne: Well, I cannot agree with that suggestion. The truth is that this country has been endowed by almighty God with wonderful natural resources that the people of Canada have been able to exploit. I do not think any government can claim for itself a monopoly on applied intelligence whereby only that government could develop the gifts we have received from the Almighty.


Mr. Fair:: But the government can put policies into effect to develop those resources.


William Joseph Browne: Yes, governments can put policies into effect.
We have here a tremendous country extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific, thousands of miles from coast to coast. My impression is that the country is not inhabited at all, that there is room for millions upon millions more than we have here today. In other countries such as Italy and Germany there are millions who are living in a state of hardship and starvation, and this is also true of people in Asia, as well. I do not know how long those people will be content to watch the tremendous wealth of this country, to see so much empty space, without making very strenuous claims to be admitted.
I turn now to another subject. We had the honour of having in Newfoundland at the beginning of last month a distinguished visitor in the person of the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair), who had gone down there to address the board of trade at its annual meeting. Having been at one time parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance, he was particularly competent to deal with financial questions. It so happens that just before he arrived there had been a controversy running through the newspapers regarding the benefits Newfoundland was receiving from the central government in Ottawa, and the amount of contribution Newfoundland was making to taxation.
The Peterborough Examiner brought up the question by saying that having colonies was like having poor relations, that the getting

The Budget-Mr. W. J. Browne ot another province was likely to be an expensive business and that it would cost more than it was worth.
This suggestion was taken up by the St. John's Daily News, which stated that this was a very unfair summing up of the situation, that it had been the dream of the fathers of confederation that this country would extend from St. John's, Newfoundland, to Vancouver, on the Pacific.


An hon. Member:: Victoria.


William Joseph Browne: And in constructing the arch over the main door at the front of this building an empty shield was left upon which, it was hoped, some day the arms of Newfoundland would be placed.
Canada was becoming a great power and, like all growing powers, wanted to have access to the sea. Newfoundland, standing as sentinel across the gulf of St. Lawrence, seemed a sort of obstacle, and it was felt it would be a wonderful thing in the career of the late prime minister if the dominion could be rounded out. As a result of negotiation, Newfoundland was added, and confederation became complete.
At what cost? Well, the Peterborough Examiner thought the cost was too high. I would point out that while we receive family allowances, these are received also by people in other provinces; we receive the benefit of old age pensions, but they are being paid to the people in other provinces; our veterans down there will receive the same allowances as the veterans in other provinces. But there is nothing extraordinary about all this.
Where, then, the Daily News was asking, is there any exceptional payment being made to us? The previous speaker made reference to old age pensions and family allowances, and referred to the recipients of these sums, these social security payments, as if they were completely dependent upon the state, and were not contributing anything to it at all. I say to hon. members that Newfoundland contributes more than the Minister of Fisheries stated. On February 3 he said:
The truth of the situation is this: For every dollar the federal government takes out of Newfoundland in revenue, it puts back more than three.
That is a very definite statement, and I challenge the minister to prove it in the house. He went on to list, then, that we received $21 million in family allowances and pensions, including old age, blind and war pensions; $34 million on public works, transport, fisheries, defence, R.C.M.P., post office and national health; $18 million a year in the form of direct federal payments to the provincial government, making a total of $73


million. Then he went on to say that the central government received only $23 million in direct and indirect taxes.
That may have been a typographical error. I know that a good student like the parliamentary assistant would have access to the report of the Department of National Revenue. If he had looked at page 11 he would have found that in 1951-52 Newfoundland paid $10,100,000 in indirect taxes and $19,267,531 in direct taxes; in other words, a total of nearly $30 million, which indicates a difference of some $7 million in his figures.
It must be remembered that Newfoundland is buying enormous quantities of goods from the other provinces. Before confederation we traded with the whole world but certain barriers have been set up. Steamers that used to run as long as I can remember between St. John's and New York do not run any more. Speaking comparatively we have no trade now with the United States; that trade has been shifted to the other provinces of Canada. From a total of $55 million of purchases in Canada in 1946 it is estimated that we are now purchasing $175 million worth of goods, mostly from the central provinces.
Taxes are being paid on those goods. The sales tax of 10 per cent and the excise tax of 15 per cent are being levied. Millions of dollars in taxes are paid on the automobiles that are purchased. The Daily News estimates that the amount of money which Newfoundland is paying in these indirect taxes would total $15 million, which would bring the grand total up to $45 million as the amount which Newfoundland would be contributing to the central government.
I am not saying that the figure of $175 million is correct, but if we are buying greatly enhanced values of goods from the other provinces we are providing employment in those provinces. This newspaper estimates that 10,000 people obtain employment as a result of the goods which Newfoundland buys from the other provinces. That is a contribution that deserves recognition.
I do not think that the Minister of Fisheries has the right to go down there and make incorrect statements, especially when he was associated so long with the Minister of Finance and could have got the right figures without any difficulty. I have never seen, and do not believe he has made, any correction of that statement he made down there. The least he could do would be to apologize to the people of Newfoundland and certainly to the newspaper which he intended to criticize.
Reference was made to the amounts being spent by the various departments but no one knows better than the Minister of Public

Works (Mr. Fournier) that the money voted for his department is never fully spent.


Alphonse Fournier: It is impossible to do it.


William Joseph Browne: It may be
impossible, but the fact is that it is not spent anyway. Therefore the Minister of Fisheries had no right to say that we were getting that amount of money every year. He should not have included that in his calculation. He also mentioned defence. The United States are spending $300 million down there. Do we owe them anything because they are doing that? Defence is for the whole of Canada. It so happens that Newfoundland is on the Atlantic and it is necessary to put certain defence works there that are not necessary in Ontario. Why should their cost be charged against us? Why should the minister put that against us?
In the way the Minister of Finance distributed his surplus he acted exactly as many thought he was going to do. There is one item the Minister of Finance might explain, this reduction of the tax on cigarettes. I have heard the explanation given that other people got reductions in taxation before, but the people I intend to refer to did not get any reduction in taxation that I know of. I am thinking of the fishermen at home who smoke plug tobacco and who chew plug tobacco. There has been no reduction in the price of plug tobacco. Before confederation a plug of tobacco could be purchased for 28 cents, but it has now gone up to 62 cents. When the minister had so much largesse to distribute he might have kept in mind these poor fishermen who are living such a precarious life and who have not many luxuries. They would have appreciated a lower price for their tobacco.
I think there is justification for stating that to a great extent the poorer people have been ignored in the distribution of this $300 million. There is also justification for the statement that has been made that this distribution is discriminatory. I want to refer to one thing just before I sit down.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson):: I
would advise the hon. member that his time has elapsed.


William Joseph Browne: I should like to read just one sentence. I would like to go back to the comparisons which were made by the parliamentary assistant and the reference to the envy that exists in the United States. The following is from the Financial Post as reported in the Gazette of February 17, 1953:
In all these international comparisons, of course, the greatest weakness is the assumption that the currency unit used, in this case the dollar, has the same value in all three countries,-
The Budget-Mr. Jones
That is Great Britain, the United States and Canada.
-and that what we have left over from taxes will buy the same amount of goods or services. That is nonsense, as anyone who has travelled in United States or Britain will confirm,
I was in the United States the day after the budget and you could certainly buy shoes, clothing, groceries and many other articles for much less than you had to pay in Canada.


Mr. O. L. Jones (Yale):: Mr. Speaker, in contributing a few remarks to this budget debate I do not intend to deal, as most speakers have, with the evils of the budget or the good that may be in it. I do not think it is wholly bad, but neither is it wholly good. The minister has found somewhere in between a fair medium, considering it is an election year. But I want to disillusion him if he thinks that this medium budget will influence votes and win people. He could have gone much further and used this quarter of a billion surplus1 to better advantage. With the contention that this budget is a rich man's budget I fully agree.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), the leader of this group, has placed evidence on the record to prove that contention. Other speakers have added to that proof so I do not intend to clutter up the record with a lot more evidence. I would point out to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) that he missed a golden opportunity to gain support for his party in the coming election when he found himself in the happy position of having a quarter of a billion dollars to pass on to the taxpayers as a concession or to utilize in order to meet the demands of our people for health services, health insurance, an increase in veterans allowances, or to provide pensions for the blind and crippled people.
He has left a great number of people still in the depths of despair with their hopes shattered. They are left with a feeling of frustration. I regret this because I do not think the Minister of Finance is a cruel man by nature, but he has dealt these people a cruel blow by neglecting them and overlooking their requests of the past few years for recognition and support.
I am going to deal with one or two matters that have been drawn to my attention by my constituents. They claim they have grievances, and possibly they have, so I am going to place them on the record. Their grievances have not been remedied by the present budget, and that is their complaint. The first concerns the municipalities in the interior of British Columbia. These governing bodies are finding it harder and harder each year

The Budget-Mr. Jones to make ends meet. That situation is general across Canada. They must cut their coat according to the cloth, but in their case the federal government has taken a huge piece of the cloth, followed by a provincial government demanding an increased portion of the cloth annually, leaving the municipalities to cover themselves and keep warn as best they can with the remnant. What remains of the cloth is very small when it is eventually turned over to the municipalities.
The budget offers no relief to them, and it is my opinion that some relief could have been given towards the costs of education, for instance. It is true that education is a provincial responsibility, but it is a federal responsibility to see that all Canadians are afforded the same educational opportunity. It is a federal responsibility to see that the provinces are assisted in giving this equality of opportunity. In that way the federal government could have given financial aid towards education. I say that because today municipalities are faced with a situation where 50 per cent of their income goes for that one purpose alone, education, crippling them in the ordinary development of their streets, sidewalks and so on.
How could it be done and why should it be done through the budget? I say it could be done in this way. I believe that the municipalities of Canada should receive 75 per cent of the revenue derived by the federal government from liquor duties and taxation. The exorbitant profit is made in the municipalities where the purchases are made. Some municipalities are put to heavy cost to police the results that arise from the sale of federal government liquors within their boundaries. The responsibility is placed on them by the two senior governments because of the sale of liquor. It falls entirely on the municipalities to check and remedy the trouble that accrues as the result of the sale and use of these beverages. They must bear the cost of confining prisoners. Therefore I claim that if anyone has a right to the profits made on liquor the municipalities should get the lion's share. For that reason I claim that 75 per cent of the revenue derived by the federal government is rightly theirs and should be passed on to them.
I also feel that the federal government is most unfair in taxing the municipalities on equipment and other things that they need. These taxes could be levied but I think all duties and taxes collected on municipal equipment and other municipal requirements should be refunded. Much special equipment must be brought in from the United States and a great deal from England, particularly electrical and road equipment. That


means very high taxation so far as the municipalities are concerned. I do not believe any senior taxing body should take an unfair advantage by forcing a junior taxing body to pay tribute of this nature. It only means that the taxpayer is unfairly taxed or, putting it another way, the taxpayer is doubly taxed.
I also believe that further support should be given to the claim of municipalities for assistance through the federal government paying taxes on government property. The present formula for the payment of taxes should be scrapped because it does not function in British Columbia. The federal government has recognized its obligation by introducing the formula in the first place, but they evade their responsibility because only a very few benefit. In my opinion the municipalities have a just claim. Take, for example, the matter of post offices. Usually the post office occupies the most valuable property within the municipality, property that would carry the highest assessment in the municipality, and yet no taxes are paid. The post office makes a handsome profit in one or two municipalities that I know of, but nothing is paid by way of taxes, and it is taken for granted that road service, sidewalk service, police protection, fire protection, sewage disposal and all the other facilities of the municipality should be provided.
In some cases the large post offices have caretaker families living on the premises. In such cases the children are educated at the taxpayers' expense without any assistance from the federal government. These are some of the complaints I wish to place before the government. If it is too late to remedy them through the present budget, I sincerely hope that consideration will be given to these matters before the next budget is brought down.
Another matter that I wish to draw to the attention of the government is that there is no provision in the budget for an increase in war veterans allowances. No provision for the setting up of a standing committee on veterans affairs has been made in the throne speech. I feel that that is a sad omission. It would have been a great help to the government and because of the excellent record of past committees it would have met the request of Canadian veterans if such a committee had been set up. I believe that this group has been discriminated against. I think that the government should immediately consider increasing the permissible income from $1,200 to $2,000 a year as requested in the Canadian Legion brief. In my opinion that is fair. It would help our veterans to get the odd job and earn a little money without

feeling that they have to sneak around the corner when they get their pay cheques. The present situation takes away their pride. It forces them to become dependent on the war veterans allowance alone and does not make them independent as they wish to be. At the same time it deprives many industries and our farmers of the assistance that such veterans could give by way of caretaking, picking fruit, as in our case, and so on.
Therefore I hope the minister will consider that request because it is not much to ask when you consider the present cost of living. Many of these veterans are compelled to support dependents, and I feel it is our duty to keep the promise we made when these men offered their lives to defend our freedom and security. The number of veterans receiving the war veterans allowance is diminishing. Any further assistance will be too late for many of them because of the time that will elapse before it is granted. Therefore the government should act now to appoint a veterans committee to deal with the matter if they are not prepared to grant this request without recourse to a committee. These men gave their all and they expect fair treatment.
Another matter that has been brought to my attention frequently and forcibly of late concerns the operations of the farm loan board. My references to this board will concern my own riding. So far as its operations in the fruit growing districts are concerned, I would refer to it in words that have been passed on to me. It is autocratic and bureaucratic. I have a record of many requests for reasonable loans completely turned down, and even without the property being appraised. One farmer was turned down because, he was told, the value of his trees is not considered. Yet to obtain a loan the orchard must be pledged as security, and the act calls for the orchard to have healthy bearing trees. However, when it comes to assessing value, the value of the trees is nil.
While the amount that can be borrowed under this act has been doubled, it has not made the slightest difference to the fruit farmer seeking this relief. I have heard good reports of the work done by this organization in other parts of Canada but I think it is a case of Jekyll and Hyde, because my experience is that they have failed completely to carry out the government's intention-that is, to help the farmers and be lenient with them -to counteract the harshness of the ordinary lending institutions while the farmer gets on his feet. In the fruit districts of Canada we have a different problem to that of the average farmer. This act should be dealt with on a basis different from that followed for the
The Budget-Mr. Jones ordinary farmer; and it should be administered by someone having experience in fruit growing in a fruit area.
Much of our trouble arises from the great frost a few years ago. Farmers who tried to consolidate their debts and rehabilitate themselves at the same time found their asset value diminishing, particularly in the eyes of the farm loan board, to a point where they are considered to be poor risks. However, I have evidence that farmers turned down by the farm loan board have gone to orthodox banks, put up the same story and the same assets, and received the same loan without question-and that on a short-term basis because the banker felt that with a little assistance at a critical time the farmer in many cases would be in a position to repay the loan in a matter of less than three years. Other farmers have gone to other lending institutions. I have one letter from a farmer who tells me that he was turned down by the board but went to a very businesslike institution which loaned money at between 7 and 8 per cent and he had no trouble. He was able to borrow the money there although he was turned down by the farm loan board.
I feel that this act is a good act and it is meant to have good results; but administered in a bureaucratic and autocratic way, as it is in fruit growing areas, it has to my mind proved to be a flop, and I claim that there is a case for an investigation. I would like to point out that the fruit farmers are not seeking charity but merely an understanding of their problem by someone more sympathetic than those who have been dealing with them up to the present time. They want a fair opportunity to finance their ventures on a par with other Canadian farmers-something which they feel they are not getting today.
I have one other matter which has been brought to my attention and which so far has not been dealt with. It concerns the taxes on cars. It is drawn to my attention that taxes on cars or not equitable with those on other manufactured commodities. Probably that was justified in the early days because only those with plenty of money were car owners. A car could then be classed as a luxury but now cars have become very much of a necessity, particularly low-priced cars. I am not interested in high-priced cars and they are still a luxury.
To some workers their cars are as important as their homes. In fact they must have a car to hold a job and to get back and forth to that job, because today the tendency is to build housing projects away from the centres of industry-away to give health and space to the workers. The principle is one
2798	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Dube that is followed under the National Housing Act, to get communities with as much fresh air as possible. It is a good policy and a good principle but, that being the case, a worker living in such a project must have a car to go to and from his work in order to keep his job. I feel that a low-priced Canadian car, or an American car if you like, is discriminated against because we find that it pays a sales and excise tax of $499, roughly $500. In 1939 such a car paid only $65 in taxes. Since 1939 the sales tax on these cars has increased 138 per cent and the excise tax on them has increased in excess of 7,300 per cent. I consider that to be an exorbitant and unfair tax on those citizens who find a car a necessity.
Practically every Canadian family today has a car, and probably 80 per cent of them find it a necessity. Unfortunately, in British Columbia we have another tax added by that government of 3 per cent which the same car user must pay before he becomes free to use our roads.
Mr. Speaker, I place these points before the minister hoping that he will give consideration to one or two of them. Particularly, I would stress the plight of the war veterans who have sought and sought for recognition of their problem. I trust that, without waiting for dissolution of this parliament, their request will be met, and met in full.
(Translation):


Mr. P. L. Dube (Resiigouche-Madawaska):: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of my remarks it gives me great pleasure to draw the attention of the house to a very important event. On February 17, the city of Edmundston saw one of its ancient traditions disappear, as a result of the inauguration of a mail delivery service by letter carriers. Through my humble efforts and the great kindness of the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote), whom I wish to thank very sincerely, New Brunswick's fourth largest city now has a door-to-door mail service. An official ceremony was held, in extremely cold weather, to mark this further step in the city of Edmundston's progress.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the citizens of Edmundston and in my own name, I wish to thank the Postmaster General for having given us this modern mail service, which meets with everyone's approval and for having sent his parliamentary assistant, the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Langlois), to represent him in Edmundston. I want to say to the hon. member for Gaspe that we have a very pleasant recollection of his stay among us. I also wish to offer my sincere thanks to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) for having


honoured us with his presence, in spite of his numerous occupations. I hope they all came back delighted with the reception offered to them in the "republic" of Mada-waska.
It is a pleasure for me to thank the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) who, although he has not succeeded in satisfying everybody, has met expectations and made some people happy. Heads of families with children of school age will be greatly relieved by the $400 exemption, which was previously limited to children under 21 and is now extended to any university student, without any age limit. This will greatly encourage university studies and will do justice to a great many heads of families in Canada, and more particularly in my constituency.
The removal of licence fees on radio receiving sets is one of the measures which will be most appreciated by the people of this country.
I do not propose to speak about the budget any longer, since I would have to repeat what other members have already said.
I take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to point out that the constituency of Restigouche-Madawaska has been a little too neglected in the past. Since I have been elected to parliament I have constantly attempted to look after the interests and the welfare of my constituents, without concerning myself with the lack of co-operation on the part of a small group of my fellow citizens, even though I have obtained a large majority of the votes in my constituency. Knowing my duty, I have never ceased to request most vigorously, from the various departments involved, those essential public works most urgently required by my constituency, such as a bridge over the Restigouche river between Campbell-ton, New Brunswick, and Cross Point, Quebec; retaining walls on the Restigouche river at Baker Brook, so as to prevent erosion and to protect the farms which are situated there; repairs to the wharves at Campbellton, Dal-housie, Benjamin River and on Heron island.
I have also asked the Minister of Public Works to build, next spring if possible, a customs house at St. Leonard and at Clair. I have asked him also to build a freight shed and a railway station in Edmundston. 1 have requested an increase in family allowances and in old age pensions, as well as a more adequate pension for retired employees of the C.N.R.
In spite of all this, a small group would have liked me to do in 3J years what, through neglect, has never been done in more than 25

years. This small group is concerned about the stand I am taking here in Ottawa. I am pleased, therefore, to tell my friends, Mr. Speaker-in order to help them remember the past a little-that since my election to the Edmundston school board, I have always stood firm in my convictions and have never failed in my duty. The events which have occurred since I have been elected to the school board have never affected me.
I can say without fear that I have always done my duty by working in the interest of the taxpayers, the children, the teachers and by striving to treat everyone fairly. As a reward, that little group, craving for power, asked me in 1952 to resign as chairman of the school board. I refused to submit to their request and, in July of the same year, I was re-elected by acclamation as chairman of the Edmundston school board for another three-year term.
From the day 1 became the humble representative of Restigouche-Madawaska, I have followed the same policy here in Ottawa that I followed during my 17 years as a member of the Edmundston school board, that is I have always stood firm and have never kowtowed before anyone. If I have succeeded in being elected as the representative of the finest constituency in New Brunswick, it is because I have always done my best to serve all my electors. Every time they needed my help, I did everything possible to obtain what they requested.
While I represent them here in Ottawa, they can always rely on me to help them solve their problems.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I was greatly surprised at the adjournment of the debate on the resolution of the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor). I have also received many representations from completely disabled people. It is very sad to see those unhappy people, unable to earn their livelihood. I am of the opinion that any invalid should be treated the same as a blind person. Let us grant to our invalid a $40 monthly allowance in order that they may enjoy some of the comforts of life. I leave this matter with the Hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). Kindhearted as he is, he will no doubt be prompted to do something to lighten the burden of all these human beings. I am happy to note that some provinces are at present passing legislation in order to relieve these cxip-
The Budget-Mr. Starr pled people. The province of New Brunswick would also like to adopt legislation in order to help its indigent citizens, but its financial situation prevents it from doing so without federal help. I hope that, soon, the case of the crippled people in this country will find first place on the agenda of the Hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin).
I hope that the requests which I have already made, and which I have just spelled out, will be given serious attention by the various departments, so that the county of Restigouche-Madawaska may benefit from the moneys to which it is entitled. This constituency has always shown itself to be very generous to the present government.
(Text):


Mr. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the presentation of the budget by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). I have also listened attentively to the various speeches which have since been made here in this house, both from the government side and from the opposition.
Meanwhile I have looked into the budget thoroughly and find that it is very disappointing to small wage earners, irrespective of what the members on the other side of the house would lead us to believe. It is true that there has been some relief with respect to certain taxes which have been termed and treated as nuisance taxes, and this will benefit in a very small way the taxpayers in the low income brackets.
To my mind the disappointing feature has been the small reduction in income tax, which affects the wage earner directly in his pay envelope. Some relief may have been given in the field of corporation taxes but, when I compare the two, it seems to me that the unfairness is that the corporation tax has been made retroactive to January 1, 1953, whereas the wage earners' income tax reduction is not effective until July 1, 1953.
I do not wish to dwell on this particular point any longer because it has been brought out very forcefully by various members of the opposition. I wish, however, to make reference to the lack of consideration on the part of the Minister of Finance in his failure to grant some relief to the municipalities. I refer particularly to the failure to remove the sales tax on municipal purchases, an exemption now allowed both to provincial and
2800	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Starr federal governments. This consideration has been entirely ignored in spite of the fact that continuous representations have been made by the municipalities individually and through the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities.
I would urge the Minister of Finance to give consideration to this request of the municipalities and to make provision for the elimination of the sales tax on municipal purchases. To the government the total amount would mean very little, but to the tax-overburdened municipalities it would mean a great deal.
I understand that the municipalities, through their nation-wide association, have also asked for the right to tax federal government and crown corporation property in their respective areas. This, too, has been ignored in the budget, which therefore gives no relief whatsoever to the individual home owner who is so often spoken of as the backbone of the country. I have urged before that these two measures of local taxation relief should be immediately extended by the federal government to our municipalities. I do so again, Mr. Speaker, because they are two definite steps which the government could take to assist our 4,000 municipalities without worrying about the British North America Act which is so often used, it seems to me, merely as an excuse for not getting down to earth on this problem.
I am aware, Mr. Speaker, that the objection has been raised that the municipalities are, on the one hand, asking to be allowed to tax federal property and, on the other hand, to be exempt from the federal sales tax. Some people seem to think this is inconsistent, but I for one do not. The explanation, of course, is that both the provinces and the municipalities have been squeezed out of almost all their revenue sources by the excessive load of federal taxation. They must take every opportunity they can find to raise the funds they need for necessary services without adding new local taxes.
The minister dealt with this matter in his budget speech. As far as I can see all he said was that federal taxes would not be so high if there had not been an invasion of Korea. The fact of the matter is that the federal government was squeezing the provinces and municipalities out of their tax sources long before Korea. It has been a long-term trend for, oddly enough, just about as long as this present government has been in power which is, to put it bluntly, far too long for most people who have had to pay the piper without being allowed to call the tune.

I might say, Mr. Speaker, that all the municipalities are asking for, in this matter of exemption from sales tax on municipal purchases, is that they be given the same treatment as the federal and provincial governments. They are not asking for special treatment. We hear a lot about the three levels of government in Canada working together for the common good. It would seem to be an obvious long step in that direction if they were all treated alike in the matter of taxation.
I also wish to bring to the attention of the Minister of Finance and the members of this house a matter which I think is of some importance as far as the children of school age in this country are concerned. The Minister of Finance, in his budget speech, made reference to the celebration of the coronation of our Queen which will be held in June of this year. This is an event which is of major importance to all Canadians, irrespective of their origin, because of the fact that Queen Elizabeth stands as a symbol of freedom to all peoples in this country.
In order that this event may live long in the minds of our children, the boards of education in this country are contemplating some suitable memento for presentation to children of school age, which would commemorate the coronation of our Queen. This question has been a source of worry to a great many school boards. Trustees of school boards in my own riding have brought this matter to my attention. The situation is that every school board is faced with the problem of making some presentation to the children without too great an expense. Each board will have its own idea as to what type of memento it may present. These will not be uniform throughout the country, and will entail considerable expense to the boards because of the small quantity orders which would be placed.
In the light of that, I would urge the Minister of Finance to immediately consider a suitable memento which would be distributed to all children of school age in the country. May I suggest that a medallion, or something similar to a medallion, be authorized, with the head of our Queen on one side and a suitable inscription on the other side. This could possibly be done at the mint, and could be a direct gift from the government or sold to the school boards at cost price, which would be much below the cost they would pay for similar mementoes produced in small quantities.
Since this is an item of expense I am bringing it up at this time, and would urge that immediate action be taken and an announcement made that the government is willing to do this, so that school boards may be informed

that these mementoes will be available. Otherwise they may assume unnecessary expense. It is, of course, important that an early decision should be made, otherwise boards which might wish to have these mementoes will have committed themselves to some other plan.
There was another glaring omission in the budget, Mr. Speaker, which was, I am sure, a great disappointment to the three million Canadians who on budget day, as on every other working day, went to work by automobile.
I refer to the fact that there was no cut made in the outmoded and completely unrealistic luxury tax on passenger cars. I say that it is outmoded, Mr. Speaker, because it is simply not in step with our day and age in which, according to reliable statistics, no less than 83 per cent of all automobile driving is essential, and 62 per cent of all private cars are used to get people to work.
I say that it is unrealistic, Mr. Speaker, because Canadians just cannot afford to pay these fantastic taxes on a family necessity, in addition to all the other taxes which are demanded of them. The very lowest price car manufactured in Canada-and it happens to be manufactured in the city of Oshawa, which is the largest municipality in the riding which I have the honour to represent-pays a tax of $360. On the same model car the tax in 1946 was well under $200.
Now, I do not say that cars should be given any special treatment in relation to other commodities in the matter of taxation. But I do say, and I think the people of Canada agree with me, that an automobile should not be subject to a luxury tax, in addition to other taxes, when it so obviously is not a luxury.
I suppose there are a few people who might be called luxury drivers, but I can assure the house that they are in a very small minority. I have already the figures which show that 83 per cent of all driving is essential. This means that 8'( of every 10 miles of driving is directly connected with the necessities of life, such as going to work, or to school, to the doctor, or to do the family shopping.
It has been frequently pointed out in this place, Mr. Speaker, in the last few days, that the present government shows a remarkable lack of concern in taxation matters for those in the low income groups. Over 25 per cent of all car owners in Canada earn less than $2,000 a year, and over 60 per cent of car owners earn less than $3,000. I am sure the Minister of Finance must sometimes wonder how his victims in these income groups ever manage to pay these
The Budget-Mr. Starr excessive added luxury taxes on their essential transportation, taxes ranging from $360 up in addition to all the other taxes.
I think I can suggest the answer. They are paying these taxes, Mr. Speaker, by the most unsatisfactory means known, namely by borrowing. People all over Canada today are going into substantial debt to pay their taxes. It might interest the Minister of Finance to know, for example, that the latest figures I have seen-they are the dominion bureau of statistics comparisons for the last two Novembers-show that the rate of passenger car financing in Canada has increased 103 per cent.
As the representative of the constituency most dependent in all Canada on the automobile business, I feel that I have a special responsibility in bringing this matter to the attention of the house. It is not only the city of Oshawa that is vitally concerned with the prosperity of the automobile business. My constituency represents what is happening all over Canada to make the private passenger car the most essential single form of transportation in this country. I refer to what has been called the "explosion" of our great cities.
In Ontario riding we have examples of this at both ends, so to speak. Thousands of our people drive 20 to 30 miles west to Toronto each day to go to work, or the same distance east and south to Oshawa. The great General Motors plant in Oshawa, for example, employs about 10,000 workers. No less than 2,000 of these live throughout Ontario riding, many of them making the round trip of 30, 40 or even 50 miles. In a recent study we made of this matter we were amazed to find that almost every hamlet, village and crossroads in the entire riding was represented daily in the Oshawa work force. In one sense it is a tie that binds us closely together, for we know that the interests of the city and the countryside are one and the same. To paraphrase, if I may, a recent famous statement, "What is good for Ontario is good for Oshawa. What is good for Oshawa is good for Ontario."
On the other hand our distances impose a real hardship on those who are forced to pay not only for gasoline, repairs and general upkeep of their cars, but also for what this government has the astounding effrontery to call the luxury of driving a car to work every day. Surely, Mr. Speaker, the administration must be very, very far out of touch with ordinary people, ordinary realities, and ordinary living in this country when it reduces taxes on corporation dividends and imposes luxury taxes on private automobiles.

The Budget-Mr. Bertrand
When the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) called the budget he presented here a few weeks ago a social dividend it is fair, I think, to wonder what part of our Canadian society he was thinking about. Certainly it was not the part in which I and my friends in Ontario riding live, move and have our being.
(Translation):


Mr. Lionel Bertrand (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak very long. I believe it would be superfluous to make a detailed review of events or of the various aspects of the economic situation, for the simple reason that these facts are daily placed before the people by that powerful organization, radio, and that other essential organization, the press. It is not my intention either to dwell on the legislative measures that have been introduced. People are conversant with the main features of the recent budget speech, because they have read and reread them.
Instead I would like to put forward some of my opinions, which are also those of my electors, whose spokesman I am in this house, opinions which I believe worthy of favourable consideration by the government. In my estimation, we have a good administration in this country. The cabinet is made up of competent men. The leader of the government, Mr. St. Laurent, has shown by his actions and by his deeds that he has at heart Canada's prestige, unity and progress and that is enough for me.
The opposition will no doubt voice complaints and criticism; after all, that is their job. Such complaints and criticism are made more bitter by repeated failures, continued absence from power and the inability to find in the administration scandals such as to arouse public opinion. From week to week, their efforts remain powerless; and time marches on, strengthening from week to week the prestige of the party to which I belong, a party which may have made some mistakes- it is only human-but, considering its achievements remains all in all the party which, due to its truly Canadian policy, enjoys the greatest measure of confidence among the Canadian electorate.
I would like this afternoon to lay emphasis on one or two points, and to suggest some measures that should be considered and approved, to enhance the prestige of our national policy. Along with so many others,
I am in favour of a national anthem; this question should be studied and public opinion

consulted thereon. Along with so many others I favour the adoption of a national flag which would owe nothing to France or to Britain, but whose elements would be inspired by a purely Canadian patriotism. I believe that these two questions, though they may have given rise in the past to certain differences of opinion, should now receive the approval of every Canadian, and by that I mean those to whom this country is really the homeland.
I am in favour of the establishment of a Canadian embassy to the Vatican. I know, of course, that this suggestion is not favourably greeted everywhere. I nevertheless sincerely believe that there is no better listening post in the world today than the Vatican. I also know that the Vatican remains at the present time one of the most solid barriers against communism in the world and that, as spiritual leader of the church, the Pope is a power whose opinions and advice cannot be tossed lightly aside. Any foe of communism at this time, whatever his religious persuasion, must admit that the Pope and the Vatican block the advance of communism in the world. The best proof of that fact may be found in the continuous and recurring attacks against them by soviet propaganda.
Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of the most thorough social security. I ask again-and I wish to praise the rehabilitation council for its efforts in bringing a solution to this disquieting problem-for pensions in favour of incapacitated and invalid people, a project which I have commended so often in this house. I think that our social security program will be complete only when we have lightened the burden of this unhappy group of our society.
Hundreds of letters have been addressed to me, asking for an increase in the basic rate of family allowances. I was not able to answer them all, because they were too numerous. I must say, in all sincerity, that if family allowances were instituted in 1945 in order to help the population face the cost of living, to help parents give a better education and better care to their children, it would be only fair to enact a legislative measure which would modify the rate, at regular intervals, in order to meet the cost of living. Family allowances have rendered immense services to the population, and they are one of the best achievements of the Liberal party. This beneficial legislation must not be left stationary, but it must be modified, so that it may at all times be fully efficient.

I agree with the opinion expressed in this house by the hon. member for Chambly-Rou-ville (Mr. Pinard). I believe that blind people should receive the maximum pension without the means test. The blind person is an isolated person in society and the few dollars granted by the government only helps to alleviate part of the moral sufferings that wring his heart.
The time has come when we will have to think about inaugurating, on a national scale, old age pensions at 65. There are many people aged 65-which is the pensionable age in many plants-who cannot find work on the labour market; they have to face unemployment, insecurity and sometimes hardship. The present legislation should be amended to provide for certain cases that are pitiable to say the least; I mean people who have a little capital, immobilized in most cases, and who are unable to face life with the small income derived therefrom.
The Unemployment Insurance Act has been amended frequently and it is fortunate. It should be extended, I think, to various other categories of employees who are not yet covered and who wish to come under it. It should also be extended, in certain cases, to those who are accidentally disabled for a limited period of time, through sudden illness requiring hospitalization or other difficulties resulting from fortuitous circumstances and our modern way of life.
The National Housing Act has produced very good results. The down payment should be lowered again. The construction of new housing units should be increased. In a country like ours, there should be 125,000 new housing units every year, for at least ten years.
In UniJc, a publication put out by the Canada Flushwood Door of Terrebonne, in my constituency, I find the following judicious remarks on the subject. These are taken from the March 1953 issue:
And even with all our best efforts, we barely manage to put up 60,000 housing units in 365 days. The needs remain great, however, and though we boast of a high standard of living, thousands of Canadians live in disgusting slums. There are some of these in large towns, everywhere, even in the remotest sections of this country. It is a saddening thought that in a period as progressive as ours, from every point of view, so many human beings do not have a proper roof over their heads. It is hardly sufficient to point out this state of affairs, to regret it, to lament or to cry over it. Let us get to work. Let us launch proper campaigns to encourage our people to acquire their own homes. A subversive idea never gets past the threshold of a young home owner. But the home must exist! And since supplies now seem to be more adequate, we should start building houses, more houses and more still. It is the main source of wealth in this country, and surpluses are useless if the population is left to sleep in the open.
10, 1953	2803
Mid-Continent Pipelines Limited


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but it is five o'clock and the house must now take up private and public bills.
(Text):



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, March 6, consideration of the motion of Mr. Larson for the second reading of Bill No. 189, to incorporate Mid-Continent Pipelines Limited.
Mr. G. A. Cruickshank (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I cannot proceed in the beautiful language of the previous speaker, particularly in light of the fact that what I have to say affects his province. I am confident, however, that some hon. members from that province will follow me in the debate, and speak along the same lines I am speaking. I am sure they will want the facts. For instance, there is the riding of Hull, and also that of Gatineau which adjoins it. I am sure that the members representing those ridings will follow me and assist in my endeavours to bring natural gas to eastern Canada.
Until I had spoken the other night I had no idea how popular I was in Ontario and Quebec. I am not used to getting fan mail from those provinces. But I received many wires, and I have brought a few down with me. I could have brought a brief case full of communications from the ridings surrounding Ottawa. I hope the members representing these ridings will have something to say in an effort to get this form of natural power for their districts.
I must admit that among the letters and telegrams I have received there were one or two that were not quite so complimentary. I referred to my good friend the mayor of Ottawa, and one gentleman thought I should not have said just what I did. He agreed with me in part, but not altogether. He thought I should have confined myself to the municipalities in my own district, or perhaps have spoken about the water supply for Moose Jaw. He did not think I should refer to what was being done by some of the people around Ottawa.
As I said the other night, I am most anxious to help Ottawa. I am sure the members representing that city will speak in this connection. I was criticized for some of the remarks I made about representation, but I think the city is being represented in a very fine way. I want to offer my congratulations and felicitations to the mayor of Ottawa, and I hope she enjoyed her birthday the day before yesterday.
2804	HOUSE OF
Mid-Continent Pipelines Limited
If we had representation in this House of Commons on the scale which I was criticized for mentioning, we would have 2,301 members. It was suggested that we should sell the House of Commons, pay our debts and go home, but if we had that many members it would be hard to find places for them.
I do not know where we could put them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson):: Order. It is difficult for me to understand just what connection there is between the remarks the hon. member is making and the principle of the bill under discussion.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am sure you will allow me time for any interruptions. I do not want to delay this matter, because there has been enough delay. May I say that I am very proud of Fort William, and I do not want to see that city denied any advantage it would derive from natural gas from the west. That city should be allowed to grow. It is one of the most beautiful cities in Ontario and is represented in this house in a very able manner. I am sure the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) will insist on following me and demand, not request, that this great city of Fort William have natural gas in order to develop along the lines it should develop. If Fort William does not develop as it should, where will Port Arthur be? Fort William has been carrying Port Arthur long enough, and it is time Port Arthur got in behind Fort William and assisted it.
I want to see the county of Leeds and the city of Brockville develop as they would with natural gas. I notice here an advertisement of a meeting to be held on Wednesday, March 25 in Brockville, and I am sure they will discuss this very matter of natural gas for Brockville.


Mr. Thatcher:: Does the hon. member want to see Moose Jaw get some gas?


George Alexander Cruickshank: Most definitely.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: If he will sit down and stop talking the pipe line will be built and we will get it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Most definitely; but I would say from the representation it has here that it needs it least of any town in Canada. I was speaking of this meeting which is to be held in Brockville. I suppose the main topic will be to see that Brockville gets gas. The hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) is going to speak. I cannot just follow the wording of the advertisement which reads "Transaction of bustness" unless it indicates that Marilyn Monroe is going to be there. I do not know how they are going to consider the subject of bustness.


Comox-Alberni is in it now. These interruptions are delaying things. I do not want to take up any more time than is necessary. These delightful provinces of Ontario and Quebec should not have to depend upon western members to see that they get their just rights in the form of a commodity that we have in such bountiful amounts. That was exemplified recently by one of the members from the prairie provinces.
As I said the other day, I am sure the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Gauthier) will be demanding that they get natural gas. I understand that they produce more nickel there than any other city in Canada, and they could double their output if they had natural gas.
I know that many hon. members want to follow me, but I have only ten minutes left. I know the hon. member for Fort William is just aching to get on his feet to support me. As I say, I have received these wires and letters from boards of trades, mayors and others. I would suggest to the members representing these fine provinces of Ontario and Quebec that they should not leave it to the member for Fraser Valley who lives three thousand miles away to try to get this great advantage for their provinces. Some eastern members have spoken, but I regret that they have all been on the other side of the house.
There are many rumours going around the corridors. I must admit that Ottawa is noted for rumours. We cannot pay attention to everything we hear. I suggested the other day that there would be great competition in Carleton, but the latest rumour I have heard from behind these curtains is that I am to carry the mace over in London for one of these cities.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: You will not get a trip that easily.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I do not know why I should be interrupted by an hon. member for whom I have done so much. Wb are prepared to drop off gas to give the people in his town a greater supply, though they are already well equipped. We are ready to give it to them in commercial quantities so that any hardware business or anything else may profit by being able to use our natural gas for heating purposes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson):: I am
sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I must advise him that his time has expired.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, this is a private bill, but the issue raised by it is by no manner of means a private issue. The bill puts before members of the house once more an entirely unsatisfactory procedure by which we are

called upon to express our judgment with regard to the possible incorporation of a company about which we know next to nothing. We know who the applicants are. We know the individuals whose names appear on the application, although we have no way of knowing whether those are the names of the people primarily interested. We also have no way of knowing whether, once incorporated, this company would ever receive permission to proceed with the one function for which it is intended.
I have raised objections on previous occasions to the granting of a charter which immediately affords a certain value to a decision that has been made by the members of the house. I believe that if the decision is not going to be in our hands as to which company will actually carry gas or oil over a given area, then the granting of a charter should not be before members of the house at all. If the decision is to be made by some body or agency of government, as it is in this case, requiring also the permission of the government itself, then I think incorporation should be by the ordinary procedure. There should be a provision that those who apply and conform with the ordinary provisions of the Companies Act will receive a charter under that act. Everyone would then know that the charter had no greater and no less value than the ordinary charter issued under the Companies Act until the company was ready to proceed with its business.
A charter granted by parliament itself has an importance and a bargaining value which goes beyond the ordinary charter. I repeat that objection once again without in any way suggesting that those who make this application are not making it in good faith and with the very best of intentions. I am speaking about the duty of parliament, and the fact that members of parliament should not be called upon to be mere rubber stamps in granting a charter when they are not given the information which is essential in order to pass judgment upon an application of this nature.
Then there is another consideration with respect to this measure. The hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Larson), who moved second reading of the bill, had this to say in asking that the house give second reading to the bill. I read from page 2581 of Hansard of March 3. These are his words:
The intention of the sponsors of this bill is to construct a gas pipe line from Alberta along the general route of the C.P.R.. through Swift Current, Saskatchewan, Moose Jaw, Regina, Brandon, Winnipeg and thence to eastern Canada. I do not feel capable of carrying on any technical discussion as to the feasibility and the financial arrangements and what-not of this company.
10, 1953	2805
Mid-Continent Pipelines Limited
That is all I propose to quote of what was said on the occasion when this measure was introduced. I can only say, Mr. Speaker, that if the sponsor of a bill of this kind is not prepared to explain to the house what the considerations are which should guide hon. members in reaching a decision, then the measure should be withdrawn and a more satisfactory procedure adopted.


Mr. Larson:: On a question of privilege, I think I asked that it be referred to the committee, at which time the technicians would be there to discuss all these various phases.


George Alexander Drew: That does not deal in any way with the point I am making that this is not the place to present a measure about which we know so little and will know so little even after it has been referred to the committee.
One question that immediately arises is what was intended to be taken from the words of the hon. member. He is clear with respect to where the pipe line will go as far as Winnipeg. All he says then is that it will proceed thence to eastern Canada. Is it to proceed thence to eastern Canada by the United States or by a Canadian route? That is something we should know before we are asked to pass judgment.
The hon. member for Kindersley has indicated that the bill will go before a committee. I am not satisfied that is going to give us any more information than we had about the Interprovincial Pipe Line or other pipeline applications that went before the committee and about which we found afterwards that we had not been fully informed.
Let us see what happened in the case of Interprovincial Pipe Line. All hon. members will realize that there is no suggestion in anything I say that the members of this party believe that we are dealing with people who are not financially responsible or who may not have every intention of conducting a sound and proper business enterprise in every way. No one will suggest that those who made the application to obtain a charter for the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company were not sound financially and did not intend to carry out their undertaking. We know they did, because they have carried out the undertaking in so far as it was originally contemplated, and now they are planning to carry it still further.
I think it would be well for all hon. members to recall what happened in connection with Interprovincial Pipe Line. Interprovincial was a pipe line which was to carry oil from western Canada. There again the route was clear enough as far as Winnipeg. The question then arose whether there should be a pipe line carrying oil to the head of the
2806	HOUSE OF
Mid-Continent Pipelines Limited lakes or a pipe line carrying oil to Superior in the United States at the most westerly point of lake Superior. Hon. members will recall the arguments. We were told that if the pipe line proceeded through Canadian territory to the lakehead and afforded the facilities for industrial development which it would offer to Fort William and Port Arthur, it would cost some $10 million more.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I ask my hon. friend a question? Where did this argument take place?


George Alexander Drew: What is that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The argument you are speaking of; was it in the House of Commons or in a committee of the House of Commons?


George Alexander Drew: It took place here and in the committee.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, most certainly we heard the argument over and over again about the advantage of this pipe line going to Superior instead of to the head of the lakes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I challenge my hon. friend to find anything of that in Hansard or anything in the reports of the committee.


George Alexander Drew: There was a debate.


Mr. Green:: Yes, there was a debate in the house.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There was a hearing in Fort William later.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, this was raised in this house and discussed very fully, and the advantage of a Canadian route was discussed very fully. The argument was presented-


Clarence Decatur Howe: A route to where?


George Alexander Drew: -that even if it did cost more to construct-and I am referring to an allCanadian pipe line-we would be simply following the same practice that had been followed in constructing a rail line north of the great lakes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That was afterward, but it was not in any discussion on the bill.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I am repeating that there was a discussion on this subject; and I am also repeating the fact that we put forward the argument that a Canadian route should be followed.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That was just before an
election.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) make his speech on this afterward.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will indeed.


George Alexander Drew: Because the Minister of Trade and Commerce is entirely inaccurate in his recollection of the events. The Minister of Trade and Commerce is fully aware that this subject was discussed to a point where he showed the utmost irritation in this house and, in fact, made it very obviously a government measure and no longer a private measure. He showed that it was the desire of the government that this course be followed. That was shown very clearly in the discussion that took place in connection with pipe lines in other parts of Canada. In so far as this was concerned, the contention was that it would be much more economical to carry the oil to Superior and then bring it by boat to Sarnia than it would to follow a Canadian route and bring the oil to eastern Ontario that way.
Now, that argument may have had some merit in so far as actual comparative costs were concerned, but we do not know because the oil pipe line was constructed to Superior. We were then informed that the great oil companies were building tankers to carry oil from Superior to Sarnia. Hon. members of this house will remember that there was a good deal of attention paid to the first trips when that oil was carried by tanker to Sarnia. Now we find that Superior is not to be the end of the pipe line, and that the pipe line is to be continued from Superior to Sarnia. But it is not going to be continued from Superior to Sarnia through Canada; it is going to be continued from Superior to Sarnia through the United States. The result is that a number of cities in the United States are going to directly benefit from the use of Canadian gas, instead of the Canadian cities that would have benefited if this pipe line had been constructed to the lakehead as we originally proposed, and then carried around the north shore.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend is talking about a gas line now, is he? Is he talking about gas or oil?


George Alexander Drew: Oil. If I used the word "gas" at that point

although of course I would remind the Minister of Trade and Commerce that these pipe lines have the right to carry gas or oil-it is a fact that Interprovincial pipe lines carry oil. They carry that oil originally to Superior and if I have inadvertently used the word "gas" in connection with Interprovincial pipe lines at that point, I recognize that it was oil that Interprovincial pipe lines proposed to carry and have carried as far as Superior.
Now they propose to construct a pipe line from Superior which will serve Ashland,


Ironwood, Negaunee, Marquette, Munising, Saint Ignace, Mackinaw, Bay City and other communities between Superior and Sarnia, including Duluth.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You mean it would serve them if they had an export licence for the oil, which they have not got.


George Alexander Drew: Does the minister say now that Interprovincial pipe lines are not going to be permitted to carry oil from Superior to Sarnia by that route?


Clarence Decatur Howe: They are permitted to carry oil from Superior to Sarnia in bond, just as they are permitted to carry oil from Alberta to Sarnia in bond.


George Alexander Drew: Well, the point is that they
are being permitted to carry oil by the pipe line which follows the route that I have described.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Certainly.


George Alexander Drew: Because I notice that the line
goes directly to those communities instead of following the shortest route.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson):: I am
having some difficulty in deciding whether this rather protracted discussion of Interprovincial Pipe Line is in order on the motion for second reading of an act to incorporate Mid-Continent Pipelines Limited. Up to now I have not interrupted the Leader of the Opposition, but he might perhaps cooperate by confining himself more closely to the principle of the bill under discussion.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I propose to co-operate, but I propose to discuss the issue that is before this house; and the issue before this house is whether the members of this house should be called upon to pass a motion of this kind when we have evidence of what happened in another case. I would point out to every hon. member that this house was asked to pass judgment on the assurance that the pipe line was going to Superior. They were told that this was the most economical route, but that it would be carried from there by tanker to Sarnia, and Canada would benefit from it as a result.
Now, only a comparatively short time after the pipe line has been constructed to Superior, we find that it is the intention to carry the pipe line from Superior through the United States to Sarnia by a route that is no shorter than the route that would have been followed had that pipe line been carried around the north shore of lake Superior and lake Huron. That is relevant, Mr. Speaker; it is of very great relevancy indeed when you examine the words of the sponsor of the bill. He carefully gives us the route as far
10, 1953
Mid-Continent Pipelines Limited as Winnipeg, and at that point he says it will be carried thence to eastern Canada. As far as we know it may be intended that it go through the United States just as the Interprovincial pipe line goes through the United States.


An hon. Member:: The bill says in or out of Canada.


George Alexander Drew: We know perfectly well that
any one of these lines can be extended into the United States because, as we all know, the ultimate decision will lie with the government.
Now, in so far as Interprovincial Pipe Line is concerned, it is inconceivable that the company at that time did not contemplate- when they were making the application-that they would be putting the pipe line through from Winnipeg via Superior to Sarnia-via the United States.
It is all very well to say that the oil is to be carried in bond, but we can well imagine what the argument would be in the event of any demand for oil in any of those communities along that route. They would say to us, and with a good deal of justification:	There is a pipe line carrying oil
which goes right by the outskirts of this city. We have industries that are engaged in the common enterprise in which we are all engaged-in the defence of freedom-and we urge that we be permitted to take this oil for the purpose of the industrial activity which it can serve.
Having regard to the relationship between these two countries it is very difficult to imagine that we would resist an argument of that kind if it were presented with some apparent justification, as would be the case with any great industry such as an aircraft industry or a similar industry serving the common cause of freedom.
In this particular case it may well be that the company does intend to follow a Canadian route. If so, let us know what that route is. Let us end any uncertainty as to what policy is going to be adopted in a case of this kind. So far as the government are concerned they have left no doubt but that theirs is the ultimate responsibility. Let the government declare that, while it is perfectly true that these are private bills, it is the policy of this government that the first interest to be served will be the interest of the Canadian people. With regard to these pipe lines, let us have an unqualified declaration of a policy of Canada first in the use of these great resources. That does not mean any dog in the manger attitude in regard to either gas or oil.

Mid-Continent Pipelines Limited


Mr. Dickey:: Then it does not mean
anything.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, we hear an interjection from one of the parliamentary assistants and from the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) that that does not mean anything. May I say that a Canada first policy does mean a great deal to us.


George Matheson Murray: Not Texas first.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago you raised some question as to relevancy. I find it difficult to imagine where any relevancy can be found in the remark just made, "Not Texas first". I have no idea what that observation means, and I doubt greatly whether the hon. member knows.
In so far as the use of our gas and oil is concerned, we have the recent declaration of the premier of Alberta that it is the intention of the government of Alberta to promote the export of gas from that province. Undoubtedly it will be the decision of the government of Alberta whether gas is to be exported to other parts of Canada and to the United States at the same time. In so far as the export of gas is concerned, if there is adequate gas for the use of the people of Alberta and for the use of the people of the rest of Canada, I would think it would be sound economically to permit the export of gas to the United States as well. But most certainly the first consideration must be the welfare of Canada itself, before export of gas is permitted to the United States. That being so, obviously we should be sure that our interests are served.
I recognize that there has been under discussion the advisability of an exchange of gas, whereby gas would be exported from western Canada into the United States in an amount corresponding with that exported in the east from the United States to Canada. Mr. Speaker, that procedure would be perfectly sound and economic to the extent that we could be sure that this was on a long-term basis that would not be disturbed by events of any kind short of the actual destruction of the pipe lines themselves. We have not reached the point where there is any evidence that such an arrangement has been made or where we may expect that any such arrangement will be agreed upon between the government of Canada and the government of the United States.
That being so, we certainly should not delay the export of gas or the movement of gas from Alberta to eastern Canada and from Alberta west to British Columbia; and

arrangements should be made as soon as possible to carry this gas through to the cities and towns of eastern Canada.


Frederick Hugo Larson: Will the Leader of the Opposition permit a question?


George Alexander Drew: Yes.


Frederick Hugo Larson: Does the Leader of the Opposition oppose the granting of permission to export gas to the Pacific northwest, or is he in favour of it?


George Alexander Drew: If the hon. member had followed the discussion he would know perfectly well that we have supported that because we found that the interests of Canada were served. We have at all times made it perfectly clear that, so long as the interests of Canadians are fully protected, we can see no reason why gas should not be exported to the United States up to such amount as does not threaten the continuing supply of that gas for Canada in the years ahead.
That applies to the use of all our resources and raw materials. Let there be no misinterpretation of any arguments we are putting forward with regard to the use of natural gas, oil or any other of our resources. In so far as these resources are concerned, we simply say that the interests of the people of Canada come first, and that before we agree to the export of them either to the eastern or western United States, we should be sure that Canadian interests are first served. Where that is done, and where a continuing supply is fully assured, then there can be no objection to appropriate arrangements being made for export to the United States as well. In fact we should encourage the export under those circumstances, where it will be to the advantage of our own producers.
The situation here is that we want to know definitely what the policy of the government is, because it is the government that ultimately is going to decide, whether this is a private bill or not. At the very outset I said that while this is a private bill, the policy involved is a public policy and it is for the government to declare that policy. If in the case of the pipe line carrying oil to which I have referred the policy had been adopted which we advocated at that time, then the cities and towns of northern Ontario would today be in a position to benefit from that oil just as soon as the pipe line would have been completed around the north shore of lake Superior and lake Huron. Another course was followed and therefore they are denied that oil, certainly for the time being.
We now have before us a measure that deals with natural gas; and whether it be

this corporation or any other corporation, I believe that we should have a clear and unequivocal declaration by the government that it will be the interests of Canadians themselves that will have a prior claim and that, when a licence is granted for any corporation, whether it be this corporation or one of the others that now compete for permission to carry gas to eastern Canada, the pipe line will serve Canadians and not pass from Winnipeg to eastern Canada through the United States as did the other pipe line to which I have referred.
Let us look at the communities that are interested in this development. In western Ontario there are communities such as Kenora, Dryden, Rainy River and Fort Frances, all of which would doubtless be able to benefit if a pipe line followed that course. Then there are the cities of Fort William and Port Arthur, which would benefit greatly by an adequate supply of natural gas. There is the thriving community of Atikokan between Fort Frances and Fort William which would benefit from a pipe line following the Canadian route. Then there are communities like Geraldton with their busy mining activities. There are the Soo, Sudbury and North Bay and all the great mining communities of the north-


Clarence Decatur Howe: You would have a crooked pipe line if you served all those places.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I am not suggesting for one moment that a single pipe line would be able to serve every one of those places.


William Earl Rowe: You could tap it.


George Alexander Drew: There could be lines tapping
the main pipe line-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh, surely.


George Alexander Drew: -to make the gas available, just as is done in Alberta today. An engineer would, of course, understand that. In so far as this is concerned, there is assurance already of the very large consumption of natural gas in those communities of northern Ontario. Therefore a pipe line following that route will be extremely useful to Canadians in that part of Canada, as well as in western Canada in those communities already named by the sponsor of this bill.
This pipe line would not only serve those communities to which I have referred, but presumably would carry gas to Toronto and the communities in that area, to Montreal and to the cities and towns in Quebec which have indicated their desire to have these facilities. Instead of showing irritation when it is suggested that we should know
10. 1953
Mid-Continent Pipelines Limited what route is going to be followed, and instead of interjecting comments-


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am just showing amusement, that is all.


George Alexander Drew: -which indicate no concern about what route will be followed, it would be well for the government, which has the responsibility in this, to indicate quite clearly what its policy is. It might just as well tell us now whether this company is going to have the slightest chance of ever getting a licence, or whether we are simply being called upon to incorporate a company that will not get a licence, because the government may already have decided that it is going to grant a licence to some other company which has already been incorporated. We all know that there are other companies. Therefore, there need be no mystery about it. If the government thinks this additional company should be incorporated, and if they intend to make sure that, subject to the intervening approval of the government agency which will consider the application, they will grant the licence, then let them say so. We will know then that we are dealing with a reality instead of simply the incorporation of a company which they have no intention of ever permitting to operate within any measurable period of time.
None of what has been said need be regarded by the government as criticism at all, so long as they will now declare the policy which we have asked them to declare on every occasion that a pipe line has been discussed since the original pipe line act was passed.
If the government does not wish to have these debates taking place on private measures, then there is the simple solution which has been suggested over and over again, and which I put forward when the first of these applications was before the house. Let the bill which permits the incorporation of pipe lines be amended to provide that a corporation dealt with in that bill shall be incorporated under the Companies Act of Canada. Then any applicants complying with the ordinary provisions of the Companies Act can make their applications for a charter, and the charters will be granted if they have complied with the basic requirements. They then proceed to make their application to the board. The board hears the application and in due course the government considers the question of licensing, where the problem of export or any extraterritorial problem may be involved. That would be the simple course; that would be the sound course, and it would end these debates in the house on private measures which are in fact public measures in their ultimate effect.
2810	HOUSE OF
Mid-Continent Pipelines Limited
I do suggest to the minister who is responsible for these matters that this now assumes new importance because of the recent declaration by the premier of Alberta that it was the desire of the Alberta government to seek export markets for the gas of that province. Already on different occasions we have indicated our belief that there should be an over-all declaration of policy by the government that the interest of Canadians will be the first consideration, subject always to the soundness of the application itself and those backing it, and subject also to the ordinary economic conditions which require to be considered in a case of that kind.
We do urge that a procedure be followed which will assure to the cities and towns of western Canada, to the cities and towns of Ontario and Quebec, those resources which are available in this way. We not only urge a declaration of policy in connection with gas pipe lines-there will be pipe lines carrying gas through northern Ontario and into Quebec as well as to the southern parts of the province of Ontario-we also ask that a policy be clearly declared that in any future instance pipe lines carrying Canadian oil to the east will follow a Canadian route instead of through the United States as is now going to be the case.
We are dealing with a bill which once again repeats all the unsatisfactory aspects of the earlier application. We all know perfectly well that the decision is going to rest with the board and ultimately with the government, and we should not be asked to pass judgment in regard to incorporation. I repeat that I would hope that during this session the government would recognize that, in view of the fact that the decision must ultimately be made by the board and then the government, it should introduce an amendment to the Pipe Lines Act that will permit incorporation under the Companies Act in the ordinary way.
The company charter then is no more and no less important than an ordinary company charter. Every Canadian, or every citizen of any other country, would know perfectly well that the charter was simply an ordinary company charter, and that its real value depended upon what ultimately was done with that charter. In this particular case what is ultimately done will depend upon the government. I repeat, I would hope that while this is a private measure, in view of the public importance of the issue which it raises, we might have a perfectly clear declaration of a Canada first policy in regard to the use of this and other resources, and that this policy would be declared in relation to the particular measure that is now before us.


George Matheson Murray: At Washington at the present time, or opening in a few days, is a hearing before the public utilities commission of the United States of the application of the Westcoast Transmission Company to sell gas in the United States of America. As a representative of the district in which the gas is being provided I should like to point out to this house the great seriousness of raising this old shibboleth of no truck or trade with the Americans.


William Earl Rowe: Who is raising that?


George Alexander Drew: No suggestion of that has been contained in any statement made here this afternoon.


Mr. Whiteside:: The hon. member said it
fifteen times.


George Matheson Murray: There are markets at Portland, Seattle and in the states of Washington and Oregon which are vital to the success of the industry in northern British Columbia. The money has been provided and facilities have been created for financing that natural gas through British Columbia, servicing on the way such Canadian towns as Prince George, Quesnel and those other places, and then continuing to Vancouver and New Westminster, and the engineers have determined that the whole proposition cannot be carried out successfully unless surplus gas is permitted to be sold in the United States market. Before this commission in Washington today we hear these same arguments, that they must service United States people first, that they must bring their gas from Texas, and that part of the United States, to those northwestern markets in the United States.
Every word which is offensive in any way to the Americans, either in the house or published in the press of our country, is used as evidence before that commission to prove that the Westcoast Transmission Company should not be allowed to go into the United States and disturb the position there in regard to that great public utility.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, on a question of
privilege, I wish to point out that if any misapprehension arises in Washington as to the situation it will be entirely due to such misrepresentations as are contained in the remarks now being made. I have made it clear that we support the idea of the export of gas to the United States, or of other resources, once our own requirements are served. That is entirely different from the argument being made by the hon. member who is now speaking.


George Matheson Murray: I merly repeat that the very arguments put up here are

those being put up by the organizations in Texas which seek to get a monopoly of the northwestern market there, and who seek to keep Canadian gas from entering the states of Washington or Oregon.


Howard Charles Green: Is not the hon. member aware
that the company which is fighting the application of Westcoast Transmission Company Limited, in Washington, is the same company which is now trying to get this charter we are discussing here today?


George Matheson Murray: I am certainly not aware of that, and I have no interest in it.


George Alexander Drew: Oh.


George Matheson Murray: But I have an
interest in the welfare of the inhabitants of the Peace river country, who are deeply concerned with the success of the application of the Canadian company at Washington. If they are not permitted to sell their product in the United States it will leave us in northern British Columbia with three trillion cubic feet of gas, and no market for it. This would compel Westcoast Transmission Company and affiliates to seal off every one of the wells which have been brought in there in the last year of operation.
That company is spending a million dollars a month in my own community. It has brought activity, life and prosperity into those remote areas of northeastern British Columbia and northern Alberta. As I say, if their application fails at Washington it will be a very dark day for the petroleum industry in Canada, and a very severe blow to people in British Columbia and Alberta and to financial people throughout Canada. So I say the policy should be at least to deal with these things temperately.
I see no danger in trading with the Americans. Why should we not sell them a few barrels of oil when they need it? God knows we have been using their oil for fifty years. We should deal in neighbourliness and good will with the Americans, and not use language in this house or elsewhere in a manner which will arouse the ill will of our neighbour to the south.
On motion of Mr. Herridge the debate was adjourned.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson):: I
would remind hon. members that at eight o'clock the house will resume the business interrupted at five o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
The Budget-Mr. Bertrand AFTER RECESS
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood), and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Cold-well.
(Translation):
Lionel Bertrand: Mr. Speaker, may I also mention the trouble citizens of small towns, even just outside Montreal, are having in obtaining loans. The situation should be looked into carefully. Citizens of small towns or rural municipalities should be as entitled as city people, to benefit from legislation enacted not for a certain group of people but for the country as a whole.
Social security, social legislation, property rights, social justice, maintenance of production, high employment level, adequate wages, happy working conditions, are all elements that help in our day to day fight against communism; social security is a natural bulwark against it. Communism does not exist where there is prosperity and well-being.
In the highly controversial field of dominion-provincial relations, everyone would like to see an agreement reached. Personally I hope that the Quebec government will once and for all make concrete proposals. That problem must be solved some day fully and completely. Personally, I regret that the province of Quebec has not deemed advisable to accept for another year, or at least until such a time as a more detailed discussion on the matter has taken place, the grants made last year by the federal government to universities, which are again this year available.
Quebec is the only province to turn them down. It may be proper to raise the question of autonomy, but one must not strain oneself to seek it everywhere. The provincial government must not overlook the interest of the province and there are many who feel that on that matter the premier of Quebec is taking the wrong course. In refusing these grants, the provincial government indeed resorts to a very strange way of promoting the welfare of the province. Is it not true
2812	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Bertrand that Quebec accepts at present federal grants as regards technical and vocational training? Does that mean that Quebec has sold out to Ottawa the field of technical and vocational training? Could it really be claimed that the province would have sold out the universities to Ottawa were it to have authorized them to receive federal subsidies? If we are to wait years and years for the question of distribution of taxation fields between the provinces and the federal government to be settled, the universities will have ample time to shut down. In Quebec they are in pressing need of assistance.
In the February 26, 1953 issue of Le Progres du Saguenay, a newspaper published in Chicoutimi, the editor in chief, Georges-Henri Dagneau, has some very pointed comments to make on this subject. He writes:
But until then, one has to live. On. the other hand there seems to be great fear of federal control of universities through federal subsidies. Any state control of higher education is dangerous in itself. There is therefore just as much danger in control exercised' by the provincial state. Does Quebec wish to keep to itself this privilege to the exclusion of the federal government?
As a matter of fact, everything points to a lesser danger from the federal side than from the provincial side, in the first place, because there is the case of the C.B.C. which, after all, has recognized the rights of the French-Canadians across the whole country:	secondly, because the rivalry
between the two powers creates a favourable tension which, if carefully handled, the universities could exploit to the benefit of their independence. On the other hand, if they were left to the exclusive power of one alone, they would certainly find it more difficult to maintain their sovereignty.
And Mr. Dagneau closes his article with these words with which I agree entirely in this connection:
What really matters is not political patronage for construction contracts or for giving a job to such and such professional man who is a staunch and deserving supporter of the party, but the University, with a capital U, as a research and intellectual centre at the service of the whole nation.
The provincial government has set up a commission to study the problem of the distribution of taxation fields. If the commission fulfils its function, regardless of any possible electoral advantage and without prejudice, some interesting suggestions may result. Mr. Leopold Richer states in Notre Temps that the commission comes eight years too late. For the past eight years, the provincial government has been satisfied with vain and irritating palavers, with negative and sterile attitudes, with blatant and verbose declarations about	autonomy-to	quote
the very words used by that Montreal newspaperman.
At all events, I know the members of the commission to be able, distinguished and 

honest men. They will set to work without delay. They will become public servants and, as such, we are confident that their integrity and their ability will now be devoted to the good of their province. The tree will be known by its fruit.
Mr. Speaker, I admire the careful way in which Canada, in the international field, has met its imperative obligations and taken steps after long and careful study. In the capacity of parliamentary observer at the United Nations last fall, I was able to ascertain that the Canadian delegation is second to none. The Hon. Mr. Pearson is unquestionably one of the most distinguished and remarkable personalities in the world of modern diplomacy. His popularity is obvious. He represents with dignity and influence the greatness and the power of Canada. As president of the seventh assembly, he proved equal to the task, and thereby added to the prestige of Canada.
The Hon. Paul Martin, head of the Canadian delegation, had occasion once more to display his brilliant qualities as a diplomat. His personal popularity among the other delegations enhances the popularity of Canada abroad. The departmental officers, all of them carefully hand-picked, competent and serious, form a team which, being conscious of its responsibilities, accomplishes a tremendous amount of work on behalf of Canada, thus adding to our country's prestige. They are helped in their task by a first-class official staff.
All of our representatives at the United Nations, whatever their diverse functions may be, lead a feverish life. There is a lot of work to do and the tension never decreases. There are really no set working hours. By the way, I suggest that the members of our External Affairs Department, when on a mission abroad, should receive more adequate remuneration. Moreover, their expense allowance should be substantially increased.
I cannot understand why the grades of some office employees or administrative officers should not be above the grades of men who hold ordinary positions in other departments. The civil service commission should establish a special class for them and consider, when they are serving abroad, that they are in the employ of the country and are as such entitled, since we place our trust in them, to special consideration and more specific attention.
I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that Canadians want to change their government.

Polls taken throughout the country never fail to show that the Liberal party enjoys more prestige and popularity than any other party in Canada. The reason for this is that the government, under the leadership of Mr. St. Laurent, is worthy of the national approval. Some will try to stir prejudices, talk of scandals, magnify minor incidents, but they will be careful not to stress that under the St. Laurent administration, Canada has stood up before the world as one of the most prosperous nations, that our social legislation is one of the best, that the nation is expanding from month to month, that peace prevails in our country and that Canada is advancing toward accomplishments which other countries look at with envious eyes.
What Canadians long for is a happy life, a job, satisfactory working conditions, sufficient wages, and protection against the uncertainties of life. In a century where luxury has become a habit, where nobody minds paying a dollar for a drink, where money can buy what one desires, is the paying of a few dollars in taxes a real obstacle to the easy life which we are leading? Every citizen in Canada will admit that it is a very cheap price for our liberty, for the privileges which we enjoy, for the protection of our land, for the education of our youth, for the social measures which prevent communism from getting a foothold in our country, and especially for the right to practise our religion freely and to maintain the traditions of our ancestors.
National defence imposes upon us a burden which is obvious to everyone. Modern progress has brought the nations of the world within reach of one another and if the amounts spent for our protection result in the prevention of war and the maintaining of peace, be it a cold peace, our country will have done its share. The time will come when more concrete hopes of peace will enable us to reduce materially defence expenditures; we will then be in a position to implement, for the benefit of our people, other social security measures, the most important of which is undoubtedly health insurance. And so I say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, without the least mental reservation: the county of Terrebonne, which I represent in this house, will always be Liberal. The Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent deserves this token of esteem from my people. And they will not be the only ones to favour him personally. As a matter of fact, he will win
The Budget-Mr. Rochefort enough favour to enable him to remain, tomorrow and for a long time to come, the leader of the people of Canada.


Mr. J. I. Rochefort (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, after hearing the speech of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) on February 19 last and after having studied it thoroughly, I deemed it my duty to visit my constituency in order to find out the opinion of the electorate and their appreciation of the budget.
I might say that the workers and the farmers of my constituency have reacted to the budget in the most favourable and satisfactory manner, even though they expected a more substantial cut. The ideal would probably have been to obtain straight exemptions, but the international situation must be taken into consideration, as well as the numerous pieces of social legislation which the Liberal government has granted to the population of our country.
A glance at the statements appearing in the foreign press show that the feat performed by the Minister of Finance is considered as truly stupendous, not to say miraculous, whatever the member for Labelle (Mr. Courtemanche) may say to the contrary. One thing is sure, it is that the last budget reached all classes of society and resulted in a general tax reduction.
I shall not undertake to list the numerous exemptions which the Canadian people enjoy. It is sufficient for me to say that the tax rates have returned to the normal levels of 1949 and that in the last two budgets the Minister of Finance has reduced taxes by over $513 million. Obviously, this is frowned upon by the opposition groups whose criticisms are rank contradictions when the various statements are considered.
Some claim it is a pre-election budget which favours the low income groups, that is the majority of taxpayers. That was the first reaction of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell); others contend that it is a rich man's budget; others still say that it is a budget which favours corporations.
I wish to discuss the matter in order to prove that no one was overlooked in this budget. For this purpose, may I quote statistics in connection with my own constituency in order to show the benefits provided by the budget.
I have here a newspaper which reported last Thursday that in my district alone, that is to say in La Mauricie, more than 4,000 tons of newsprint were shipped every day over one railway line. As that newsprint

The Budget-Mr. Rochefort sells for $125 a ton, we may say that the value of such production exceeds $500,000 a day. In my home constituency, at Cap de la Madeleine and Three Rivers, 2,500 tons of newsprint are produced every day, which represents a value of more than $300,000, and the 2,500 men who find employment in that industry draw more than $100,000 a day in wages.
At Cap de la Madeleine, in 1950, out of 5,941 wage earners, there were only 2,300 taxpayers. That is to say that with 3,641 people paying no tax, 60 per cent of the workers, men and women, in that town were not taxable and, in fact, did not pay tax. The 2,300 taxpayers paid $320,000 on a reported income of $6,436,000, in other words $1 for each $20 earned. Since then the government removed the 20 per cent surtax for national defence; also the workers had their wages increased in 1952 by 12 per cent. I have here a newspaper excerpt, announcing an increase of 10 per cent for employees of the paper mills in my constituency, starting March 1, 1953 and of 6 cents an hour retroactive to May 1952. To this must be added the latest tax reduction of 11 per cent, effective July 1, 1953.
The paper mill workers of my constituency earn between $60 and $150 a week. Once they have deducted their personal and their dependents' allowances, contributions to charitable organizations, medical or hospital expenses, most of them, that is approximately 60 per cent, pay no income tax whatever, the remainder paying a moderate amount, which has constantly been decreasing with every budget brought down lately.
Moreover the government having managed to check inflation, the cost of living has gone down 2 per cent. This decrease has brought, about a general fall in food and clothing prices. The same obtains in every industry in my constituency where the salary scale is everywhere 300 or 400 per cent higher than when the Tory party administered the affairs of this country during the 1930-35 period.
Compare the salaries earned today with those we have known during the hunger and misery stricken, debt-ridden period between 1930 and 1935, when this country was governed by the Conservative party.
I met this week a worker who supervises a paper machine; he earned $48 a month in 1932, because his mill was operating only two days a week; now, under a Liberal regime, this same worker earns $860 a month.

The man earns $4,000 a year more than the member for that county. Of course, he pays income tax, but he is glad to do so, because he has the salary required to pay it, while he was starving under the Conservatives. Today this worker has a bank account which increases every day, he owns his own house, his children are attending schools, he has a son at the university, he even has his own car; he knows now what well-being and comfort are, what it is to be well-off, while in the former days, under a Conservative regime, he knew but misery, starvation and debts.
Ask him, even if he now pays income tax, whether he would change his present status with that of the years 1930-1935. It is the same with all workers of the county of Champlain and, mind you, the salary scales have more than doubled in the course of the last few years in all these industries. And yet 60 per cent of all these workers pay no tax. How can you reduce the tax of the lower income bracket when it pays no tax at all?
The minimum salary paid since March 1 last in paper mills is $1.38 per hour and the maximum salary, $2.95 per hour, which amounts to nearly $24 a day. Working conditions are excellent. This worker enjoys three weeks' holidays with pay. He contributes to a pension fund. In case of illness in hospital he and the members of his family are assured of special assistance. In the plant he is given free medical and nursing care. Go and ask this worker if he is willing to exchange the system of the present Liberal government for the system of direct relief tokens, of Murling shelters, of soup kitchens, an institution greatly favoured by the Conservative party when it was in power from 1930 to 1935.
In every one of the factories in my constituency, I would find the same working conditions, the same wages and the same good employer-employee relations.
In my riding there are three newsprint mills, three paper bag factories, one enormous paper foils factory, which plans to expand shortly, two abrasive manufacturing plants, about ten textile plants, a shoe factory, six glove factories, smelters and over forty private undertakings. All those plants are operating at full capacity. Salaries range from a minimum of 90 cents per hour to $2.
Here is real prosperity for which the Liberal government of this country is responsible. Its achievements have nothing to do with

petty quarrels arising from political patronage; its policy is not to enrich its friends or to fill the pork barrel.
At the beginning of the session, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) pointed out to the house that if the suggestions of the Leader of the Opposition and his lieutenants were to be implemented, taxes would double in this country. After listing the latest requests of the Conservative party, the Prime Minister said that it would be necessary to increase if not to double taxes in order to meet all the requests of the opposition. Moreover, he stated that the result would be a deficit of half a billion dollars a year. The few members that make up the Conservative opposition from Quebec, with the help of the independents, consider themselves without any leader and without a policy. They try to deal with provincial matters and come into this house to make speeches which we have read almost word for word in newspapers and which have already been heard in a legislature, which is not the House of Commons. Did the electors of these counties give them a federal or a provincial mandate? Their electors may well ask them if they have not diverted the federal mandate they have been entrusted with to serve their own purposes? I will simply ask them the following question: If the party they support were in power, would they try to take away the revenue of the country and turn it over to the provinces?
We have reason to question the good faith of their arguments and to consider their statements rather as a joke. We can ask ourselves whether these false autonomists are not, rather, seeking electoral funds to ensure their re-election in their own constituencies. Are these people really trying in this house to promote the interests of Quebec; we have every reason to doubt it.
The interests of our country and our province in particular are more secure in the hands of the present Prime Minister than in the hands of those people. The interests of this country are better protected by the Liberal party than by any other party. The fairness of the social legislation of the Liberal government proves it.
Let them show me in what way Quebec has been unfairly treated. Let them point out in what way the treatment meted out to our people was inferior to the treatment of the other provinces. Should not the central power continue to retain its own constitutional sources of revenue, and that in order to make further progress towards the implementation of its social legislation program,
68108-m
The Budget-Mr. Rochefort towards its program of defence against foreign enemies, and more particularly in order to grant equal treatment to all the provinces as far as the federal field is concerned. Beware of those false prophets who thus try to hide the little influence they exert in this house and on the electors of this country. The opposition has its uses, it must exist, but only in so far as it concerns itself with its own responsibilities, as it remains in its allotted field, in this case the federal field. It must not move away from that field in the least; that is the mandate entrusted to it. In order to prove the sincerity of the Liberal party and of its present leader, here are two statements made by the Prime Minister. The first dates back to August 7, 1948:
Canada must be a political union of two great races, prepared by men of vision and tolerance, a union in which the two associates would preserve their essential character, their relationship, their language and their culture.
Is there any better or more sincere evidence than this, the statement of this country's leader? Here is another statement made by the Prime Minister, on October 28, 1952:
To my mind the Liberal party's aim must be to maintain this country's unity and security, as the home of a free people. The government must then, having ensured national security, concern itself mainly with the freedom and welfare of the individual and of the family.
Can there be greater evidence of faith, honour and honesty, of faithfulness to his own kindred than these words uttered by the Liberal leader who is at the head of government at the present time?
The opposition asks for income tax reductions and at the same time requests pensions and subsidies which would inevitably increase these taxes. The result would be a deficit ranging from half a billion to one billion a year if these recommendations were implemented.
Let us now see what goes on on the Liberal side. The national debt has been reduced by $2J billion since 1946. Here is what can really be called sound administration. Here is a truly stable policy applied by a stable government.
The Conservative party will say for its part that it is a companies' budget; they said the contrary last year. To this must be added what everyone will admit: it is the companies which support our population and provide the means of living of nearly all our workers by paying them a salary. If the plants were
2816	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Rochejort shut down our workers would be reduced to destitution. The moment had come to help industry and the Liberal government saw to it in the last budget. These new exemptions will allow companies to keep on growing and developing, to extend their facilities, and thus be in a position to employ a greater number of people.
There is not a single field in which the present Liberal government do not pursue their aim, which is to help the Canadian people. A government which pays out $348 million a year in family allowances, nearly $2 million a year in my county, that is what the Progressive Conservative party calls waste and extravagance. A government which pays out $344 million in old age pensions, and nearly $2 million a year in my county alone, is that what the Progressive Conservative party calls waste and extravagance? A government which pays out $48 million in public health grants, including $30 million a year for hospital construction-my county alone has received a cash grant of $139,500 for the Cloutier hospital, at Cap de la Madeleine- is that what the Conservative party calls government waste and extravagance?
In this connection, I may say that the Hon. the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) sent me this week a letter telling me that the first grant was duly paid on December 4, 1951, and that it was handed to the nuns 5 months later. The balance, which amounted to $34,875 was sent by the department on October 20, 1952; last Sunday evening, the nuns told me that the balance of the grant had not yet reached them.
But the Liberal government goes further still. It pays its share of the old age pension for persons between 65 and 70 years of age. The present government pays its share of the pension for the blind. All classes of society profit by the social measures of our present Liberal government. The disabled people remain to be helped and in that field the government will soon take the necessary steps.
This is what we call legislating for the people. In other fields, the government is ready to provide assistance, particularly to our universities which are in a critical position because the provincial government has refused to accept this assistance. Just recently, I was talking to a professor in a university who had been drawing a salary of $800 a year after twenty years of teaching; last year his salary was increased to $3,300 as a result of the federal grants. Unfortunately, this year he was informed that he would revert to his old salary.


For the first time, thanks to federal aid, our university professors received, last year, a fair salary. We should not be surprised to see desertions occur among faculty members following the refusal of the provincial government to accept this assistance and the entire responsibility for the setback suffered by those universities will rest upon the government of Quebec.
How is it then that grants towards the building of technical schools, schools of arts and crafts, schools where paper-making is taught, all in the field of education, are accepted? These grants are found to be convenient since they can be used for political patronage through the letting of contracts, without tenders, for the building of schools. An arts and crafts school is now being built in my riding, at Cap de la Madeleine, for which the federal government is paying more than $275,000. In a public statement, the provincial member said that for two years he had been looking forward to the implementation of that project. However, during the same period, he had entirely forgotten to ask for tenders. The pin-pose of this was to favour one of his friends with this contract, just after the provincial elections. The government of this country pays its share of the scholarships granted to the students of our universities and our technical schools. Yet, this comes under the heading of education. Those grants are accepted and then used in certain cases for political patronage.
The government also spends huge amounts of money to assist our veterans. It also contributes to the progress of the Central Housing and Mortgage Corporation, which has led to the construction of 300 new dwellings at Cap de la Madeleine. The Liberal government is encouraging co-operatives which are developing rapidly. However, it should look into the possibility of reducing a little the down payment, so as to enable the working people to purchase a house for their family.
Public works also help people in our counties, more particularly through the construction of retaining walls.
The Department of Transport operates in my constituency a railway yard that provides employment for more than 200 people at Garneau. I would ask the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) to make even greater use of that central point, where the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific railway meet; all traffic from Abitibi, Lake St. John, Montreal and Quebec pass through there.
In my opinion, the Post Office Department provides an almost perfect service; however, I would ask the Hon. the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) to re-establish, if possible, the

twice-a-day delivery system. The people of our towns would deeply appreciate a return to this service.
The assistance of the Liberal government in Ottawa is not limited to towns and workers alone, but also extends to farmers. The government, under its price support legislation, gives assistance to the country as a whole and, particularly, to the agricultural class. We have to express our appreciation to the Hon. the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) whose foresight prevented a shortage of butter this winter and an increase in the price of this product. The Liberal government in Ottawa helps the farmers by subsidizing the transportation of grain and feed to the eastern part of the country. The government also pays subsidies on bacon hogs.
Through its Cold Storage Act the Department of Agriculture assists the dairy industry by paying 50 per cent of the cost of constructing and equipping buildings whenever there is an amalgamation of cheese factories. It also helps through subsidization of fairs. In this connection, I would ask the government to amend the present legislation in order to assist class B fairs which are practically without revenue and which need aid far more than class A fairs. Those are various ways in which the federal government assists agriculture. And then again we have the intimate relationship between the Department of Trade and Commerce and the other departments. This department is the one which obtains foreign outlets for our farmers, our industrialists or our businessmen, by means of agreements and treaties made with foreign countries. There is no section of our people that does not benefit from the policies of the present government, of its leader (Mr. St. Laurent), of the members of his cabinet and of all the Liberal members of this house.
The Unemployment Insurance Act is a piece of Liberal legislation. Every day the unemployed individual, for as long as he is out of work, is entitled to benefits under its provisions. The scope of this legislation has been considerably extended, since all occupations are now insurable. The allowances have been increased. The waiting period has been reduced. The seasonal worker has not been ignored by the Liberal government of the present Prime Minister. One of his first moves when he took power in 1949 was to establish supplementary allowances which vere gladly received by the lumbering vorkcrs of my county.
^ I should like to refer for a moment, Mr. Speaker, to the great number of workers of ny county who spend the winter months in
68108-I79i
The Budget-Mr. Rochefort lumbering camps. From 1930 to 1935, when the country was under a Conservative regime, the lumbermen of my county earned $18, $20 or $25 a month. Food left much to be desired. They were badly sheltered. Working conditions were difficult. Today these same lumbermen earn from $15 to $30 a day. That is, they get $7.50 a cord and many of them cut up to four cords a day, thanks to modern equipment.
Ask the people in my constituency if they want a change of government. They are not old enough yet to have forgotten what they went through from 1930 to 1935, when the country suffered a setback on all fronts. The young people in my riding cannot readily forget the benefits they have received from our government. The old people of my riding and of the whole country will ever be grateful to the Prime Minister of this country for having given them the Old Age Security Act. That was one of the first steps taken by our present Prime Minister.
The working people of my constituency and of the whole country will long remember the Liberal government which keeps foreign and domestic trade at such high levels and allows the worker to earn wages comparable only to those paid in the United States. The farmers also have their share of this prosperity.
The recent trip of the Right Hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) to South America has opened unlimited vistas to our farmers and manufacturers, and we have already felt its good effects.
I do not contend, however, that everything is perfect. The international situation is still strained.
Do you believe that a new government would abolish taxes? Where is the constructive program of the Conservative party? Criticism has been directed towards the Department of National Defence and the Department of Defence Production. Let us not forget, in the first place, that hundreds of millions of dollars are paid in salaries to our Canadian workers as a result of this program The Liberal government has fortunately outlined a defence policy to protect our country within and without; well then, should our country be the victim of a surprise attack which would catch us unprepared, I can see the members of the Conservative party cry out that the Liberal government has not been extravagant but improvident.
The government does not resort to any false pretences; its record is one of which we may well be proud. Let us not pay any attention to those trouble-makers who do not know
2818	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Hodgson where to turn in order to save the Tory party which is on its last legs. These very people who made so much fuss about the Currie report did not utter a word when faced with the author of the report in the committee on defence expenditure.
The Liberal government, which represents everywhere and in every province the Canadian spirit, is preserving peace. We must be ready to meet any emergencies and must not let the enemy gain a foothold in our country, as it has done in certain European countries. We are masters here and we intend to remain so forever. The Liberal party is the one that offers the greatest guarantees in this connection. It is the only party that preaches national unity in our country and that is truly representative of that unity. The Canadian people are happy and live happily. The bank savings of our working people continue to increase, which is a sure sign of prosperity, and that prosperity, far from decreasing, is increasing each year.
That is why the Liberal government deserves our confidence. The beautiful county of Champlain and the country at large will, for a long time yet, place their confidence in that government when the time comes to make a decision.
(Text):


Mr. C. W. Hodgson (Victoria, Oni.):: Mr. Speaker, many speeches have been delivered in this debate, but quite a number of them have been a political canter, getting ready for the main race. Probably many hon. members think this will be their last chance to speak on almost any subject they choose before the next election.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: What is yours going to be?


John Horace Dickey: Make it good.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) stepped into the political race. He put on his running shoes, left the canter and got into a real gallop. As always, he referred back to the 1930's. He said he came down here in 1930 to listen to the budget. Well, I can tell him he should have come down in 1929 when the provinces were asking the dominion for help in the matter of relief when the depression was on. At that time the late Right Hon. Mackenzie King made his famous five-cent speech. He said that he would not give five cents to any province that had a Conservative government.


Irvin William Studer: That is not the only five-cent piece we heard of.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: That proves that the depression was on not only in the 1930's. The Liberals had about twelve or fifteen months


of it, and they thought that was enough; at least the people thought that they had enough of them at that time.
The minister said that in the 1930's the average price per head of cattle that went through the Regina yards was $69.50. But he did not tell us what happened in 1937 when they had a Liberal government in Saskatchewan and a Liberal government in Ottawa, and the Minister of Agriculture was the minister at that time. In that year the price of cattle dropped to an average of $10.50 a head. He forgot to tell us that.


Mr. Wood:: What year was that?


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: In 1937.


Robert James Wood: I think you are mistaken.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: There are a lot of things you think, and they are not right.


Robert James Wood: I know.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: That is the quotation and it is correct.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: The minister also said that while he was down here listening to the budget he got away up in the gallery behind a post, and he referred to the dress of the prime minister at that time. I am sorry the Minister of Agriculture cannot wear a dress suit, but he should not be jealous of somebody who can. Nevertheless, he could wear one; and if the tail of the coat were too long he could always get a page boy to carry the tail to keep it out of the political mud that he generally spreads. I think he had better get on third base. Perhaps that is where he is now. He had better make his home run to the bench behind the battery, in a nice cushy seat in the Senate, because judging by what I hear coming from his riding he will not be so fleet of foot, neither will his hot air be as effective as it has been in the past. He will be hiding not behind 1;he cement post but on the banks of the South Saskatchewan in the bulrushes, behind the long line of promises he has made with respect to that great South Saskatchewan dam.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Are you going to vote C.C.F.?


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: This seems to be hurting you a little. If the pain is too great you had better run along and get some painkiller.
When the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) rose to make his budget' speech there was a thumping and pounding on the Liberal desks. It was something terrific. It almost sounded as if Bonnie Prince Charlie had arrived in the House of Commons. Apparently since hon. members have had time to look the thing

over the thumping has not been so pronounced. I will say that the Minister of Finance used some fine phraseology, and he has quite a way of putting his budget before the people. He referred to all those surpluses, and since that time many Liberal speakers have said that the surpluses were to be used to reduce the national debt. That would be fine but unfortunately, although there have been quite a few surpluses, after all the reduction the minister has talked about the national debt has increased by about $8 billion since 1939. This is a new system of bookkeeping. It must be one of the eight they have in the Department of National Defence.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Next page.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: No, I am not reading a magazine as the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Sinnott) did.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: It looks very much like it.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: He is not even a good reader.


John Horace Dickey: But you are reading a prepared speech just the same.


Mr. Argue:: Look who is talking.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I don't have to read what I have to say. I come now to the common ordinary labouring man, and how he has been treated with respect to income tax. I refer to the fellow who gets around $2,400 a year, or from 90 cents to $1.10 an hour.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: What are you paying?


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: They make up the bulk of the labouring men doing the common work. He is the fellow who can least afford to pay income tax. So far as his income tax is concerned, the Minister of Finance has reduced it by only one large dollar a year.
Then in the matter of municipal taxation, although the dominion government collects 71-9 cents out of every tax dollar in Canada, leaving only about 28 cents for provincial, county, municipal and other taxing powers, it has not seen fit to help the overburdened taxpayers in the municipalities.
Our educational costs have increased. Although we have housing schemes, the dominion government has never once come along and said, "There has been an increase in population here, so you will have to have a school. We will help you build that school, or give you some help of one kind or another".
I say, too, that the sales tax could have been taken off machinery used by municipalities. Had this been done it would have saved my own municipality about $6,000 this year and, under prevailing conditions, that would be a substantial help.
The Budget-Mr. Hodgson
Back in the thirties, when things were supposed to be so bad, the dominion government paid 100 per cent of the relief in my municipality. Today that government does not pay a nickel to help the municipality, or to help the indigents in any way.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: What about social services?


An hon. Member:: What about family allowances?


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: 
John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: You should know.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Not only that; those children invested $4, and they were told by the government that it was the best place in which
2820	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Hodgson to invest their money. The children find now, however, that the government is paying back with only a 40-cent dollar. The children were not told that there would be inflation. The general public has been treated in just the same way, and it has been going on for a long time. Just how long the government will get away with it, I do not know. Today the children cannot even buy a five-cent soft drink.
When I was a very young man I worked at lumbering, in the bush, for a large corporation. In the spring of the year we were laid off, and when we were working we were paid $1.10 a cord. This government reminds me of that large corporation. If I worked hard for 60 or 65 hours in a week I could take home $1.25 a day. That company never considered the labouring man for one moment.
In the old Toronto World I saw a big advertisement by that corporation indicating that it paid a dividend of 51- per cent at two periods in the year, or a total of 11 per cent. Yet I worked for $1.25 a day. While I worked for that sum the top officials were receiving high salaries, and annual dividends of 11 per cent were being paid. At that time had there been such a thing as a labour union, or even a communist party, I might have turned to it. When you see a large, fat corporation like that which does not consider its labour force, a corporation which takes everything it can from its labour, you realize it does not deserve much consideration.
Yet this government is taking the same attitude toward the taxpayer. Is the government thinking about the young men of Canada? No; it is thinking about how much it can tax them, how much the traffic will bear, and how long they will pay without joining the communist party, or some other revolutionary organization. If there is communism in Canada, then this government can take as much blame for it as any other organization since confederation.
The story I have told about working conditions is an indication of the very thing that has driven labour in Canada to the point where it has formed organizations. The other evening the hon. member for Springfield did not speak very kindly about labour unions. He complained about the high salaries paid their leaders. But I would say to him that the labour organizations in this country have been one of the greatest assets we have ever known. They are the only groups who have raised the standard of living of the working people. They are deserving of great credit for what they have done in Canada.
Let me add this; that I do not care what the industry may be, whether it is lumbering, mining, or anything else; you will get better f-Mr. Hodgson.]

work if the men are in unions than if they are not. I will agree that some union leaders have not been very satisfactory, but we do know that some of those leaders have been kicked out because of their communistic activities. More power to the unions.
The same thing applies to farm organizations. Those organizations were brought into being because the farmers were receiving poor prices. The packing companies and other large corporations were making their purchases at low prices. It could be said today that the farmer is the only man who does not have a price tag on his product. He is the only man who must pay according to the price tag, if he wants to buy a shirt or anything else. Yet when he goes to sell anything he must say, "How much will you give me?"
Much could be done for the farmers of this country. I have received several letters from municipalities on the subject of municipal taxation, and making reference to several post offices and buildings under the Department of Public Works that pay no taxes whatsoever. In so far as post offices and railway stations are concerned, we know that in many instances they are occupied by janitors, postmasters or foremen. Their children go to school, and sidewalks and everything else connected with running a municipality must be provided. It is about time this government came across and gave the municipalities some help along these lines. Take hospitalization for indigents. The dominion government pays nothing in this connection. In nine cases out of ten that is paid for 100 per cent by the municipality.
I saw an announcement in the paper today that there is not likely to be an election in the fall, that it will probably be in 1954. I thought this was just a come-on budget. This government has always been smart politically in the past, and I did not think they were going to go to the country offering the people such small bait. In the past the people have been used to having more bait dangled before their eyes, even if sometimes it was their own money. Let me read this:
The louder the Liberal members of parliament cheer the Abbott budget the more blatantly do they declare their belief that there is no trick at all to winning an election-merely make a present to the people of some of their own money.
If this attitude fails to do justice to the intelligence of the average citizen it must be said that many voters have encouraged it. For the record of the Liberal party in recent years has been one of high taxation in non-election years, reductions prior to an election, followed by increases in taxation. Despite the obvious bait, the Liberals have found that in it they have a successful lure.
It worked in 1949. The pre-election budget of that year repealed the soft drink tax of 25 per

cent plus one cent a bottle. Following the election, the tax was reimposed- at 30 per cent.
The wartime tax of 30 per cent on candy was repealed in 1949. It was reimposed in 1950.
The wartime tax on carbonic acid gas was repealed in 1949. It was reimposed in 1950.
The wartime tax of 25 per cent on electrical appliances was repealed in 1945, an election year, reimposed in 1947, repealed in 1948, reimposed at 15 per cent in 1950, and put back to 25 per cent in 1951.
The wartime tax of 25 per cent on cigarette lighters was cut to 10 per cent in 1949. It was reimposed at 25 per cent in 1951.
On electric refrigerators the wartime tax was 25 per cent. In the election year of 1945 it was repealed. In 1947 it was back again at 25 per cent, repealed in 1948, and reimposed at 15 per cent in 1951.
In this election year a similar bait is dangled before the voters. Experience should warn them to keep their eyes not on the inducement this year but on the budget for 1954, the year after the elections.


An hon. Member:: What paper?


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: What difference does it
make? You would not understand it. No doubt it this is a come-on year, there will certainly be some juicy plums offered in the budget of 1954.


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, despite all that has been said so far I should like to draw attention to a few points which in my opinion have not been sufficiently emphasized and which I believe are quite important. Opposition members have referred to this budget as an election budget. If it is an election budget then the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) deserves all our praise and commendation for resisting the temptation to hand out bribes to the masses in an election year. In fact the chief criticism that has been levelled at this budget is that it does nothing or very little for the little man who, as we know, controls the majority of the votes.
In my opinion the budget is realistic and straightforward. It follows a pattern which has been established in previous years. It takes into consideration prevailing conditions both at home and abroad. Double taxation has been abolished, and tax cuts have been spread among all groups of taxpayers in such a way as to strike a fair balance between direct and indirect taxation.
There has been no cut in expenditures, and this is in line with reality. The international situation will not permit any lessening of our defence effort. The wishes of the people, which are always the deciding factor in a democracy, demand that there should be no curtailment in our social security program. The needs of our public service are just as great as in previous years and the yearly increment in salaries necessitates an
The Budget-Mr. Carter annual increase in the cost of administration. Therefore no reduction in expenditures is possible.
My constituency is distinctive in that all my constituents are in the low income group. This particular group has been singled out for priority of consideration in all our previous budgets. Taxes have been eliminated from nearly all the necessities of life. For those who pay little or no income tax, very little more can be done. Yet this budget does grant them some benefits in the abolition of the stamp tax and the radio licence fee. Our fishermen will benefit from the abolition of taxes on marine motors and wire ropes, and also from the reduction of the tax on cigarettes.
In addition, this low income group will continue to receive benefits in the form of family allowances, old age pensions and other forms of social security included in the billion dollar program provided in this budget. In this way the wealth of the whole nation is distributed among all classes and groups so that the little man may enjoy a far greater share than he would otherwise receive.
The budget makes it clear that tax reductions have been made possible only because of the increase in our gross national product. This gross national product is simply the sum total of the wealth produced by all Canadians in all parts of Canada. Every fisherman, every farmer, every logger, every miner, every factory worker, every industrialist and every person who supplies essential services makes a contribution to it. The budget recognizes this fact, and we feel it is a wise policy to provide incentive and encouragement to every Canadian to keep on producing more and more because that is the only guarantee of further reduction of taxation in the future.
No human effort can be perfect. It is unreasonable to expect that this budget could be perfect in every detail. Like the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) I would like to have seen more reduction in the tax on pipe tobacco because most of my constituents are pipe smokers. Like the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) I would like to have seen blind pensions increased and the means test abolished. I would like to have seen the same done with respect to the war veterans allowance. I would like to have seen provision made for war widows, and those who are incapacitated.
But with so many items to be considered, human wisdom is simply not able to determine exactly how much consideration any one item deserves in comparison with every other item. Neither is it able to measure
2822	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Carter exactly where the line should be drawn between federal responsibility on the one hand and provincial and individual responsibility on the other. We cannot escape being our brother's keeper no matter how much we may wish to push that responsibility over on the federal government. We have travelled a long way already on that road, and now it is necessary to pause and see where the road is leading lest we eventually end up by making the federal government responsible for everything and everybody and with nobody else having any responsibility at all.
One important feature of the budget is the spotlight which it throws on the magnitude of the industrial potential and almost limitless natural resources which make Canada one of the most richly blessed nations on the face of the earth. This has brought to my mind two thoughts. One thought is the danger that we Canadians may take all this wealth and attendant prosperity for granted, the danger lest we adopt the attitude that we have a special right to all these blessings because of some merit in ourselves as compared with other peoples on the earth. The second thought is what a tremendous responsibility rests upon every single one of us to see that all this wealth is not used selfishly, merely to satisfy our own needs, but also to help take care of the needs of those nations less fortunate than ourselves.
Let us learn the lesson of the strategic and ideological use of wealth that Russia taught us in her trade agreement with Ceylon. We know how Russia, while the western nations dallied, took advantage of Ceylon's need for food and offered her rice at less than the world price in return for her rubber at more than the world price, and by so doing tied the whole economy of Ceylon to the communist world.
I have been wondering whether we might not consider if it is possible to do something along that line with our millions of bushels of surplus wheat and grain. We all know that a number of nations are suffering from a shortage of food, and it would be a fine thing if we could use our surplus food in such a strategic manner, not with any thought of national gain or advantage or with any ulterior motive, but simply out of genuine caring for people as people. I believe if we could do this the nations of the world, and particularly the nations of the east, would recognize something new in our democratic way of life and would be attracted to it.
Mr. Speaker, the budget does not permit very much room for criticism. Consequently opposition members have been forced to resort to charges of waste and extravagance, coupled with the inference that consequently
IMr. Carter.]

tax reductions are not as great as they should be. Well, that same argument could also be applied to strikes, to laziness, to indifference, to dishonest labour, to evasion of taxes, to illegal drawing of social benefits and to many other things. When producers are more concerned with keeping prices at a certain level than they are with meeting the needs of their fellow men, then they tend to produce only such quantities as they believe will keep prices at the highest possible level. That too tends to lessen the gross national product and consequently reduces the possibility of tax relief.
All this is only another way of saying that if there were no greed, no selfishness, no dishonesty in the world or in the nation there would be still greater production of wealth and a still greater share of tax relief. We hear a great deal about the greed and the selfishness of the big man, the big corporation. No one can deny that that is a terrible thing, and that it was in great measure responsible for bringing about conditions which gave birth to communism and enabled it to grow and thrive.
But I think we should point out to the little man that today he exercises just as great power as the big man, if not more. What industrialist or group of industrialists can tie up the whole economy of a country by stopping its transportation facilities? What group of magnates can strangle the trade of a nation by closing off its ports? What group of industrialists can undermine the whole economy of a nation by cutting off the supply of strategic materials like fuel and coal?"
The point is that power carries with it responsibility, no matter whether it is exercised by the big man or the little man; and I think the little man too must come to realize that his greed and selfishness, when mobilized and used as a force, can be just as great a danger and threat to the life and welfare of the nation as those of the vested interests.
Opposition members have referred to cost-plus and percentage-cost contracts as particular examples of waste and extravagance. But as the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) pointed out this afternoon, does not that too boil down to a question of individual honesty? If the individual contractors were absolutely honest what difference would it make whether they had a percentage-plus contract, a cost-plus contract or any other kind? I find it interesting to examine the proposals which our friends on the opposition side have put forth to solve this problem. They cry out for more controls, more checks, more guards, more laws, more legislation.

I was struck by a statement made by our Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) a few days ago when he was replying to a brief submitted by the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada. In referring to human rights he pointed out that no nation on the earth had more elaborately worded clauses about human rights in its constitution than did Soviet Russia. Yet I do not think anyone here would wish to live under that constitution. So the opposition cry out: Change the government, change the ministry; but will changing the government make individual contractors more honest-


Mr. Fulton:: Yes.


Chesley William Carter: -particularly when the government is changed to a party that proposes the same solution the Marxists propose; because that is exactly the same theory that lies behind the reasoning of the Marxists. They say: Human nature is what it is, nothing can be done about it and therefore it must be chained, it must be controlled. But that idea will never make Canada a great nation. That idea will never enable Canada to achieve her destiny. We have a better idea. We know that human nature can change. We know that man can rise above his greed, his selfishness and his dishonesty once he is inspired with a big enough idea.
For the greater part of the past six sessions, Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting back here in this kindergarten row. I have not done much talking, but I have done a great deal of listening. I have been trying to figure out just what is my responsibility as a member of this parliament. I have come to the conclusion that I am not only responsible to the people who sent me here but I am, in many respects, responsible for them as well. So, should any pressure group come to me and say: "Carter, we voted for you in the last election, now you have to do this for us- or else", it would be my duty to say to them: "Do you really want an honest government? If so, how can you have an honest government unless you have honest members, and how can you expect me to be an honest member if you, yourselves, try to make me dishonest by bargaining with me over your vote, or auctioning it off to the highest bidder, or by using your vote as a threat or as a bribe?" I think it is my duty to point that responsibility out to them, because there is a mutual responsibility. They have a responsibility to hold me to the highest in me, and they should expect me to do the same for them.
In this connection there is also the responsibility of separating fact from fancy. I should label my opinions, my suppositions
The Budget-Mr. Carter and my speculations so clearly that the people will know they are not facts. Neither should I take a part of the truth and present it as the whole truth. I must avoid saying or doing anything that tends to mislead or confuse the people, for that is the surest way of undermining and destroying our democratic institutions. The subversive elements among us know that only too well, and it must make their hearts rejoice when they can get members of parliament to play their game for them.
Now I should like to call attention to all the supposition and speculation that has been expressed in connection with charges of waste and extravagance. Imagination has run riot. It has run all the way from scores of millions to hundreds of millions of dollars, but it should be made clear to the people that the only facts we have are those in connection with the Currie report, which sets the losses at Petawawa at around $54,000. We have had a lot of horse laughs and horse stories directed at us from opposition members in connection with that report.


An hon. Member:: That was the charge of the light-headed brigade.


Chesley William Carter: I read a horse story some time ago which rather tickled my fancy, but my friends in the opposition may not find it very funny. It seems that down south there is a horse called Wonder Lady which has the uncanny power of being able to answer questions and foretell what is going to happen in the future. This horse has proved that her information is reliable because she has already provided information that has led to the solution of some murders, and has assisted in cases of people who have disappeared. One of our Canadian correspondents went down and called on this horse and asked the question: Who is going to win the next election?


An hon. Member:: This is straight from the horse's mouth.


Chesley William Carter: Now, can you guess what the answer was?


George Harris Hees: Eisenhower.


Chesley William Carter: The answer was, the Liberal party.


Hazen Robert Argue: That was before the Currie report.


Chesley William Carter: Let our friends in the opposition laugh that one off.


George Harris Hees: This is 1953.


Chesley William Carter: It sounds like good horse sense to me.

The Budget-Mr. Carter


George Harris Hees: That was a long time ago.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: It only seems long to you.


George Harris Hees: That was before horses got in the chamber.


Mr. Gauthier (Porineuf):: Do you mean the Foster horses of the first war?


Chesley William Carter: Before any member of this house makes a charge of waste and extravagance I think we should consider whether we might not be guilty of the same thing ourselves. I think our people have the right to question our honesty and sincerity of purpose if they find us doing the same thing when we are pointing the finger at others. We can waste the taxpayers' money when we take up the time of this house unnecessarily. It costs money to keep this parliament in session. I do not know what the exact figures are-I have not been able to find out-but I believe it costs around $10,000 per day. At that rate the debate on the Currie report cost the taxpayers around $150,000.


George Harris Hees: You have cost us about $1,000 tonight.


Chesley William Carter: $150,000 or even half of that figure represents a lot of teapots and neckties.


George Harris Hees: Sit down; the meter is running.


George James McIlraith: No, you are not a meter.


George Harris Hees: The meter is ticking.


George James McIlraith: You are not a meter and should not call yourself a meter.


Chesley William Carter: Finally, Mr. Speaker, if I am going to be truly responsible for the people who sent me here I must never single out one particular group, hold them out and set other classes against them, not even the $10,000 group. This particular group has been singled out and held up before the people as not bearing their full share of the tax burden. We all know that if the income is derived from dividends the taxes have already been paid on it before the person received it, and it is just a matter of whether we are going to tax those people twice.
I have tried to indicate some of the ways in which I, as a private member, am responsible for the people who sent me here. I should like to stress the point that my responsibility holds good no matter on which side of the house I sit, and no matter to which party I belong. It is the same battle on both sides of the house. It is the battle for higher morality in the nation and greater responsibility for each other.
Mr. Speaker, the budget proves that Canada is a great and growing country 

destined to wield great influence among the nations of the world. It is a story of the achievement of a free people in a free economy under a system of free enterprise. The Liberal party has always placed its main stress on freedom, and under the leadership of the Liberal party we have achieved a large measure of political and economic freedom. But if Canada is to achieve her true destiny we must go on to develop a still higher form of freedom-responsible freedom, which is the very heart and core both of Liberalism and of democracy.


Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon):: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in a remark made by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward) when he commenced his address to the house yesterday. He said that during his early experience in this house he discovered that a good deal of the time during speech-making was spent in propaganda and, as a result, he resolved not to spend too much time making speeches in this chamber.
I agree with him that during this budget debate there has been considerable propaganda uttered that perhaps is more designed for consumption outside this house than by members in the chamber. However, I cannot agree with him that the same thing applies in every debate. Since I came to this house a relatively short time ago I have had the privilege of sitting in on some very significant discussions dealing with problems of extreme importance both to our internal economy and with regard to our external affairs.
I suppose it is inevitable that during the budget speech in a pre-election period the tenor of the discussion should take on something of an electioneering aspect. Indeed, as I sat and listened here that night almost three weeks ago when the minister delivered the budget address, I would say that the minister himself established the pace because primarily I believe the budget for this year was designed to appeal directly to the electorate. Since that time, as various members have discussed the subject, they have followed along on the same line.
During the discussion it seems that the press outside Canada has become most interested in affairs relating to the government of this country. We have had one hon. member after another make reference to the editorials appearing particularly in the press across the line with regard to the excellence of this government and the excellence of the budget that was presented to the house. I was most intrigued to discover that even the press in Ireland made some reference to the budget speech. I thought that reference perhaps was most suitable to the occasion, because the Irish are notable for having

kissed the blarney stone. A good many of the references from south of the line also showed a similar influence even though they did not come from Ireland itself.
I should like to mention a quotation that comes to my mind-it is a good Irish quotation-which runs something like this: The sweetest memories of life are the recollections of things forgotten. It seems to me that in the skilful manner in which the budget was presented there was, on the part of the minister, an attempt to have the Canadian people forget a great many things that have occurred during the past few years in this country.
There was a time when it was popular, particularly in the west, to refer to the C.C.F. as Liberals in a hurry; and as Canada moved toward the social welfare state as a result of the major disturbances of the depression it almost seemed as though that statement were true. But this time we have a budget that is back-tracking in a rather extreme fashion. There seems to be a swing back to what we might call free enterprise or, to use the phrase that is sometimes preferred, responsible enterprise. The new look that is supposed to have appeared on the faces of the members of the opposition during the delivery of the budget speech that night is, I think, nothing more or less than a look of incredulity because, among the many incredible things this government has done during the past 18 years, this was an extreme example of its flexibility and its ability to swing backward and forward in order to meet the demands of the situation.
Before proceeding to some of the aspects of the budget I want to quote from an article which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press of May 17, 1951. I think this article expresses in a precise manner what the government is attempting to do as it moves backward and forward and changes complexion almost with the same dexterity as the chameleon. I once heard a story about the chameleon. As hon. members know, it is that little lizard which has the power to adapt itself to various colours and hues. A rather nasty trick was once played on the poor little creature by putting it on a Scotsman's plaid, and it burst as it attempted to adapt itself to the various colours. That just might happen in the case of a government that becomes too flexible with regard to its policies.
Incidentally, this article is entitled "The Collapse of the Opposition". I think it expresses the secret desire or the wishful thinking on the part of the government that that state of affairs was or is going to happen, namely that the opposition will collapse completely and that we shall move toward the
The Budget-Mr. Dinsdale one-party state where power in perpetuity would be carried on.


Mr. Stick:: Where did you get the article?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: From the Winnipeg Free Press of May 17, 1951. It reads as follows:
The Liberal party, on the other hand, has achieved such an unchallenged sense of regnancy and success that it can afford to admit that the total disequilibrium of politics is a bad thing for the country, perhaps even for itself.
In a minor but significant fashion the present political calculations of this capital will be tested by four federal by-elections in June-two in Manitoba, one in Ontario and one on Prince Edward Island. It will surprise government and opposition alike if any of these seats-three Liberal, one Conservative-switch from one party to the other.
As it turned out, this prophecy was completely wrong. To go on a little bit further in the article, summing up the general discussion the writer says:
The Liberal party, in short, has found a way of occupying so fully the middle ground of politics, moving right or left as the occasion requires, that there is presently no adequate room for a successful opponent on either side. The government's pragmatism has become almost a science.
I would agree with that article, as we see the swing that has been indicated in the budget that was brought into the house just a few weeks ago.
As we have engaged in pre-electioneering discussion, the keynote from the government benches has been to make an appeal on the basis of the prevailing wave of prosperity in Canada. This prosperity has been emphasized particularly by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), who the other day brought down statistics in order to make a comparison and to contrast the buoyancy of today with the stagnation of the depression period. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) has also made reference many times to this prevailing high level of prosperity; and again, the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward) dwelt upon it at length in his remarks.
I first became politically aware during the latter thirties, and if I may speak on a personal note I should like to do so. Usually the depression is emphasized as covering the years 1930 to 1935. As soon as the Liberals returned to office the depression was supposed to have miraculously withered away. But I was quite politically aware as a young chap in 1937, and I do not recall that things were unusually buoyant during that year. As a matter of fact I, along with several other graduates fresh from college in 1937, had absolutely no job opportunities available. Hundreds of our young men, myself included, were obliged to look for work in any direction in which they could possibly find it. I did not discover in 1937 that our economy

The Budget-Mr. Dinsdale was unduly buoyant. In fact it was the continuing economic distress that turned my thinking toward some form of social work.
I remember that as late as the year 1939-
I was working in the city of Montreal-I was discussing this problem with some knights of the road who had been on the go for almost ten years, travelling up and down the country, as so many of our young men did during the decade of the thirties. They were discussing the period when relief camps had been provided for unemployed men.


George Alexander Cruickshank: By Bennett.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes; and those were abruptly done away with, as I recall it, after the Liberals returned to power. This chap commenting said: "Mr. Bennett gave us relief camps at least, but all that the Liberals gave us was the highways to pound". He had been pounding them across the country for quite a considerable period of time. Therefore, from a personal recollection of those events, I do not think there was a miraculous recovery, a miraculous return to prosperous conditions overnight, as is sometimes suggested by members from the government side of this chamber.
I was very interested, Mr. Speaker, in the speech made by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne) this afternoon in which he tried to deal in some detail with this situation. It is high time someone did take it upon himself to be intellectually honest on this matter. With respect to many speeches that have been made on the subject, there tends to be intellectual dishonesty in this house. I do not think there is any more glaring example of intellectual dishonesty than the tendency, by subtle propaganda, to insinuate that the depression was caused by any particular group; or, on the other hand, that the prevailing prosperity today is on account of the machinations of any particular group that might be in office. This point must be emphasized over and over again if we are to have a responsible and enlightened attitude on the part of the electorate in this country.
I do not need to emphasize it; it should be almost obvious enough to be self-explanatory. If I had time, or if the occasion warranted it, I could go on and mention positive contributions that have been made by the Conservative party when we have had periods of power in this country. Of course everyone admits that the same could be said of the Liberals when they have enjoyed periods of power. The Conservative party, one of the historical political parties of this country, in fact the party that was largely responsible for initiating confederation, is steeped in the traditions of this country. It

has been the champion of the rights of parliament and of the people of Canada down through the years. According to that very interesting book "The Incredible Canadian", the fact that the Conservatives won the 1930 election was later recognized by the late prime minister, Mr. Mackenzie King, as the most fortunate thing that had ever happened to his party. Had the reverse situation prevailed, then the political story of Canada since that time would have been much different from what it has actually been.
It was encouraging to me-and this represents one of the occasions when discussion in this house reached a relatively high level -to hear references made from all sides of the house to the work of Sir Robert Borden during world war I, in connection with the provision of a sum of money to have his statue erected on parliament hill. Without any political consideration entering into the discussion the true stature of the man was measured, and even though he belonged to a party other than that in office at the moment he was given credit for having brought Canada a long step forward under his leadership toward the national autonomy within the framework of the British commonwealth of nations that has been completely established today.
Even during the depression some creditable efforts were made. I need only mention the imperial conference, the establishment of the central bank and others. I have been interested on several occasions to hear the leader of the C.C.F. party refer in complimentary tones to some of the policies that Mr. Bennett tried to bring forward under the new deal in an attempt to grapple with the extremely difficult economic situation that prevailed in the early thirties as well as in the late thirties. The whole country was slow to move toward the emergency legislation necessary to cope with an almost complete collapse of our economy, and that applied to other countries in the western world as well. In fact some of the countries of Europe, as we only too well know, were not as successful in grappling with the problems as we were, and dictatorship, tyranny and general political and economic confusion resulted. Therefore in making this unfair comparison-and it seems to be one of the chief appeals to the people of Canada at this time-contrasting prevailing prosperity with so-called Tory depression, I think we have a glaring example of intellectual dishonesty.
Associated with this same technique we have the constant reference to the tariff issue. During the twenties the tariff issue proved very helpful in pitting the east against the west, and thus making it possible for

the Liberal party to hold power on the basis of dividing and conquering.


George James McIlraith: No.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The hon. member for Dauphin has made reference to this so-called Tory protectionism. I can quite understand his opinion because he was closely associated with the Progressive movement back in the early twenties, and it was the absorption of the Progressives into the Liberal party during that period, after the Progressives had sent some 65 or 66 agrarian representatives to this house, that forced the Liberal group at least to give lip service to the principle of free trade. The agrarian reformers were ardent free traders.
The old struggle, the old attitude, the old conflict of the east versus the west, the suspicion of the west toward the east, still persists on the prairies. During the twenties it crystallized into the protection versus free trade issue. It was a red herring issue then, if we examine it to its source, and it is even more of a red herring today than it was during the twenties.
I was reading in the report on the South Saskatchewan dam at page 72, where it refers to the policy of national development which was first initiated by John A. Macdonald, and has been carried forth by successive governments since that day. The policy included the construction of the transcontinental railway and the opening of the west to settlement. In reference to the Liberal contribution to that policy after 1896 this report says:
Liberal governments which followed in power after 1896-
That is which followed Conservative governments.
-maintained the protective system with only minor modifications in the direction of imperial preference. The protective system has been the national policy to Canadians to the present day.
That is so, with minor variations and flexibility. And let me quote further from a definitive statement on the subject by Robert MacGregor Dawson in his book "The Government of Canada". This is one of the few text books on the subject of Canadian government. At page 502, referring to the platforms or policies of Liberal and Conservative governments he says:
The nearest approach to a constant policy has been furnished by the stand of each party on the protective tariff. The more extreme Liberal tendencies towards free trade, as noted above, were already toned down before the party victory of 1896; but the introduction of the imperial preference indicated that Liberal principles had not been entirely forsaken. The party, however, then rested on its achievement and retained a tariff which was unmistakably protectionist in character until the
10, 1953	2827
The Budget-Mr. Dinsdale government brought down its proposals for reciprocity with the United States in 1911. It was an ironical turn of events that when the Liberals at last made a sincere attempt to carry one of their neglected principles into practice they sustained defeat. In 1921, when they returned to power, they reduced the tariff in piecemeal fashion over a number of years; but it would be an exaggeration to state that this resulted in anything more than a moderate tariff which never lost sight of its protective function. Moreover, while there may be a strong likelihood, there is no assurance that the Liberals at this time would, if left to themselves, have gone even as far as they did, for their position in parliament was so uncertain that they were by no means free to do as they pleased. They lacked a genuine majority and were being kept in office by Progressive support, and the tariff reductions were moves in a long courtship which was designed to soften the heart of the western free-trading farmers.
Then, if I might quote further, I would turn to Hansard for 1935 where, at page 1962, Mr. Rhodes, speaking in the budget debate and referring to this old tariff bogey, had this to say:
In 1933, at the world economic conference the delegates from Canada strongly advocated the general adoption of a policy of removing the excessive restrictions which were strangling world trade, and the responsibility for the failure to adopt it must rest elsewhere. Since that time we have been carrying on negotiations with various individual countries some of which have been completed, others are still in progress. During the last few days you have been made acquainted with the comprehensive trade agreement which has been concluded with France and which, it may be said, for the first time places our trade relations with that country on an entirely satisfactory basis. Negotiations have been practically completed with Poland for a treaty which will enable Canadian trade to be carried on satisfactorily with that growingly important country from which, in the absence of a treaty, our products have been hitherto almost entirely excluded.
During recent months, an opportunity has presented itself for the first time since this government assumed office to enter into negotiations with a view to effecting a trade agreement with the United States of America.
Those negotiations, as I recall, had been restricted or prevented by the existence of the Hawley-Smoot tariff in the United States. It was the beginning of negotiations referred to in the speech by Mr. Rhodes that led the way to the establishment of an agreement to which reference has been made by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdon-nell) and the hon. member for Dauphin. Those preliminary negotiations, as Mr. Rhodes indicated, were undertaken by a Conservative administration, and were only finalized after the election to office of a Liberal government in 1935.
It is a phony issue. It is a red herring issue. It is designed to appeal primarily to the west; and to bring it up in this day and age as a significant plank in a party platform indicates a failure to understand the changes which have taken place in the west since
2828	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Dinsdale the depression, and particularly since the war. Today the west is driving very strenuously and enthusiastically toward a diversified economy, and they will not be deterred from their purpose by the resurrection from the dead of an issue which no longer has any appeal among prairie farmers.
We now know that if we are going to cope with some of the tremendous economic problems which are facing us on the prairies, problems which have been brought into focus within recent days by the loss of prairie parliamentary representation in the house, when two of the prairie provinces, namely Manitoba and Saskatchewan, have lost membership in the house because of their relative decline in population-I say that if we are to cope with these problems we realize that we must diversify our economy. And if we are going to do that it must be by way of an

expansion of this national policy which began with confederation, and which has been moving forward slowly since that time under succeeding administrations, both Conservative and Liberal.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to deal with one or two other subjects. Perhaps, as it is ten o'clock, I might be permitted to move the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. Dinsdale the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we shall continue this debate.


Gordon Graydon: And finish it?


[Stage Direction]
At ten, o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, March 11, 1953