1955-05-05

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 5, 1955

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, may 1 be permitted on behalf of all members of this house, and I am sure a great many outside of this house, to extend to Your Honour our congratulations and our very good wishes on the occasion of your birthday anniversary.


Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, while I know the applause requires no comment from this side to make it perfectly clear that it is unanimous, may I simply as a formality join with the Prime Minister in what is not a formality, and that is in the very warmest of good wishes to you on your birthday anniversary, and affectionate good wishes from all of us to your wife on this occasion.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope I may be forgiven for condoning what is out of order. I do wish to thank the right hon. Prime Minister and the hon. Leader of the Opposition and all hon. members for their kind wishes on this occasion. My day started with a bang, that is an atomic blast in the Nevada desert, which is a reminder of the precariousness of this life and the fact that one must always strive to do his best. My wife and I feel grateful to all of you for your kindness at all times.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


Mr. G. E. Nixon (Algoma Wesi):: I should like to present the second report of the standing committee on industrial relations. In this instance there will be no motion for concurrence.



QUESTIONS


Mr. Yuill:: What is the amount of tariff collected, in 1954, on imported vegetable oils used in the making of margarine?


Mr. Dickey:: Vegetable oils used in the making of margarine are not recorded separately in
import trade statistics. Customs duty collected, in 1954, on imports of vegetable oils for all purposes were as follows:
Duty collected
Cocoanut oil, edible	 $ 19,837
Cottonseed oil, edible	 92,203
Olive oil, edible	 43,711
Peanut oil, edible	 11,825
Soya bean oil, edible	 99,532
Castor oil	 2,765
Cocoanut oil, not edible	 2,947
Cottonseed oil, not edible ____ 681,016
Palm oil and palm kernel oil 185,084
Peanut oil, not edible	 18,381
Sesame seed oil	 1,951
Sunflower seed oil	 9,445
Other vegetable oils	 495,488


T.C.A. ANNUAL PASSES    MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. Zaplitny:: 1.	Have any cabinet ministers and/or members of parliament received passes, on an annual basis, from Trans-Canada Air Lines in 1955?
2.	If so, what are the names of such ministers and/or members?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Right Hon. C. D. Howe, Minister of Trade and Commerce, Hon. Alcide Cote, Postmaster General, Hon. George Marler, Minister of Transport.


GRAIN SHIPPING ORDERS
Mr. Castleden:: 1.	What is the basis for the allocation of grain shipping orders to the various elevator companies, as now used by the Canadian wheat board?
2.	When was the present system of order allocation put into operation?
3.	How were the percentages for shipping orders as between elevator companies arrived at?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	It is not the policy of the Canadian wheat board to disclose details of its current operations nor the competitive position of various elevator companies in their capacity as agents of the board.
2.	See answer to No. 1.
3.	See answer to No. 1.


ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE
Mr. Dinsdale:: 1.	Does the Royal Canadian Air Force own two Comet jet liners?
2.	What was the cost of these aircraft?

Questions
3.	Are they now in service with the Royal Canadian Air Force?
4.	If not, for what reason?
5.	What future use is intended for these aircraft?


Mr. Campney:: 1.	Yes, two Comet 1A jet liners.
2.	$1,544,000 each, excluding operating and engine spares.
3.	No.
4.	The R.C.A.F. removed its two Comets from service following the action of the British Overseas Airway Corporation in grounding its Comet fleet pending a full investigation into accidents.
5.	The modification and return to service of the two Comet jet liners is now under consideration. If returned to service, the Comets will again be used, as simulated high-speed jet bombers, to give practice to the continental air defence system.


FIR LOGS, EXPORTS AND IMPORTS
Mr. Argue:: 1.	What was the quantity and value of fir logs
exported to the United States in (a) 1953;	(b)
1954?
2.	What was the quantity and value of fir plywood imported from the United States in (a) 1953; (b) 1954?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	(a) 7,383 M ft. $498,815; (b) 4,251 M ft. $330,687.
2. (a) and (b) The information is not available, as imports of fir plywood are not recorded separately in trade statistics.
The value of all plywood imported from the United States was as follows;-(quantity figures not available)
Calendar year 1953-$575,817.
Calendar year 1954-$178,485.


NATIONAL FILM BOARD
Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):: 1.	What are the names of the firms paid to act as distributors for the national film board during 1954, and the amount each firm paid to the national board for this concession?
2.	What was the total cost of producing these films during 1954?


Mr. Pickersgill:: 1. It cannot properly be said that firms are paid to act as distributors for the national film board, or that they pay the national film board for this concession. In accordance with the general practice of the motion picture industry, contracts for distribution with different firms are drawn up indicating the films which are being covered, the territory in which they may be distributed, the length of time for which the distribution rights obtain, and the financial terms of the arrangement.
[Mr. Dinsdale.l
These terms follow a general pattern but vary somewhat according to the nature of the films involved, the territory in which the distribution rights obtain, and other local considerations. A common form of contract provides that preliminary costs including cost of prints, which remain the property of the national film board, are first deducted from the distributor's gross receipts, and the balance of the receipts is then divided in some such ratio as follows: 70 per cent to N.F.B., 30 per cent to distributor; 65 per cent to N.F.B., 35 per cent to distributor; 60 per cent to N.F.B., 40 per cent to distributor; and in some instances, 50 per cent to N.F.B. and 50 per cent to distributor.
Another form of contract provides that the distributor pays the board a stipulated percentage of the gross receipts, costs of prints to be paid by the board out of its share.
Still another form of contract provides that the cost of prints be deducted from the gross receipts of the distributor but that the balance be not divided between the distributor and the board; in lieu of such a division, the distributor pays the board a stipulated sum or makes, in other words, a flat payment.
A list of the names of these distributors for 1954 was tabled in the house on May 2, 1955, in answer to a question from the hon. member for Peterborough.
It would be an embarrassment to the board to reveal the amounts earned by each of these firms under contract during 1954. In a competitive situation, such a disclosure would not be in accord with business practice in general, or with the motion picture business practice in particular.
The gross sum paid to the board by its distributors in 1954 was $150,246.12. No figure is available for the gross amount earned by the distributors, but if the average ratio were 60 per cent to N.F.B. and 40 per cent to distributors, the sum would be $100,164.
2. Films distributed during 1954 under these contracts were produced at any time between 1945 and 1954. Films produced in 1954 account for only a small part of the gross revenue indicated in the answer to question 1, and many of such films may well be in distribution under contract for periods up to nine or ten years. Furthermore, many films produced in 1954, particularly in the last quarter of the year, have not yet been placed in distribution. Also, it is not possible to know yet which of all the films produced in 1954 will ultimately be given theatrical distribution. The board therefore cannot yet give figures for the cost of producing films in 1954 destined for commercial distribution.


ATOMIC RADIATION
[Stage Direction]
CUMULATIVE! EFFECTS
Mr. Caslleden:: What are the conclusions of the officials of the Department of External Affairs regarding whether or not there are cumulative effects on human beings from recurring exposures to atomic radiation?


Mr. Pearson:: The Department of External Affairs has nothing to add to the statement made on this subject by the Minister of National Health and Welfare on April 4 (Hansard, pages 2652-54.)



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Hamilton (York West):: What amounts were paid out by the Department of National Defence to moving contractors in 1954, in the province of Ontario, for moving the personal effects of officers and enlisted men of the three services:	(a) from Ontario to points outside of
Ontario; (b) from points outside of Ontario into Ontario?


Mr. Campney:: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to the hon. member for York West (Mr. Hamilton) and have pointed out to him that in view of the way in which statistics are kept in our department, I cannot answer his question as it is presently worded. If he will be satisfied with the names and the amounts paid to moving contractors in Ontario to whom we have made payments in the fiscal year 1954-55, this question could be so amended and made an order for return.


Mr. Speaker:: Order for return.


CANSO CAUSEWAY
Mr. Kirk (Antigonish-Guysborough):: 1.	During the past winter did the government conduct studies of the effect of the Canso causeway on ice conditions, tides and climate in the strait of Canso?
2.	If so, what did such studies reveal?


DIESEL FUELS, RAILWAYS  DRAWBACK
Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: Do the railways get any assistance whatever from the federal government by way of subsidy, drawback, etc., on diesel fuels when used by the railways?


CIVIL DEFENCE COLLEGE
Mr. Dinsdale:: 1.	How many persons to date have taken courses at the civil defence college at Arnprior?
2.	What courses are offered there, and how many persons have been trained in each course?
3.	How are these trainees distributed by provinces and cities?
4.	What has been the total cost of these courses?
5.	How is this cost distributed between federal government, provincial governments, and municipalities?
Inquiries of the Ministry STORMS



SASKATCHEWAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the colossal damage sustained by the residents of the cities of Prince Albert and Saskatoon, as well as adjacent towns and rural areas, in the catastrophe which struck there within the last 48 hours, will the government give consideration to granting compensation and assistance to those people who have suffered serious damage and loss, as was done in the case of "Hurricane Hazel" and one or two other cases?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I received notice from the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden) of a similar question. I am glad of this opportunity to say what I am sure is the fact, that all hon. members of this house sympathize with those who have suffered storm and flood damage in recent days in the western provinces. Of course the hon. gentleman knows that the primary responsibility is local and provincial, but when there is damage of such extent that it can fairly be considered as a national disaster and representations are made by the provincial government to the federal government, those representations receive the most sympathetic consideration. There is at all times an endeavour to mete out the same treatment to Canadians in all parts of Canada, as has been done whenever in the past there have been things that amounted to national disasters.
We have not yet any accurate information as to the extent of the damage that has been caused by this unusual storm in that locality. I am sure the accurate information will be available shortly; and if the government of Saskatchewan feel that its extent does bring it into the category of what should be considered a national disaster, I am sure it will be brought to our notice and will receive the same sympathetic consideration that has been extended whenever there has been anything that amounted to a national disaster.
[Later: 1


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if I might ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister, is it a fact that in the other cases where national disasters have been declared to exist, a request was made in each case by the provincial government? Second, if the loss is as estimated, namely in excess of $50 million, is that not far above the extent of
3468	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry the damage in previous occurrences which have been declared of national disaster proportions?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I sincerely hope the property damage that has been suffered in those localities does not amount to $50 million.


John George Diefenbaker: That is the estimate in the press.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes, but our experience has been that there is always a first estimate of the extent of the damage that is far in excess of what it proves to be when an investigation is made and the figures of the actual damage suffered in each locality are added up. There has been participation in assistance by the federal government in cases where the actual damage was much less than $50 million.
Now, as to the first part of the hon. gentleman's question, to my knowledge we have always dealt with the provincial governments in working out federal participation in the measures to alleviate damages resulting from a national disaster within a province.
[Later: ]
On the orders of the day:


Mr. W. G. Weir (Portage-Neepawa):: May
I ask the Prime Minister a question supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Prince Albert. In the event that damage from floods and other circumstances arising in the province of Manitoba is beyond the capacity of the local people to meet, would the same type of consideration be given as has been suggested by the hon. member for Prince Albert?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Of course the same type of consideration will be given to Canadians in any part of Canada, but I do not think there has been any case where the interference with the growing of future crops has entered into the calculation of the physical damage that was taken into account in arranging for assistance to those suffering the damage.



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. D. Weaver (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Has a decision yet been made as to whether the Department of National Revenue will be able to make arrangements for a customs port at Churchill for the 1955 season?
(Mr. Diefenbaker.]


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Revenue will be prepared to provide complete customs clearance facilities at Churchill, Manitoba, during the 1955 navigation season, if assurances can be given by a substantial number of importers, boards of trade, or other interested associations that they will take advantage of the service and will see that customs brokers and forwarding agents are established at the port to facilitate passage of documents through customs and the movement of the goods after clearance to destination.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON PRICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the minister discussed with the minister of trade and industry for Jamaica his statement that Canadian flour can be purchased in Liverpool and Trinidad at from 20 to 27 cents less per hundred pound bag than in Jamaica? If this situation prevails, can steps be taken to bring these prices into line?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The minister of trade and industry for Jamaica did discuss this question with me and others while he was here during the present week. I understand there is some differential in the price of flour as related to certain specific brands. The government of Jamaica and the millers are in communication with each other, and officials of the Department of Trade and Commerce have also been in touch with the millers. We hope some satisfactory arrangement can be worked out.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Wesiminsler):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Postmaster General. In view of the representations made by the Surrey council, the North Surrey board of trade and the junior chambers of commerce in that region, when does the department expect to change the name of the sub-post office in that area to North Surrey, and when does it intend to put the letter carrier service into operation?


Mr. T. A. M. Kirk (Parliamentary Assisiant to the Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I

presume my hon. friend has in mind the question of the name of the postal station now known as Whalley. The department is prepared to go ahead with the change of name to North Surrey, presuming that this is the desire of the patrons.
As regards letter carrier delivery, all the details have been prepared and the department is ready to go ahead as soon as the question of the name is decided upon. This matter has been recently brought to the attention of the Acting Postmaster General, and he has given instructions to proceed with the letter carrier delivery and the change of the name to North Surrey. This, of course, is assuming that all conditions governing letter carrier delivery are complied with.



FERRY SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Andrew Murray Kirk: May I direct a question to the Minister of Transport? With reference to the ferry Bluenose which is to operate this summer between Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, and Bar Harbor, Maine, is the minister now in a position to tell us the launching date?


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to that question I may say that May 25 has been fixed tentatively for the date of launching of the Bluenose.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Yesterday the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) asked a question regarding the protection of personnel in Indochina. The cease-fire agreements for Viet Nam, Cambodia and Laos all contain clauses requiring that the commanders of the forces of the parties to the agreements "shall provide full protection... to the international commission and its inspection teams in the performance of their functions". I know of no case where a Canadian member of our delegations to the three international commissions or a Canadian member of any of the inspection teams working under the commissions has suffered either personal indignities or violence because the protection called for in the agreements had been inadequate.
The Budget-Mr. J. B. Hamilton CANSO CAUSEWAY


ANNOUNCEMENT OF OPENING FOR HIGHWAY TRAFFIC
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. J. MacEachen (Inverness-Richmond):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the destruction by fire of the ferry boat John Cabot, is the minister in a position to advise that the Canso causeway will be opened for highway traffic in the near future?


George Carlyle Marler: The provincial government is responsible for the surfacing and maintenance of the part of the causeway to be used by highway traffic. It has proposed to us that this part of the causeway be opened on May 20, and we have concurred in this proposal.


THE BUDGET
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, May 4, consideration of the motion of Hon. W. E. Harris (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.
John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, yesterday while I listened to this debate and watched my chance of taking part in it tick away with the clock, instead of being disappointed I think that I was relieved that I would not have the opportunity, by mediocre performance, to detract from the position my party had achieved through the outstanding efforts of my leader.


An hon. Member:: Sour apples.


John Borden Hamilton: A lot of apples are passed here, but they are usually on the other side.


An hon. Member:: More applesauce than apples.


John Borden Hamilton: If I may borrow an expression of the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Dufresne), instead of being dangerously ill I know that hon. members to your right, Mr. Speaker, have learned to their sorrow that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) is dangerously well.
I should like to read a few of his remarks as recorded in Hansard of yesterday at page 3445:
We have heard already during the course of this debate that the government has confidence in the country, leaving the implication that others have not. Mr. Speaker, we have confidence in this country, and we have confidence that we have to encourage the development of the limitless

The Budget-Mr. J. B. Hamilton resources we possess, and for the production and fabrication of which we have such enormous resources of industrial energy in the form of hydroelectric power, coal, oil, gas, uranium-all these things. We say that, with the development of these, there is full employment for all here and full employment for millions more in the years immediately ahead . . .
All this calls for action. The Minister of Finance gave a rather schoolmasterly bit of advice to the manufacturers. He told them that they had better pull up their socks and meet the situation.
If I may, at that point in his remarks I should like to interject that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) was probably echoing the words of the hon. member for Spadina (Mr, Croll) when, he said that the manufacturers needed a kick in the pants. Yet that is most difficult to understand, when the hon,. member for Essex West (Mr. Brown) goes to the trouble of sending us a circular to indicate that the Chrysler Corporation are spending $50 million to double their facilities in this country. I think it is about time we had some unanimity of opinion between the Liberals to your left, Mr. Speaker, and the Liberals to your right. The Leader of the Opposition then went on to say this:
This demands more than action by the manufacturers. It demands action by everyone. It demands action by this government . . .
I am ending my quotation at the third line of the first column on page 3446 of Hansard.
Although we have wide latitude in this debate, I should like to limit my remarks to that particular problem. In the first speech I made in this house I indicated that on occasion, in order to express my views, I might even find it necessary to use such unmentionable terms as free enterprise, tariffs and protection. From my short experience I think I can say that these terms are still politically unmentionable. There is such great reluctance on the part of the government to face up to these terms that I think we can safely say they are fiddling while Rome is burning.
If I may draw an analogy from a Bible story, if the treasury benches are the Ananias in this problem, if they are guilty of a practised avoidance of their responsibility to industry, then all those who sit idly by in their shadow are the Sapphira because they are guilty of the consenting mind. They are not lifting one finger to prevent the crime. For those who represent our great industrial ridings there must come a day of reckoning.
I have said as well that we do not recommend high tariffs, but we ask for an end to the naive program of binding us under trade agreements to nations which are not playing under the same rules. First, our two biggest customers allow our goods entry or refuse


entry as they see fit, regardless of the GATT agreements. There should not be any surprise on our part when we hear about voluntary reductions in imports of Canadian oil and gas by the United States. This contempt of agreements has been going on for some time and is just as effective a barrier to our trade as a complete embargo on our goods by legislation. If there are surpluses in the United States, we are told to go and peddle our wares elsewhere. If there is a shortage of foreign exchange in Britain, we are told to do the same thing.
I think industry has good reason to expect this government to stand up to situations of this kind. We possess raw materials here of vital importance to all nations. It is time this government sat around the trading table in a realistic manner and stood up to our responsibilities to Canadian industries. There is no reason why a big stick should impress us in trade negotiations. Without our raw materials such as aluminum, nickel, asbestos, uranium, wood pulp, etc., the high standards of living reached in many countries could not have been achieved. Let us bargain from strength, not from weakness, and our deteriorating export situation can be rectified.
In the second place, we are, of course, not playing under the same rules in connection with our imports as well. In the last month I have had drawn to my attention by industries in my own constituency at least two or three problems of vital importance. I think I should warn the government that it is no longer a case of a few industrialists who are complaining about unfair competition, those people who heretofore could be told, "Go away and don't bother us". There is a major awakening on the part of organized labour as well. In each instance with which I have had dealings in connection with these problems, the representatives of labour have come along with representatives of management to see what can be done to work but the problem.
Perhaps I might be permitted to illustrate my point that we are not playing under the same rules in so far as competition is concerned by imports from foreign countries. Our tariff structure may be quite adequate, but new formulas must be devised for its interpretation or that tariff structure will not perform the function for which it was designed. As an illustration, I am informed that there is no particular tariff provision covering the import of thermos bottles, and that they are assessed on the basis of whether steel or glass is their major component. If it is steel, under item 446a we have the three classifications: British preferential, 10 per cent; most favoured nation, 22J per cent; all others,

35 per cent. If it is glass, under section 326(i) we have the same three classifications: British preferential, 15 per cent; most favoured nation, 20 per cent; all others, 32J per cent. By far the greater number of the nations with whom we now trade are classified under the most favoured nation part of the tariff structure, and include nearly all countries other than those behind the iron curtain.


James Joseph McCann: What was the commodity?


John Borden Hamilton: Thermos bottles. My understanding of the usual method of assessing values for duty purposes, and I think this is the crux of the whole problem, is on the basis of the sale of an equivalent quantity; that it cannot be calculated on the price of the last 50,000 on a 500,000 run but an equivalent quantity at an equivalent level of business in the country of origin. The section dealing with the problem is found in chapter 58 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, being section 35.
But-and it is a very large "but"-there is absolutely no provision for a difference in (1) plant and equipment costs, (2) labour charges and (3) government taxes between the country of origin and our own country. As a matter of fact, if in a country under a controlled economy the government wishes to have goods sold at less than cost on its domestic market, then since 1948 that must be the price used for duty valuation. Dumping legislation does not apply unless the goods are being sold in their home market at prices in excess of their export price. Canadian industry and, in the result, Canadian labour, receive absolutely no protection in so far as our Customs Act is concerned in connection with the production of goods in countries where standards of living are far below our own. I might add that Canadian industry and labour apparently receive no protection from competition from countries where the standards of business ethics are also much lower than ours.
So that I may not be accused of speaking without proof, I should like to illustrate my point. I wish all hon. member could be close enough to me to see the two thermos bottles I have here. I think it can be readily seen and should be recorded in Hansard that they are packaged in almost identical fashion. The format, the colouring, the illustrations as to their use, the instructions which go with them even to the headings such as "electronically tested", "for best results", "to clean", "caution", are the same except that in the case of this product "caution" is spelled "c-u-t-i-o-n" and "little" is spelled "1-i-t-t-e-r". As to the bottles themselves, the design and colouring are the same, even to the design mark on the bottom along with the name.
The Budget-Mr. J. B. Hamilton
This thermos bottle is produced by Aladdin Industries in my constituency. This other thermos bottle is manufactured in Japan. The price to the wholesale trade of the Canadian bottle is $1.28. The price to the wholesale trade of the Japanese bottle is 70 cents. The price to the purchaser of the Canadian bottle is $2.35. The price to the purchaser of the Japanese bottle is $1.49. This is what I mean when I say that there appears to be no equality in business ethics as far as the competition that our manufacturers must meet in our domestic market is concerned.
This topic came up for discussion a year ago, at the time of the ratification of the trade treaty with Japan. I should like to read some of the words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), as found at page 3515 of Hansard of March 31, 1954. He said:
In a supplementary exchange of notes which is appended to the agreement Canada reserves the right to establish special values for duty on any imports entering Canada in such increased quantities and under such conditions as to cause or threaten serious injury to domestic producers of like or directly competitive products. In the event of such special values being applied, and in determining the level at which such values should be applied, Canada will take into account the prices of like or directly competitive products imported from other countries.
At page 3516 he had this to say:
The agreement also provided for non-discrimination in state trading practices. Both countries undertake to conform to internationally accepted fair trade practices, particularly in matters pertaining to trade marks, marks of origin and rights under patents. They also undertake to co-operate in the prevention of any practices which might prejudicially affect their mutual trade and to accord sympathetic consideration to any representations that the other country may make.
In the debate on the motion to ratify the agreement the Minister of Trade and Commerce had this to say, as found at page 4647 of Hansard of May 12, 1954:
It has' appeared for some time to be in our national interest to work out a mutually advantageous trade agreement with Japan.
At page 4648 he went on to say:
In negotiating this new agreement, we set out to obtain and consolidate advantages in the Japanese market, and at the same time to safeguard in a reasonable way the position of our own Canadian manufacturers in our home market.
At page 4649 he said:
In case injurious competition should materialize for particular Canadian industries out of such imports, careful safeguards have been provided in the agreement.
I ask hon. members, is this any evidence of careful safeguards? Here is a product manufactured in a Canadian plant by a company which introduced the manufacture of this product in Canada, a company which employs

The Budget-Mr. A. W. A. White 80 to 90 Canadians, a product which is 90 per cent Canadian. Here is a substitute product manufactured under conditions under which Canadian workmen would in no circumstances work. Here is a product which on the shelf of your hardware merchant is almost indistinguishable from the Canadian product. When my leader said there was a responsibility on the government to do something for the manufacturing industry in Canada and to create jobs, I am sure he was referring to just such an example as this. When we talk about pulling up the socks, when we talk about a kick in the pants, I believe the government should consider if it is not about time they gave themselves the same treatment.


Mr. Balcom:: I did not know the hon. member had completed his remarks, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if I could ask him a question?


John Borden Hamilton: Yes.


Samuel Rosborough Balcom: Are those thermos bottles?


John Borden Hamilton: Yes.


Samuel Rosborough Balcom: Is the name "thermos" on them?


John Borden Hamilton: They are
vacuum bottles.


Samuel Rosborough Balcom: I think that point should be cleared up. These are vacuum bottles, not thermos bottles.


John Borden Hamilton: We will be glad to let you see them. We will be glad to set up shop in the opposition lobby, if you would like to examine them.


Samuel Rosborough Balcom: I think a correction should be made, and it should be noted that these are not thermos bottles as the speaker said they were. These are vacuum bottles.


An hon. Member:: What difference does it make?


Samuel Rosborough Balcom: I have not seen any vacuum bottle that compares with the thermos bottle. These are both substitutes for thermos bottles. You will find, I think, that the Japanese product is just as efficient as the other make.


Mr. Hees:: So what is the question?


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: Why don't you listen?


Samuel Rosborough Balcom: I wanted to ask if they were thermos bottles, and I find they are not.


George Harris Hees: He said they were vacuum bottles.


Mr. A. W. A. White (Waterloo South):: In
rising to take part in this debate, Mr. Speaker,
I should like to offer my congratulations to the Minister of Finance on this, his first


budget. It is a realistic one, and has received widespread approval throughout Canada.
The post-war years from 1945 to 1953 brought to Canada, under a Liberal administration, a period of unprecedented prosperity during which our gross national product grew to $24-5 billion. During the same period the government followed the wise and prudent policy of creating surpluses with which our national debt was reduced by $2-25 billion, with a corresponding reduction in debt carrying charges. This policy undoubtedly has met with the approval of the Canadian people. In my opinion it was good housekeeping, in spite of the fact that many hon. members opposite criticized this policy of deliberately creating surpluses during this period of unprecedented prosperity.
The present budget will, I believe, give our economy a shot in the arm by releasing more purchasing power into the stream of our economy through a reduction in personal and corporation income taxes. Undoubtedly the 5 per cent reduction in the sales tax on cars and the removal of the sales tax on tires and tubes will give a new impetus to those industries, which will have a beneficial effect on our economy.
The budget papers show that the number of persons without jobs and seeking work rose from an average of 137,000 in 1953 to 232,000 in 1954. This trend continued in 1955, and in February of this year the number of persons without jobs and seeking employment was 379,000 or 64,000 more than in February, 1954. Since a large percentage of these unemployed persons are industrial workers, any policy which will put more purchasing power in the hands of the Canadian people is a step in the right direction, even though it is brought about by deficit financing.
However, in my opinion this is not the entire solution to the slow-down that has taken place in many of our secondary industries during the past year. The fact that the purchasing power of the Canadian people has been increased does not necessarily mean that this increased purchasing power will be used to buy Canadian-made goods when imported goods can be bought at lower prices. The effect of competition with manufactured goods imported from the United Kingdom, Japan, Hong Kong, and the countries of continental Europe, where wages are very much lower than those paid in Canada, has been felt for some time by many of our own industries. Since many of our secondary industries are almost entirely restricted to our domestic market, the loss of this market could have a serious effect on our economy.

The fact that many of our secondary industries are losing their home market is, in my opinion, borne out by the fact that while consumer expenditures for goods and services increased from $15,100 million in 1953 to $15,600 million in 1954, or slightly more than 3 per cent, there is still a slow-down in industrial employment in many branches of our secondary industries. Last year I attempted to draw the attention of this house to the dangerous position of the textile industry in Canada, particularly the wool cloth branch. The former minister of finance directed the tariff board to conduct an inquiry into tariff item 554b, which reads as follows:
Woven fabrics composed wholly or in part of yarns of wool or hair shall be subject to a specific duty of 20 per cent and an ad valorem duty of 12 cents per pound, but the sum of these two duties imposed by this item on imports under the British preferential tariff shall not be in excess of 50 cents per pound.
The tariff board conducted the inquiry as directed by the minister, and the report was tabled in this house earlier this year. The establishment of a maximum British preferential duty first appeared in 1935, at which time the duty under this item was fixed at 27-5 per cent specific duty and 17 cents per pound ad valorem, with a 65 cents per pound maximum. The recommendation that the sum of the two duties imposed under the British preferential tariff should not exceed a fixed maximum was the result of the tariff board finding at that time that cloths both woollen and worsted, selling in England at a price of $2 or more per pound, were not within the range of economical Canadian manufacture.
In other words the tariff board recommended that a ceiling be placed on the duty for high priced specialty fabrics such as those purchased by custom tailors, and in this way restrict Canadian production to a range in which it was most efficient.
This tariff item was changed in 1937 and again in 1948, when the present rates of duty were established. In 1935 the prices of raw materials and wages were very low, and imports under this item averaged only $1.02 per pound. Therefore the duties imposed under this tariff were able to function as they were intended to do; but in 1953, due to the increase in the prices of raw materials and conversion costs, the average price of wool cloth imports was $3.14 per pound; consequently the maximum duty could no longer function as it was intended. Instead of applying to only a special range of cloth which it was considered uneconomical to manufacture in Canada it has now actually replaced the specific and ad valorem duties, 50433-220
The Budget-Mr. A. W. A. White with the result that virtually all woollen and worsted cloths imported under this item are subject to a duty of only 50 cents per pound.
That this is true is borne out by the tariff board at page 43 of their report, where they state that the 50 cent maximum had become the governing rate on a large proportion of imports of British wool cloth, in effect a specific duty. That this was the main purpose of the inquiry is established by the letter of the former minister of finance to the tariff board when he directed the hearing to be held. In it he said:
I have received numerous representations from the woollen industry in Canada to the effect that as a result of price changes the 50 cent maximum duty prescribed under the British preferential rate of tariff item 554b has become anomalous and unrealistic and that, as a consequence, the industry has suffered and is suffering serious injury. Indeed it has been claimed that the continued existence of the industry is in jeopardy.
I do not believe anyone could question that the tariff board found as a fact that the 50 cent maximum under this item has become the governing rate of duty on practically all imports of British wool cloth, and that the industry no longer had the protection of the 20 per cent specific duty and 12 cents per pound ad valorem as was intended when these rates of duty were first established.
There is no doubt in my mind, either, that the Canadian wool industry has suffered and is suffering serious injury from the loss of their domestic market to imported British cloth, and that the 50 cent maximum is one of the contributing factors. The closing of 17 mills, most of which were established before the war and in some cases before world war I, the reduction in the number of employees by 43 per cent between 1949 and June, 1954, with many of the remaining employees working only part time-facts that were established by the tariff board in their report-are a clear indication that the Canadian industry has suffered and is suffering serious injury. That the tariff board recognized that the continued existence of the industry is in jeopardy is established by their statement in the report at page 30, where they say:
Taking all these factors into consideration, there seems little doubt that the chief reason for the losses incurred in 1953 was the fact that to secure orders the mills had to sell a substantial part of their output at unsatisfactory prices. In many cases these sales were reported as having been made at prices to meet those quoted by their British competitors. That a substantial portion of the industry appears to be in serious difficulty is evidenced by the constancy of the over-all rate of absorption of capital resources.

The Budget-Mr. A. W. A. White
In today's issue of the Globe and Mail it is stated on the financial page that Dominion Woollens and Worsteds had a loss of $361,166 in the last year.
Other hon. members who have spoken on this subject in this debate have constantly referred to the industry asking for an increase in the tariff. The Minister of Finance in his budget address also said that he did not think it would be wise to increase the tariff. I would like to point out that the industry in its submission to the tariff board did not ask that the tariff be increased, but only that the 50 cents per pound maximum be abolished because it no longer served the purpose for which it was established, and had become unrealistic and anomalous.
The tariff board found as a fact that since 1948 the 50 cents per pound maximum had become the governing rate of duty-in effect a specific duty-and there is no doubt in my mind, and I do not believe there was any doubt in minds of the members of the tariff board, that this very fact was one of the contributory factors leading to the present plight of the Canadian wool cloth industry, even though by itself, or per se, as it is said in the report, it cannot be considered the whole cause.
Another factor that the board said must be taken into consideration is the decline in the Canadian market. In this regard it is interesting to note that while the total decline in the market from 1948 to 1953 was 10 million yards, the share of the Canadian industry of the domestic market dropped by 10-7 per cent while during the same period British imports increased by 11 per cent. It is therefore quite obvious that while the total demand for wool fabrics has declined, the share of the Canadian mills of the available market has been reduced to a greater extent than the decline in the market itself.
Another hon. member, speaking in the debate on this subject, indicated that the industry was overexpanded and inefficient. I would like to point out to him that with full employment between 1945 and 1949, the Canadian wool cloth industry was able to supply only 68 per cent of the domestic market, and any statement that the industry is overexpanded is unfounded. In the postwar years the industry spent $35 million on plant and equipment and have in operation 655 manual looms and 1,788 automatic looms, whereas in 1949 there were 1,404 manual looms and only 1,014 automatic looms. I think it will be readily admitted that the Canadian industry has modernized itself and is efficient.
The widening gap between wages paid in England and in Canada, which was accentuated by the devaluation of the pound, has
[Mr. White (Waterloo South 1.1
been a major factor contributing to the loss of the Canadian market to British imports. In 1935 wages in Canada were 29-7 cents per hour compared with 19-1 cents per hour in England, a difference of 10-6 cents per hour. In other words wages in Canada were 55 per cent higher than wages in England at that time. After devaluation of the pound this difference widened to 45-5 cents per hour in 1950, or 123 per cent. Today the difference is 61-8 cents per hour, or 151 per cent. The tariff board had this to say about wages at page 17 of its report:
It was suggested during the inquiry that in the years of profitable operations-1946-49-wool cloth manufacturers were too optimistic and raised the wages of their workers too much and that as a result, Canadian wool cloth cannot compete with wool cloth made in low wage countries. This is a difficulty that manufacturers in a high wage economy must meet if they are to continue in production. For industries where the cost of labour is a large proportion of total cost, such as the wool cloth industry, this is a serious problem for manufacturers. To compete in this market, production in this industry must be efficient. This means that manufacturers must not only give efficient management but must attract and keep skilled and industrious workers. To do this, the industry must pay wages which are about the same level as those offered in other industries.
The board also stated at page 46 of its report:
Manufacturers must now make finer cloths than in the pre-war years; indeed, finer than ini the immediate post-war years. As finer cloths mean more labour, labour costs may well have become a higher proportion of total conversion costs, adding to the disadvantage of Canadian producers.
Since the cost of wool is fixed by world prices the difference in conversion costs, of which wages is a big factor, simply means that the British manufacturer can produce wool cloth, pay transportation, pay the 50 cents a pound maximum duty, and land his wool cloth in Canada at 50 to 60 cents a yard less than the cost of production in this country.
Many will undoubtedly say that it is an uneconomic industry and should change to something else or get out of business. I wonder how many of our industries could survive if they were faced with that kind of competition. I would like to ask the representatives from the western provinces if the wheat farmer could stand competition like that; and if he could not would they say it was an uneconomic industry? I do not think anyone would suggest that the average workingman is getting more wages than he needs to live and raise his family in this great country of ours, where we are enjoying the second highest standard of living in the world. Neither do I think anyone would say that we should lower our standard of living to meet competition from these other countries. That would be a retrograde step and

where would you stop? At the living standard of the Japanese, where they get less than ten cents an hour?
The leader of the C.C.F. group, speaking on a national broadcast on June 1, 1954, had this to say:
Within the last two weeks, the government has asked the tariff board to study the impact of preferential tariffs on woollen textiles imported from the United Kingdom. This announcement can have only one meaning-that the government is considering increasing the preferential tariff rate of this commodity imported from Great Britain. Let me immediately say that if this were done the C.C.F. would be strongly opposed to it.
That may well be the position taken by members in the C.C.F. group representing the prairie provinces, but I am convinced that the textile workers and organized labour in the industrial provinces of Ontario and Quebec could never subscribe to such a policy.
Many other industries are losing their Canadian market to imports from these low wage countries; to mention only a few, the machine tool industry, the electrical industry, the rubber footwear industry. Still others are suffering from competition with imports from the United States, where their large home market with a wall around it allows them to produce in such large quantities that our secondary industries in many cases cannot compete with them even in our own market. We have listened too long to members of the United States government give lip service to the principles of freer trade; then, as soon as any of their industries suffer from competition they immediately slap on quotas and use the escape clauses under GATT.
In conclusion I would ask the government to reconsider its decision, and before the new GATT agreement is signed to eliminate the 50 cents per pound maximum under tariff item 554b. I would also urge the government to see that we have the same escape clauses as any other signatory to the GATT agreement and if the United States or any other country wantonly uses the escape clauses against us, we should protect our own industries by the same method.


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, for many years now the world has been in the grip of a so-called cold war. A cold war is a war for men's minds, a war in which the aggressor seeks to talk his intended victim out of the possessions which he contemplates obtaining. The enemies of freedom, which comprise the communist conspiracy, subtly and with satanic skill and cunning, have been talking the world into confusion and into delusion in order to lead the democratic peoples into captivity, bondage, slavery and then destruction.
50433-220J
The Budget-Mr. Blackmore
My purpose today is to discuss one of the techniques of that cold war that has been waged against the anti-communist world incessantly now since at least as far back as 1940. During that cold war the anti-communist peoples have sustained appalling losses, mainly through failing to recognize and realize what was happening to them. They are still in danger of losing, because they will not realize what is happening to them. For example, during the ten-year period ending with this year, in China alone 450 million potential friends of North America have been turned into 450 million potential and almost certain enemies of North America, by being delivered into the hands of Stalin and the political successors of Stalin in red Russia.
How came this dangerous occurrence about? United States citizens, acting either within the United States or under the direction of people in the United States, threw the Chinese mainland under the domination of the red rulers of Moscow. How and by whom has this been achieved?
May I suggest, as one of the figures eminently worth considering in this connection, Dean Gooderham Acheson, one-time secretary of state of the United States. Much confusion has been sown everywhere among anticommunist peoples through certain false statements of Dean Gooderham Acheson. Strangely enough, throughout this country and practically throughout the world this man is held in high esteem, which makes his falsehoods more dangerous.
May I invite the house for the time being to consider two of many examples of such false statements which I could readily name. Dean Acheson in 1949 said in effect that the United States could not in reason have prevented the outcome of the so-called civil war in China. No matter what she had done or left undone, he said, she could not have prevented the outcome. In his letter of transmittal to the white paper on "United States relations with China, 1949", Dean Acheson said:
The unfortunate but inescapable fact is that the ominous result of the civil war in China was beyond the control of the government of the United States. Nothing that this country did or could have done within the reasonable limits of its capabilities could have changed that result; nothing that was left undone by this country has contributed to it.
See Utley, page 31.
I think probably a bigger falsehood than that could not be found in modern times. Freda Utley, at page 30 of her highly scholarly and scrupulously documented book, "The China Story", published in 1951, writes:
No one who takes the trouble to study the records can accept Acheson's statement.

The Budget-Mr. Blackmore
She particularly refers to the letter of transmittal to the white paper, which contains the statement I have just quoted from Acheson. Dean Acheson was wrong; Freda Utley was right. On page 31 of "The China Story" Utley justifies her statement in the following words, and I quote from "The China Story":
Perhaps Mr. Acheson did not study the white paper all the way through its unindexed 1,054 pages. For in the small-print annexes in the back, as will be shown, are a number ol documents that glaringly contradict the words of the state department in the main text.
That is glaring falsehood No. 1. As for No. 2, Dean Acheson in a letter to Senator Connally on March 15, 1949, used these words:
Despite the present aid program authorized by the last congress, together with the very substantial other aid extended by the United States to China since V-J Day, aggregating over $2 billion . . .
I quote this from "The China Story" by Utley, page 31. It is a glaring falsehood to say that China had received $2 billion worth of aid. In "The China Story", chapter 2, entitled "Too Little, Too Late", Utley, after carefully studying the figures given on pages 1,043 and 1,044 of the 1949 white paper on China, says on pages 33 and 34:
Elimination of both the "service" charges and of the $100 million or so of United States nonmilitary "war surplus" stocks sold to China in 1946 reduces the total of post-war "military aid" to China to about $360 million. This total is disputed by the Chinese national government. According to its calculations, China received $110 million worth of ''effective military aid" prior to the 1948 China aid act, which, together with the $125 million allocated by that act, brought the total to $225 million.
Next to the one I cited a moment ago, that comes close to being the second prize winner for the lie of the quarter century. See how colossal the lie is and what a false impression it has contrived to give concerning the strength of the communists, the weakness of Chiang Kai-shek, the position of Formosa and all these other matters which so vitally affect us in this dangerous hour.
Colonel L. B. Moody, a United States army ordnance corps officer who served with the Donald Nelson mission to China, after having made an intensive and detailed study of aid to China, said in a speech in Washington on April 11, 1950, and I quote from the speech as it is printed in Utley, page 35:
It is obvious that "military aid" means to the Chinese infantry weapons and ammunition above all else, and it is precisely these items which the United States action has consistently denied, delayed or limited.
No matter how much money might have been spent in China on anything else except bullets and the guns with which to shoot them, the aid would have been of no value;

but even at that the aid which Acheson implied had been given was never given.
What I have already said in this talk will help anyone to appreciate, in some small degree at least, the significance of some words which I now quote from Dr. Hu Shih in his article "China in Stalin's Grand Strategy":
Such, in brief, is the story of the unfolding of Stalin's strategy of conquest in China. The heart of this strategy has been the creation, preservation and nurturing to full strength of the Chinese red army. It has taken nearly a quarter of a century for the red army to achieve sufficient power for the conquest of continental China. This red army was many times defeated, broken up and nearly annihilated by Chiang Kai-shek's armies; and Stalin and world communism might never have succeeded in China if the greatest war in human history had not intervened.
I may add to that, if in the course of that war it had not been possible to delude people so completely by falsehoods that had been spread about and never answered. I quote again from Dr. Hu Shih's article:
The pattern of conquest is therefore the same in China as in Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary, Rumania, Jugoslavia and Czechoslovakia. It is the pattern of conquest by force and violence projected from the contiguous Russian base. What seems to differentiate China from the seemingly much easier conquests in central and eastern Europe has been the much greater complexity and difficulty of the conquest, which made it necessary for Stalin to resort to the most cunning forms of secret diplomacy in order to overcome the resistance that nationalist China had been able to summon for over two decades.
The cunning and secret diplomacy to which he resorted I am now discussing. My reference is to Dean Acheson and his monstrous performance in connection with this struggle against Chiang.
The Chinese communists, abundantly aided by Russia, played a part in driving Chiang to retire to Formosa. The Russian communists did far more, while the American communists under Dean Acheson really did the job of driving Chiang to withdraw to Formosa. Actually Americans Roosevelt and Truman, Dean Acheson, General George C. Marshall, backed by the United States communist organization-these are the men who drove Chiang to withdraw from China to Formosa.
The authorities which I shall cite today are given at pages 3025 and 3026 of this year's Hansard. They are "China in Stalin's Grand Strategy" by Dr. Hu Shih; "The Iron Curtain Over America", 1952, by Dr. John Beaty, at one time military intelligence officer in the United States all during world war II; "The China Story" published in 1951 by Freda Utley-the authenticity of these authorities I discussed on a former occasion in some detail-and committee hearings such as those of the McCarran committee of the United States Senate. Every one of these is of the very highest degree of validity.

To appraise and appreciate Chiang Kai-shek with even superficial adequacy, one should contemplate him against the background of his whole history. I gave a considerable amount of that history on April 21. Time forbids that I do that on this occasion. Omitting for the present the remarkable story from June, 1926, when General Chiang Kai-shek as commander of the army of national revolution succeeded Dr. Sun Yat-sen as leader of the republic of China, on down to the end of 1944, let us consider the pertinent events of 1945 and on.
Let us look at 1945. The Chinese communist army in 1945 probably amounted to from 300,000 to 350,000. See David J. Dallin, "Soviet Russia in the Far East", Yale University Press, 1948, at page 223, cited in Dr. Hu Shih at page 34. These were scattered over 19 provinces, poorly armed and poorly supplied-see Hu Shih, page 34. These remnants Chiang was rapidly and effectively mopping up. May I quote a passage which establishes that fact quoted in "The Iron Curtain Over America" by Dr. Beaty, page 115:
President Truman, on the advice of Dean Acheson, announced to the world on December 15, 1945, that unless communists were admitted to the established government of China, aid from America would no longer be forthcoming. At the same time, Mr. Truman dispatched General Marshall to China with orders to stop the mopping up of communist forces which was being carried to a successful conclusion by the established government of China.
We come now to 1946 and an outline of the doings of General George C. Marshall in China during that year. I have told of his selection and dispatch in December, 1945. He was head of the Marshall mission, which was assigned the task of ending the struggle in China between the anti-communists under Chiang Kai-shek and the communists under Stalin's direction. Marshall had specific instructions-and note this carefully; how impossible for Chiang Kai-shek they were- to exert pressure on Chiang's national government to come to terms with the Chinese communists, such pressure to take the form of threats to withhold credits, technical assistance in the economic field and military assistance by the United States; see Utley, page 8. May I quote from "The China Story", page 8:
Thus, in effect, President Truman barred China from American aid until the Chinese communists should cease fighting the national government. Since the Chinese communist party, like all other communist parties, always and at all times, acted on Stalin's instructions, the United States government was in reality endeavouring to force the Chinese government to submit to Moscow.
The Budget-Mr. Blackmore
That does not sound nearly so good, does it? How does the Dean Acheson lie stand in relation to that? I quote again from Utley, page 10:
America's compulsions could be and were exerted only against the national government. By withholding both economic and military aid from the national government until it came to terms with those who wrought havoc in China for their own ultimate gains, it was we (the United States) who put the communists in a position in which they could blackmail the national government.
That is a pretty bad start, is it not? It is a rather ugly picture, is it not?
Marshall, during his one year in China, interfered with Chiang enough to ruin Chiang's finest chances of ultimate victory, unless he could be given generous American aid in later years. This was in addition to what Roosevelt had done at Yalta! This damage Marshall did: First, by pressing Chiang into ceasing fire three separate times, namely in January 1946, in June 1946, and in November 1946, in each case just when Chiang had his enemies on the run, in full defeat and in full retreat. Second, or the second means by which he did damage, was by declaring an embargo-almost unbelievable-preventing Chiang from buying military supplies for upwards of a full year; see Utley, page 13.
Now as to the details: Marshall, shortly after he arrived in China, arranged a truce. He found Chiang winning too much and he called for a truce effective January 13, 1946, whereby, first, the communists and nationalist forces were to be frozen in their present position; and second, the nationalist forces were to be free to move into Manchuria to take it over from the Russians; see Utley, page 11. That does not sound too bad, except that it stopped Chiang from destroying his enemies when he had them on the run.
Now, the province of Jehol adjoining Manchuria had been administered by Japan as part of Manchoukuo, which was the Japanese name for Manchuria. The nationalists naturally assumed that they were to occupy Jehol. Chihfeng, a railway junction city in Jehol, was occupied only by Russian troops; see Utley, pages 12 and 13. The nationalists insisted on taking Chihfeng over. Control of Chihfeng would go far toward enabling the nationalists to shut off the Chinese communists in China from the communists in Manchuria, something which of course was greatly to be desired. The Chinese communists, under Chou En-lai, insisted that the Chinese communists held Chihfeng and should hold Chihfeng-one of his lies. Since the Chinese communists, he said, had it-which was a lie-they should hold it.
Marshall, at 10.30 that night, went to visit Chiang Kai-shek at his home and stayed there
3478	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Blackmore until midnight. He constrained Chiang to let Chou En-lai have Chihfeng and with it control of Jehol province-Utley, page 12. All that needs to be said now to show the absolute abomination of that act is that the Russians were in control of Chihfeng. Chou En-lai did not have it. He knew he did not have it. He knew the Russians had it, and he used this lying trick to get control of that centre which would have meant victory for Chiang Kai-shek.
The communists in the truce signed on January 10-Utley, page 13-had agreed to allow the nationalists to move into Manchuria to take it over from the Russians- Utley, page 11. But as Russia's armies retreated from the Chinese territory they had ravaged, they handed over the towns and military supplies to the Chinese communists -Utley, pages 12 and 13. Naturally the Chinese nationalists fought. Who would not have fought? Here were the communists breaking their agreement right under Marshall's nose and being disregarded in the process.
When in May Marshall returned from the United States he found in progress a victorious nationalist offensive which was sweeping the communists before it in spite of the Russian arms, military advice, and training that had been given the Chinese communists -Utley, page 13. Marshall, when he returned, saw what was going on and saw that he would have to stop it. Marshall in June again forced Chiang to call a cease-fire- Utley, page 15. This time Marshall made Chiang let the communists keep the parts of Manchuria they then occupied, keep them in violation of Marshall's own truce effective January 13-Utley, page 13. It is almost impossible to believe, Mr. Speaker, that people from the United States would commit such outrages against an innocent people, is it not?
To use Utley's words, "the victorious offensive of the nationalist forces was halted"- Utley, page 13. The nationalists had forced the communists back as far as Harbin- Utley, page 15. That is a long way. You see the terrible loss that was inflicted by Marshall on Chiang then. The communists, having acquired through the second truce the breathing space they required to rally their forces, began to fight against Chiang again. In every case you will notice it was the Chinese communists who took the offensive. They were the aggressors. They continued to fight against Chiang through the summer and fall of 1946-Utley, pages 15 and 16.
Yet the nationalist forces, having still some ammunition left, won battles and regained territory. They captured Kalgan pass, which was vital, and other strategic points in north


China and seemed well on their way to win the war. I quote from "The China Story", page 16, as follows:
By November, 1946, the white paper on China states, "the government's forces had occupied most of the areas covered by its demands to the [DOT]Chinese communists in June and during later negotiations and had reached what turned out to be the highest point of its military position after V-J day."
If Marshall had kept his evil hands out of the situation Chiang would have won right then, without any question. Marshall throughout this period kept pressing Chiang- never the communists, always Chiang-for a third truce-Utley, page 16-until finally on November 8, 1946, after a two-day conference with General Marshall, Chiang ordered all his troops to cease fire-Utley, page 16. You will occasionally hear people say that the people of China lost their morale, that they fell away from Chiang in China and that they joined the communists. What kind of story do you suppose would be spread among the ordinary Chinese by the communist liars every time Chiang ceased fire? The story they would tell would be that he had betrayed them. There was no way in which that lie could be answered by Chiang.
The result of these truces was repeatedly to give the communists time to (1) rally and regroup their forces, (2) destroy more and more of China's economic assets and impair Chinese morale, and (3) learn to use the war materials coming from Russia. How vital those things were! The long delay also gave Russia, meanwhile, time to build up a muni-tions-producing potential in Manchuria ready to supply the Chinese communists with war munitions.
In the light of all that, recall the statement of Acheson that nothing the United States could have done or left undone could have changed the outcome of the civil war in China, and we begin to see the reprehensible and monstrous nature of the lie that Dean Acheson told as the consummation of a chapter of wickedness which I believe for outrageousness probably equalled anything ever committed in the annals of man.
We now come to the second phase of America's betrayal of China in 1946, namely that having to do with arms and ammunition. At the end of July, 1946, Marshall clamped an embargo on the sale of arms and ammunition to China-Utley, page 13-until July, 1947-Utley, page 35. Could you have anything more unjustifiable than to do a thing like that? For almost a year thereafter the Chinese nationalist government was prevented from buying, and was definitely not given, a single round of ammunition-Utley, page 13.

Again, on August 18, 1946, Truman issued an executive order saying that China was not to be allowed to acquire any "surplus" American weapons "which could be used in fighting a civil war", which could only mean a war against the communists. Meanwhile, of course, the war with the communists was going on. When in the summer of 1946 Chiang tried to buy one and a half billion rounds of ammunition from the United States, the state department informed him that export licences would be refused-the only nation on the face of the earth that could not buy arms and ammunition from the United States, as far as I know. Britain, presumably under United States pressure, followed suit. There was no other source of supply-Utley, pages 13 and 14. Imagine the injustice of a person who maintains that Chiang was driven out of China by the Chinese, in the face of things like that.
Thus far, Mr. Speaker, I have maintained that the fall of China to the Russian communist conspiracy was the result of the work of American citizens operating in the United States or directly under the instructions of United States officials. May I now give some quotations in support of my contention? These quotations are from some of the finest authorities in the world. I quote from "The Iron Curtain Over America" by John Beaty, page 116:
Thus President Truman, Ambassador Marshall, and the state department prepared the way for the fall of China to Soviet control.
Again from the same authority, on the same page:
They sacrificed Chiang and they destroyed-
Notice that there is no doubt about it.
-a friendly government, which was potentially our strongest ally in the world, stronger even than the home island of maritime Britain in this age of air and guided missiles.
In "The Iron Curtain Over America", page 146, we find this reference to Chiang:
His failure on the mainland had resulted directly from our-
That is the United States.
-withholding of ammunition and other supplies.
I give another quotation, again from "The Iron Curtain Over America", page 146:
Chiang's forces-despite frequent belittlings in certain newspapers and by certain radio commentators-were and are by no means negligible.
Again I quote from the same authority, page 115:
Although the Soviet was pouring supplies and military instructors into communist-held areas. Mr. Truman said that the United States would not offer "military intervention to influence the course of any Chinese internal strife".
The Budget-Mr. Blackmore
An ugly picture, is it not, Mr. Speaker? May I give another quotation. This one is from "The China Story" by Utley, page 19:
This threat of complete withdrawal of American interest in the outcome of the conflict usually forced the generalissimo to give way and halt his victorious offensives to the benefit of the communists.
Once more may I recall that monstrous lie of Dean Acheson, that nothing the United States could have done or left undone could have changed the outcome? Where in all history have you heard a worse lie than that?
Even after four years of the most inane betrayal on the part of the United States administration-mark you, it is the administration and not the people of the United States, who were kept in complete ignorance of all that was going on; it was the administration and certain men like Ache-son, Lattimore, Hiss and other men in the administration-when Chiang, in December, 1949, withdrew to Formosa he still was a power with which to reckon.
On May 10, 1949, General Claire Chen-nault, a military man of many years' experience, giving his views in his "summary of present communist crisis in Asia" set forth that some 150 million people in southern and western China could supply "effective resistance to the communist advance". Chennault wrote, and I quote from his summary:
Both the people and their leaders are prepared to resist the communists and will in any case resist whether we help them or not. But what we give in aid will make the difference between a hopeless and an effective resistance.
Here was a man who had been right out there fighting and knew all about it.
When in June, 1950, the United States seventh fleet was ordered into the Formosa strait, Chiang had a navy that was "quits an efficient force", with power to intercept and capture communist supply ships going up to Korea, according to Ambassador William Bullitt, testifying before the McCarran committee hearings on I.P.R. on April 8, 1952. Chiang had an air force of between 200 and 250 planes. Chiang, from Formosa, with his 200 to 250 planes was dropping ammunition to unsubdued nationalist troops on the Chinese mainland, 1,250,000 of them-see Beaty, page 146. He was bombing communist concentrations and was making hit and run raids on communist-held ports. He was intercepting supplies being sent to the communists from the United States and Britain- see Beaty, page 146. These supplies included, for example, 2,500 tons of Malayan rubber per month-see Beaty, page 146.
Chiang was holding two communist armies in China occupied in watching him-see

The Budget-Mr. Blackmore Beaty, page 147. Chiang Kai-shek was successfully blockading Shanghai and Tientsin when Truman ordered the United States seventh fleet to "protect" him-see Utley, page 96. Truman thereby indirectly actually stopped him from blockading and most likely reconquering the Chinese mainland.
Do not the facts, Mr. Speaker, indicate that the Korean war might have been another step in the United States administration's long, sordid series of moves to eliminate Chiang Kai-shek?
If my conclusion is not right I invite all people who doubt the probability of my suggestion to explain certain things. First, Acheson practically invited the communists to take over South Korea and Formosa. At that time, on January 12, 1950, Acheson made it clear to the national press club in Washington that the United States would not go to the defence of either Formosa or Korea-see Utley, page 93. Is that not an invitation? Then there are those who blame North Korea for striking down into South Korea!
Second, on April 3,	1950, Acheson
threatened South Korea with the withdrawal of United States aid-the same old story- if she did not balance her budget. Of course this meant that she must cut her military expenditures in preparation for defending herself against North Korean attack-see department of state bulletin, volume XXII, No. 563, dated April 17, 1950, page 602.
Third, the men Truman had sent into South Korea had permitted the South Koreans to make ready to defend South Korea only "to prevent border raids and to preserve internal security". These are Truman's words of June 27, 1950, as quoted by Utley at page 92. All this happened, notwithstanding the fact that on February 19, 1949, the Korean aid bill was passed by the United States, and in October a majority of the Senate appropriated $10-5 million for arms aid for Korea! The United States administration neglected to deliver this aid!-see Utley, page 92.
Fourth, when the United Nations called for troops, the United States refused to accept 33,000 of Chiang's best soldiers offered to them from Formosa, though no other nation offered troops in substantial numbers-see Beaty, page 147.
Fifth, the use of the United States seventh fleet: 1. Released two communist armies to march up into North Korea to slaughter our boys and win South Korea, thus weakening Chiang's position. 2. Permitted great quantities of highly vital war materials to come up the Formosa strait to strengthen the Chinese communists, so they could come down to slaughter our boys.

Sixth, the United States administration, after all this, refused to allow General MacArthur to win!
Now, Mr. Speaker, I think anyone who contemplates this recital of charges will recognize that we are in a chamber of horrors. When things such as I have indicated could be done by the United States administration in a way such as might threaten our very existence on this planet, and could put us in danger for no one knows how many years, it must strike almost anyone as being unbelievable. It is unbelievable until it is proven to be true, and it is proven to be true!
Now, in all our dealings with the United States we must bear in mind that probably, in large measure, the very same people who aided, abetted and directed in throwing China away are still in the American administration and will, if they get the opportunity, throw away Formosa just as they threw away China. Our efforts must be to strengthen those who would defend Formosa. For the communists want Formosa because, at the present time, Formosa is perhaps the most important strategic piece of territory on the face of this earth, so far as North America is concerned.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. A. W. Sluart (Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to congratulate the Minister of Finance upon the honest and courageous budget he brought down in this house about a month ago. It is a budget which seems to be accepted by the official opposition most reluctantly. As they have been unable to find anything in it to criticize they have gone back to the theme song they started last January, that of unemployment.
That was the criticism offered by the official critic of the Conservative party. I also heard his address over the radio, at which time he used the same theme. So it would appear that they could find very little in the budget to criticize. From the information we are given, however, in provincial representations which come to Ottawa, and by people we meet in different parts of the country, it would seem that these two groups are a long way apart in their estimation of unemployment in this country.
I quoted on one other occasion a statement made by a member in the Ontario legislature in which he said he had visited hundreds of homes in his own constituency, and could not find a single person unemployed. I am another who believes that the unemployment question is one which has been greatly exaggerated. Even though lack of employment for one person is serious, I think we

must all admit that the unemployment situation is improving, and improving rapidly.
Listening to the critic for the official opposition in this debate, my memory went back to budgets in the past. I shall not weary the house at this time by quoting from speeches made by the official critic in past budget debates; however, I do well remember that if a minister of finance declared a nice surplus it was always a great worry to the financial critics of the Progressive Conservative party. Budgeting for surpluses, it seemed, was contrary to what one might expect would help the economy of the country. We listened to that for several years.
This year the Minister of Finance declared a deficit, and again we find the critic for the Conservative party very much disturbed, stating that we should not have budgets that do not balance. I am wondering what sort of budget would be pleasing to this particular gentleman. I have listened to the presentation in the house of 13 or 14 budgets, and I have yet to hear one presented that met with his approval. I think it can be said, however, that in this particular budget his only complaint is with regard to unemployment.
Another matter which was very noticeable in the debate was that the press did not give the critics the publicity which perhaps they felt they should have had. I would refer first to the Montreal Gazette and an editorial which, I believe, is the first item I have ever seen in that newspaper that was favourable to this government. I shall not quote the entire editorial, but there are some parts of it I should like to put on the record. It states:
Easing The Burden
Hon. Walter Harris has decided to use falling taxes as a weapon with which to fight falling revenues. It is a courageous course. But it may well prove the right one . . .
The cut Mr. Harris has made in corporation taxes at this time is not simply a cut for the corporations as such. It is a means of easing the burdens on that economic system which provides the nation with its livelihood. It is a means of speeding the wheels of industry . . .
Whatever may be said of the political desirability of such a cut, the fact remains that it is also a sound one to make at this time. The whole principle of ponderous personal income taxes was said to be justified by the need to curtail spending for the sake of controlling inflation. This is not now the situation. An easing of the tax burden upon the individual is a move towards increasing purchasing power: it is also a move to restore the incentive for greater effort and greater earnings . . .
It is a courageous calculation to make, when the white paper tabled by Mr. Harris in the House of Commons on Monday disclosed that gross national production in Canada had fallen in 1954 by $431 millions. For it means that Mr. Harris is not only estimating that the economy will regain the ground lost last year. He is actually counting upon the economy setting, in gross national production, the highest peak in all Canadian history- higher even than the peak reached in 1953. In
5, 1955
The Budget-Mr. A. W. Stuart other words, even to keep his deficit from getting greater than $160 millions he has to realize the biggest economic boom in all history . . .
And this last short paragraph:
The economic lift they will give the economy may, in due course, produce new sources of revenue, by broadening the base.
This is, surely, the right approach. And surely it comes at the right time.
As I said earlier, this is the first time in my memory-I am not saying it is the only one- that this particular newspaper ever paid any kind of tribute to a member of this government. For that reason I suggest it should be appreciated.
I should like to deal for a few moments with the speech delivered a few days ago by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming). I listened to the hon. member and felt that his criticism, compared with speeches he had made in the past, was very weak. It will be recalled that a few years ago the sales tax was increased by 2 per cent, taking it from 8 per cent to 10 per cent. This increase was made to raise funds to pay pensions to every citizen in this country 70 years of age or over. In criticizing this increase in the sales tax the hon. member for Eglinton described it as a 25 per cent increase, not an increase of 2 per cent. It seems to be the habit of this hon. gentleman to juggle percentages and figures to suit his own purposes.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Does not the hon. member think what the hon. member for Eglinton meant was that it was a 25 per cent increase in the existing tax? And, on that understanding, was he not correct?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I will answer that in a moment. But why not use the same percentages and the same methods at all times? When it suits your purpose you use one method, but when it does not suit your purpose you use another.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would the hon. member permit a further question? Does he not agree that what the hon. member for Eglinton said was strictly accurate?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: No; if it was 8 per
cent before and it was increased to 10 per cent, that is an increase of 2 per cent, because eight and two make ten.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: But two is 25 per cent of eight.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Yes; but why not
use one or the other system all the time?

The Budget-Mr. A. W. Stuart
On Tuesday last, speaking in this debate, the hon. member for Eglinton reversed the method he had used formerly when criticizing income tax reductions. He stated that in the lowest income tax group the savings that Would result from this budget would only be about 15 cents or less per week to each taxpayer in this lowest income group who pay taxes in this country.
I should like to put on the record the reductions that we may expect as a result of the budget. I have taken the group from $2,000 to $5,000. On $2,500 the reduction is 25-7 per cent; on $3,000 income it is 26 per cent; on $3,500 it is 25-6 per cent; on $4,000, 24-9 per cent; and on $5,000, 24-5 per cent. If you group those figures together you have about a 25 per cent decrease. The taxpayer which the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) mentioned pays only $26 to start with, so how could you expect an enormous reduction in dollars and cents. Surely no one can say that a man paying $26 in income tax has a terrible tax burden to carry.
When the hon. member for Eglinton spoke on the budget on Tuesday night, after making these comparisons which seemed to suit his purpose, he went on to offer this brilliant constructive suggestion, which appears to have been overlooked by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris). In the opinion of the hon. member this suggestion would bring relief to the Canadian taxpayers and solve their problems to a great extent. At this part of his speech the hon. member for Eglinton seemed to be in his best form. The veins in his neck were nearly at the bursting point and his little moustache stood straight out from his lip. He announced that if the sales tax was removed from tea and coffee it would save the Canadian taxpayer $9 million. There was great applause from his colleagues in the House of Commons when he made that suggestion. They considered that at last something worth while in the way of a saving had been offered to the Canadian taxpayer.
Remember, this particular hon. gentleman had had four weeks in which to study the budget because it was four weeks previous, to a day, on which the budget had been brought down. Yet this was the constructive suggestion he made. I regret many times that I did not have the privilege of attending Osgoode Hall or a university or college. However, figures have always seemed to fascinate me. In my crude way, by using my fingers and other methods, I tried to bring down these figures to a point where I could make a comparison. Using my crude methods, which I admit may have produced the wrong answer,
I took this $9 million and divided it among the population of this country, the consumers,
fMr. Stuart (Charlotte).]

and I found, after using the same methods of comparison as were used by the hon. member for Eglinton in his income tax comparison, that the citizens of this country would save by this brilliant suggestion approximately one cent per week each.
If you balance his criticism with his constructive suggestion you will find that where the taxpayer he referred to was saving 15 cents a week, he condemns that and comes up with a suggestion which would save him 1 cent a week. If we followed the hon. member's suggestion, instead of lowering taxes we would be increasing them extensively.
On the same evening we were greatly interested in the speech delivered by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) in which he described a shadow government of his dreams. In that particular part of his speech I began to think of the hon. member for Eglinton. I can assure you that I was not dreaming; I was wide awake, but I did have some sort of a vision. I looked across the chamber and saw the hon. member for Eglinton delivering his first budget speech. He had changed a lot. There was a very neatly clipped goatee on his chin, and if I remember correctly he was wearing a wing collar and there was a piece of shoestring dropping down from his ear and fastened to his spectacles.
Next to him I saw the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) sitting on his right. But when I looked at the Prime Minister's chair I got the shock of my lifetime. I looked three or four times before I realized that it was Walter Kuhl, former member for Jasper-Edson. Then I looked over to where our Minister of Justice now sits and I saw there our old friend Pat Ashby, former member for Edmonton, all dressed up in his ten gallon hat. There were many strange faces over there, many of members who have gone.
The minister of finance, presently the hon. member for Eglinton, came to this particular part of his budget speech-the first part I might say dealt with debt-free money or tax-free money to which I did not pay much attention because I did not understand it-I waited for what we call the meat of the situation, the tax cuts. He then dealt with what I would call the beverage cut, the tax reduction on tea and coffee, this $9 million to be saved the Canadian taxpayer. When they heard that, his colleagues just went crazy. That is the sort of thing that usually gets them aroused. Then the hon. member stood there with his little goatee, he waited for the proper moment until everything was quiet, and then he went on to say, "I can also suggest that the same thing will apply to toothpicks". At that time the whole house just went wild. That is the

kind of budget we could expect from the hon. member should he ever become minister of finance.
I should like to deal for a few minutes with the speech made by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) on April 27. I want to say at the outset that the remarks I am making now would never have been made if the hon. member for Saint John-Albert and the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) had not stood up in this house and made such foolish and childish remarks. I want to say right now that there is no one in New Brunswick whom I fear in so far as expressing views are concerned. I have never had any fear of expressing my views, but I do abhor remarks such as these. I have never interfered in any way with the hon. member for Saint John-Albert or the hon. member for Royal. They both thought that they had me backed up against the wall when they challenged the New Brunswick members to express their views.
I am going to meet that challenge in my humble way. I regret that I was not in the house at the time the hon. member for Saint John-Albert spoke. I was attending a meeting of the external affairs committee and did not hear what he said. However, in the meantime I have read what he said very carefully and have decided that it definitely requires an answer. I hope that the Saint John Telegraph-Journal will give my remarks the same publicity they gave his, because I want the people in the province to know where I stand.
In his remarks on April 27 the hon. member for Saint John-Albert apparently had one thought in mind-anyone reading his speech I am sure will be convinced that it is exactly as I say-and that was to convince the people of New Brunswick that the only representation they had in the house came from Saint John. I realize that from a political standpoint this young gentleman is perhaps still a little damp behind the ears and it will take some little time for him to become acclimated. For that reason I want to answer him. The hon. member said, as reported on page 3229 of Hansard:
We have in New Brunswick a large amount of undeveloped natural power in our rivers. The situation began to take form in 1945 under the Liberal government then in power in the province.
The hon. member then went on to refer to the great boost that had been given since the government changed two years ago. I want to tell the hon. member for Saint John-Albert that the Liberal government which had been in power for 17 years had the Beechwood project well under way in so far as the engineering work was concerned. That was the situation when the
The Budget-Mr. A. W. Stuart Conservatives took power because four months from the time they took over, the report was completely finalized.
I wonder also if he would accuse Liberal members-federal or provincial-from New Brunswick of selling our birthright and heritage at Grand Falls; this was one of the most economical power projects in our province. In the grand Tory betrayal a few years ago, they gave it away. That is the power that we need today. At the time it was given away, I am quite sure that the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) was a provincial member. The hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) should know by this time that I never hesitate to express my views, and I believe that when I express them I call a spade a spade. That is what I intend to do for a few minutes this afternoon. There is another statement of his that I question greatly. He stated, and I quote from page 3231 of Hansard of April 27, 1955:
I refer particularly to one other matter that I put in the same category, namely atomic power development in the country. When plans were lined up and we realized, perhaps a few years ahead of time, that there was some hope for nuclear development of power we in the maritimes -New Brunswick and Nova Scotia-naturally felt that we would be given the first choice. Here was the area in Canada that everybody said he wanted to help. Here was the area that had the labour, that had the initiative and that had everything except the power. We were told that on many occasions. But what happens when atomic energy comes around the corner? What do the central provinces do? By some devious method they either hinder our chance to take part in this development, or they completely exclude us from it.
Now, the hon. gentleman put those remarks on the record. We all remember when the Right Hon. C. D. Howe, Minister of Trade and Commerce, announced that all provincial hydro companies would be welcomed to Chalk River to study with federal engineers the development of power from atomic energy. To my knowledge, at the present time the only province that accepted that offer was the province of Ontario. The hon. member for Saint John-Albert tries to make us believe that we have been squeezed out. I would like to say at this point that it might have been possible for Premier Frost to have decided to come down and develop atomic energy in New Brunswick but, human nature being what it is, he decided otherwise.
The only people today who can be held responsible for the attitude toward atomic energy in New Brunswick is the provincial government we have at the present time, and no one knows that better than the hon. member for Saint John-Albert. They were invited to take part in this development and absolutely refused. They were not interested.

The Budget-Mr. A. W. Stuart Now he stands on the floor of this house and tells us that the premier of Ontario is responsible for New Brunswick not being able to participate. The general public knows that suggestions such as these are incorrect. Every member of this house knows they are incorrect. The Right Hon. C. D. Howe made that announcement on two different occasions that I know of in the House of Commons. I often think that criticism, if it is based on something constructive and well founded, is good in any government, provincial or federal; but statements which are made so recklessly and without foundation may create interest in the home constituency at that particular time, but I am sure they are of little advantage in the long run.
I have been asked by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert to express my views on Beechwood. That is the power development on which we are depending now, to be built in New Brunswick. I want to say at the outset that I have never said anything at any time in any place that would be considered to be harmful in any way to Beech-wood. But I want to suggest here today, and every person in New Brunswick is going to know exactly where I stand, that I am one who believes that Beechwood is not economically sound.


Mr.   Ball@: That is what I wanted to know.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: You could have asked me that. You did not have to challenge me on the floor of the house. That information was at your disposal at any time you wanted it. I have never hesitated to express my views at any time. I believe it is a great mistake to go ahead with Beechwood, and I say that for this reason. We have not gone into the study of power from atomic energy. I might also say that when comparisons are made between costs of hydro power and the cost of atomic energy, the power sites in Ontario and Quebec are always used as comparisons. It is not fair to compare them with New Brunswick, because the cost of hydroelectric energy in New Brunswick is far above that in Quebec and Ontario. The differential is quite different when you compare hydro developments in New Brunswick with those in Ontario and Quebec. I have also been informed that our provincial government has been offered cheap power from the province of Quebec on a long-term basis. I have been informed it is much cheaper than we could develop it ourselves. If that is true, I think it should be investigated very thoroughly.
I would not want the hon. member for Saint John-Albert to be leaving the impression that all the citizens of New Brunswick are in favour of Beechwood. I should like to

assure him they are not. When they are given the facts that the building of Beechwood will never decrease the cost of electrical energy by one cent but will increase our provincial debt by over 50 per cent, they are going to take a second glance at it before they endorse it. I feel it is a matter that must be gone into much more carefully than it has been so far. I believe that there are other sources of power that can be developed which will bring about a much better result than we can ever hope to have from Beechwood. I believe the hon. member will understand exactly my feelings about this project. Again I want to emphasize the fact that never at any time have I said anything detrimental to this project, but those are my personal opinions-


Mr. Bell:: Until now.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Until now. Those are my personal opinions and I am not in the least hesitant about placing them on the record.


Thomas Miller Bell: May I ask a question if you are going to leave Beechwood now?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Yes.


Thomas Miller Bell: Does the hon. member think the provincial debt will be increased greatly if the federal government assists us with low interest money?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I am not in a position to discuss low interest money from the federal government. I am not the minister of finance. Low interest loans to a provincial government for the development of hydro are a matter that I know nothing whatever about. It may have been done, but I know nothing about it.
Now I shall mention one other fact. The hon. member for Saint John-Albert has challenged me to express my views. Now I am going to make a statement, and I shall get some reaction from him. During the unemployment debate in this chamber nearly every Conservative member took part in that debate. It was most noticeable that the member for Saint John-Albert held his seat. There was never a word from him. It was rumoured all through the corridors of this building that the hon. member for Saint John-Albert, knowing the conditions this year in his constituency were much better than last, wanted to get up on the floor of the house and express that opinion, perhaps taking it for granted that he would secure some credit for that improved position; but it was suggested that if he did it would be contrary to the arguments that would be put forward by his gloom casting comrades.


An hon. Member:: Don't be silly now.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I am not being silly. I am answering exactly what you asked me to answer. I am told that he was asked to keep his seat. He can answer for himself. He knew the conditions were better in Saint John than they were last year. Why did he not get up? He says he does not believe in playing politics. Why did he not get up and say, "The conditions in my constituency have improved"?


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, in the budget debate I put on record the unemployment situation in Saint John, and I felt that was just as good a place as any to do it.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: We will take it for granted that that is correct. He has spoken of co-operation between federal and provincial governments; both the hon. member for Saint John-Albert and the hon. member for Royal have spoken of that. We have a project which is being carried out as rapidly as possible. I refer to the Gagetown project. I am going to challenge the hon. member for Saint John-Albert or any other Conservative members from New Brunswick to show me one instance when they have ever said anything complimentary about the Gagetown project. You have all heard the hon. member for Royal criticize and criticize, even though the greater part of this present project is in his own constituency. Today that project means more to the province of New Brunswick than anything else we have had or anything that I can visualize. But there is never a word about it in a complimentary way. It is always condemning. I have here an article that I cut out of the Montreal Gazette in connection with Gagetown. It illustrates the requirements of that camp. To give you some idea of what it means to the people of New Brunswick, I should like to read from this article:
The list of requirements includes everything from the daily number of bread loaves (5,000) needed to keep 10,000 soldiers marching on their stomachs, to the 5,000 haircuts barbers will give each week . . .
To feed the division, scheduled to arrive at Gagetown in the late spring, planners are working on ways to obtain daily rations of 20,000 eggs,
5.000	pounds of butter, 10,000 quarts of milk,
5.000	loaves of bread, 5 tons of potatoes and almost 4 tons of fresh meat.
These requirements would be provided by New Brunswickers. But there is never a word in a complimentary way. Yet they are still seeking co-operation.
I am now going to turn to another matter for just a few moments. There is the trans-Canada highway which is being built in the province of New Brunswick. We all know that highways are exclusively under provincial jurisdiction, but this government saw
The Budget-Mr. A. W. Stuart fit to pay 50 per cent of the cost of the trans-Canada highway. Until it was brought to the attention of the provincial government of New Brunswick most vigorously, it was utterly impossible for a Liberal to get a job on the trans-Canada highway, though we were paying 50 per cent of the cost here as the federal government. It was a long uphill fight to get one single Liberal work on that highway.
If the hon. member for Saint John-Albert considers that to be co-operation, I may say that I do not. These people want co-operation when they are looking for something. It is all take and never give. That is exactly the way I have found them to be. In my own county I will say that road work was carried on under exactly the same conditions. It is an unpardonable sin ever to have voted Liberal. If you ever voted Liberal, you can go hungry; there is just no work for you. Those are the people who ask others to cooperate. That is the approach they make.
I am going to use this one other illustration and then I shall be through. In a sincere effort to distribute the wealth of this country equitably and fairly, this government paid to the province of New Brunswick, under the federal-provincial tax rental agreement, during the past fiscal year approximately $18 million. That is more than a third of our total revenue. At this point let me say that that is $13 million over and above the amount we can ever hope to collect ourselves from the same tax sources. In other words, it is 25 per cent of our total revenue which is over and above anything we could ever hope to collect ourselves.
That money is going to the provincial government of New Brunswick without any strings attached to it. But I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, and hon. members of this house that the strings are quickly tied on it after that cheque gets to Fredericton. People are told that not a single dollar of this money can be used as far as a Liberal is concerned. We are not given any consideration in any way. It is purely for their own people. I want this to be on the record and I want them to read this. I would not make these statements if I did not know what I was talking about.
In all fairness, I want to say at this point that I know Progressive Conservative M.L.A.'s in my own province who are not at all in sympathy with this attitude that I have described but who are bitterly opposed to it. But those in the driver's seat are calling the strikes and the balls, and this is the attitude they have taken.
I hope that I shall never be placed in the embarrassing position of screening those who
3486	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Knowles are in search of work in order to find which way they voted. No one can say that it is fair to deny employment to those who, by their democratic right, voted as they saw fit. But under our provincial administration at this time, it is considered to be an unpardonable sin to have voted other than Progressive Conservative.
In my opinion, co-operation is much the same as trade. It is never a successful venture if confined to a one-way street. There should be no restrictions and there should be no barriers. If those from my province who are now seeking co-operation will approach, not with the olive branch in one hand and a stiletto up their other sleeve but with the frank and honest determination to co-operate, they will find that I am prepared now, as I have always been, to meet them halfway. Any lack of co-operation between our province and the federal government at this time is the result of the ruthless, narrow, selfish attitude taken by federal and provincial Conservative members from that province.
In conclusion I will say this, Mr. Speaker. So far as co-operation is concerned, in future my conduct will to a great extent be governed by that of my Conservative friends from New Brunswick. If they are sincere in their desire to co-operate, they will find that I am prepared to meet them halfway. But if they want to carry on as they have carried on in the past, and if our provincial government want to carry on as they have carried on in the past, there is no chance of cooperation.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a few comments on what happened in this house yesterday afternoon. I think all hon. members will agree that we had one of the most interesting afternoons that we have had in the House of Commons for a long time. It was delightful; it was entertaining; it was a top-rate performance.
The first two speakers or, if I may call them that, the principal speakers during the afternoon were certainly in top form. We were pleased to see the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) in such vigorous good health once again. Whether or not hon. members in various quarters were in agreement with what he said, the way in which he said it was enjoyed by all.
Similarly, I think we must extend a word of compliment to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). Realizing that his speech was made immediately after the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition, I believe we can agree that he did quite a good job of debating.


But, Mr. Speaker, after one has said that, and when one looks back on the day's performance, one cannot do otherwise than ask the question: Where were we when it was all over? I ask that question both with respect to the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition and with respect to the speech made in reply by the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
For the most part, these two speeches dealt with the dominion-provincial conference of 1945 and with the consequences that flowed or failed to flow from that conference in the intervening years. The Leader of the Opposition spent most of his time seeking to justify whatever stand it was he claims he took at the conference in 1945. He spent a great deal of time castigating the government. But I listened in vain for any statement from him as to where he and his party stand on the important issues that were raised at the dominion-provincial conference of 1945 and which, as a matter of fact, are not yet finally resolved.
It seems to me that the country has a right to expect from the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition not only the criticism of the government which it is the responsibility of that leader to render but a statement as to where he and his party stand on the issues of the day.
But I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the same criticism must be levelled at the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). He made a speech, some parts of which I want to analyse in a moment, which in the main had to do with the past. It was an attempt to tell us that from his point of view the government has implemented, as he alleged, to the extent of two-thirds the proposals made by the federal government in 1945. It can be said for him that he at least, because he was talking about the 1945 proposals, found it necessary to refer to a number of important issues that are still before the country, but he did not tell us where we go from here. He did not tell us what the federal government proposes to do about those issues which as yet have not been finally or satisfactorily resolved.
So, Mr. Speaker, what I said about the Leader of the Opposition I must also say about the gentleman who spoke for the government yesterday, namely, that I think the people of Canada have the right to expect from people in these responsible positions not just an attempt to justify their past but a statement as to what their position is with regard to the future.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare indulged in a most intriguing bit of arithmetic. I note that the hon. member who

preceded me questioned the arithmetic of another member of the house. I must certainly question the arithmetical processes which went on in the mind of the Minister of National Health and Welfare yesterday.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: He is a philosopher, not an arithmetician.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then he certainly got out of his field. I thought he was a lawyer. At any rate, he stood up yesterday and said that two-thirds of the federal government proposals made to the dominion-provincial conference in 1945 had been implemented. He set out to try to prove the assertion that the program had been implemented to the extent of two-thirds. In the course of that attempt he did at least refer to issues which were important in 1945 and which are still very important today. It is those issues to which he was called upon to refer that I feel call for a statement of intention and policy on the part of the government and the Leader of the Opposition.
First of all, the Minister of National Health and Welfare referred to the payments made to the provinces in return for the rental of certain tax fields. He made reference to the figure in the green books of 1945 to the effect that the payments in 1944 would have been $206 million whereas in the present year the amount to be paid is $320 million, and on the basis of that figure he suggested that the federal government has exceeded what it promised in 1945. I asked an innocent little question as to whether or not he had these figures in constant dollars. He said he did but he did not take the time to give them.
The fact of the matter is that the statement in the green books that the amounts paid to the provinces in 1944 would have totalled $206 million is in a column at the top of which it is made clear that this amount was based on an assumed gross national production of approximately $12 billion. As everyone knows, the gross national production today is twice that figure or more. Likewise, the value of the dollar is about half what it was in 1944 or 1945. I suggest, therefore, that the $360 million being paid today should be compared not with the $206 million figure suggested in the green books but rather should be compared with a figure twice that amount, namely, $412 million. On that basis the implementation of that aspect of the green book proposals is to the extent of about 77 per cent.
So far so good, Mr. Speaker. On that item the percentage of implementation is a little higher than the 661 per cent indicated by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I say so far so good. That is the only
The Budget-Mr. Knowles point on which the two-thirds figure is even reached. The Minister of National Health and Welfare then referred to the old age pension program. He pointed out that the 1945 proposal to the provinces was that a pension of $30 a month be paid to everyone 70 years of age and over without a means test, paid in full by the federal government, and that a pension of $30 a month be paid to those between 65 and 69 on a means test basis financed fifty-fifty between the federal government and the provinces.
He proceeded to jump right from the making of that offer in 1945 to the present program, completely forgetting of course all the prodding and agitating that was necessary in the meantime, completely forgetting the fact that there was a committee of both houses of parliament which dealt with this matter and made a report on the basis of which legislation was finally introduced in 1951, which became effective only in 1952. But without going into that, may I point out that the Minister of National Health and Welfare proceeded to try to tell us that since there was now an old age pension program almost identical with what was offered in 1945, except that the figure is $40 instead of $30, the government is doing better than it proposed in 1945.
Again, Mr. Speaker, there is that innocent little question of mine about constant dollars. Surely the Minister of National Health and Welfare knows that $40 in 1955 cannot be called more than $30 was in 1945. If the government is going to claim today implementation of what was offered in respect of old age pensions in 1945, the figure should be at least $60 a month, if not quite a bit more. I suggest to the government that this is one of the points on which the nation has a right to expect a statement at the present time. It is not good enough for the government to boast of what has been done in the field of old age security. Far too many of our people are suffering, particularly those who only have the $40 a month on which to live. After all, $40 today would be equal in value to $20 a month in 1944 or 1945.
1 call upon the Minister of National Health and Welfare not to delight us as he did yesterday with a speech that boasts of the past but tells us nothing about the future. Rather it is his duty to indicate to the house when steps are going to be taken to increase the amount of that pension. I suggest that there is a case where at the most the government has implemented-and only under pressure at that-its proposals of 1945 to the tune of 60 or 65 per cent, if you look at it in terms of constant dollars. I move on to the question of health.

The Budget-Mr. Knowles


Mr. Harris:: Do you make it only that? I thought two-thirds of 60 was 40.


Stanley Howard Knowles: 
Walter Edward Harris: On the basis of your argument.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But remember that the minister's colleague said yesterday that the government had implemented the whole program to the extent of two-thirds. There are several other items on which the score drops very low.
The next item is health. Even the Minister of National Health and Welfare had ito admit there was a terrible gap there. Even he who, like no other minister on the other side, can boast of what he claims the government has done, had to say on at least two occasions, "with the exception of health insurance". And what does that exception amount to in terms of this arithmetical calculation the minister was making yesterday? In the green books of 1945 the proposal on the part of the federal government concerning health was for $150 million a year, and that was to include what is now in the health grants program and the federal government's contribution to a nationwide program of health insurance.
Apart from the fact that the major item, health insurance itself, has not been implemented at all, and just looking at it from an arithmetical basis in terms of dollars, we have an implementation there of about $30 million or $31 million a year compared with the 1945 proposal of $150 million a year. Oh, I know the Minister of National Health and Welfare said yesterday that the government now stands committed to an annual contribution under the health grants program of $48 million. But he knows, and the Minister of Finance knows, that that is only a paper commitment in the back of the book of estimates which, when it comes to paying it out, amounts to only $31 million a year. The reason for the difference of $16 or $17 million is in what is sometimes called a shortfall, due in part to the fact that these are commitments the federal government is prepared to make, but they are on a matching


Mr. J. Wilfrid Dufresne (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, on April 5 last, the new Min-

The Budget-Mr. Duiresne ister of Finance (Mr. Harris) submitted to the Canadian people his first budget for the fiscal year 1955-56.
Upon reading that speech every one of us was utterly confused in our attempts to discover just where genuine tax relief could be found that would ease the burden of the average taxpayer and especially that of the workingman.
I do not see any point in discussing the matter any further. That budget, like all previous ones, tends to glorify the government in power rather than ease the burden of the poor taxpayer.
Like most Canadians, I would have preferred to be told what the government meant to do in the field of dominion-provincial relations, a matter the importance of which cannot be minimized, because on an equitable solution of that problem, a solution fair to the provinces, or on the centralization of all revenues in the hands of the central government depends the life or death first of the provincial governments and second of that great Canadian charter which we call the British North America Act.
As a result of the aroused public opinion, but especially because of the heroic resistance of the province of Quebec, the Prime Minister finally agreed to call together the representatives of the ten Canadian provinces in order to draft the necessary agenda for the talks scheduled for next October.
The federal Liberal government, obviously embarrassed by Quebec's autonomist attitude, is all at sea. Its plans to centralize all provincial powers in the hands of the federal government having failed almost completely, it has become worried to the point where it now wonders what will become of the Liberal government in view of so many contradictory stands. Its shameful bargaining has not given the expected results, and government circles are now wondering what scheme would best enable Ottawa to hang on to the greater part of provincial revenues, revenues that they went out to seek sometimes by guile, sometimes by compulsion and sometimes even by blackmail.
I should like, Mr. Speaker, to review briefly the main events of the past few years in this field which is of vital importance to the survival of responsible governments in Canada, and to show the disloyal and objectionable tactics used by the government in power to achieve its shabby purpose.
On the occasion of world war II and in the face of the danger that threatened all the free nations of the world, the central government
had to spend colossal, fabulous amounts which were claimed to be necessary for the defence of our territory and for the salvation of the world, of civilization and of Christianity.
Not only did all Canadians make untold sacrifices, even to immolation on the altar of democracy, but for several future generations their earnings and the nation's were staked on the outcome. In the face of that crisis, we can proudly say that every Canadian faithfully did his duty and contributed substantially to the preservation of peace in our country.
It is however recognized that the governments which administer the affairs of a nation in wartime, in a war such as the one we went through from 1939 to 1945, are shortlived and normally overthrown when the war comes to an end.
Knowing what all the consequences would be, the Liberal party used every imaginable means to cling to power, that power in which it revels, representing as it does a perennial source of security for all of its members and for large numbers of its most devoted followers.
Suddenly a brilliant idea came to the mind of a corporation lawyer who, because of his centralizing outlook and the blessings of the late Mr. Mackenzie King, had become minister of justice with a formal promise that he would accede to the leadership of the Liberal party and, thereby, become prime minister of Canada.
In order to ascend with such suddenness the golden or red steps leading to glory and to the Liberal party honours, a Canadian belonging to a minority group must of necessity abdicate certain principles to which he had until then been devoted, and renounce, as it were, his freedom of speech, so as to become the screen and the instrument of the majority-
(Text) :


Mr. Lesage:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Dufresne) is now saying that the present Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. St. Laurent) abandoned his principles in order to become the head of the Liberal party. I do not believe that that is parliamentary language, and I submit the hon. member should withdraw what he has just said.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: have not, as both hon. members know, been able to follow what has just been said by the hon. member for Quebec West. I am sure

he will appreciate that personal charges of, not exactly insincerity, but improper motives, are not permitted in the House of Commons, in respect of any member of the house. Perhaps I might express the hope that the hon. member, in his criticism of the Prime Minister-and he has the right of course to criticize the Prime Minister's policies-has not imputed improper motives; and I would be glad, as I am sure would hon. members, to have his assurance on this point.
(Translation) ;


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: If the rules of the house do not allow me to use expressions like the ones I have just used, I am prepared to withdraw them, and do so generously. Let me simply say, instead, that when a French-speaking Canadian becomes prime minister of Canada, he must needs make concessions like those which the present Prime Minister has made to the majority which surrounds him.
The first responsibility entrusted to the then new minister of justice, who had been dubbed leader of the French Canadians of the province of Quebec, since he was assuming this position as successor to the late Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, was to secure willingly acceptance of temporary mobilization, permanent mobilization and then conscription.
In spite of a quarter of a century of Liberal propaganda against that measure, in spite of all Liberal solemn promises and unparalleled violent outbursts against those who were then being referred to as "those damned Tories", causing my fellow countrymen to forget that, even though the Conservative government of 1917 was headed by the late Sir Robert Borden as prime minister, his coalition cabinet was nonetheless made up of a Liberal majority; in spite of the most sacred promises made to Quebec electors, particularly in view of the fact that 90 per cent of them had refused to relieve Mr. Mackenzie King of his promises, a whole past was repudiated, and people whose only fault had been to believe in the sacred word of the Liberals, who had so often misled them, were being pitilessly harried and violently pursued by objectionable means.
Although that campaign, which had been skilfully launched and led by the present Prime Minister, met with such poor success in Quebec, he nonetheless reaped his reward.
On the other hand, those who stood their ground and respected their sacred commitments were compelled to withdraw from the ranks of the Liberal party for insubordination and lack of party discipline. Two of them suffered; one Mr. P. J. A. Cardin died
The Budget-Mr. Dufresne of grief, a victim of the treachery of those he had served so well for a lifetime; the other, the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power), to whom I pay tribute for his dignity, had to leave the cabinet and, ever since, has had to sit as a private member of the house.
In view of the way the province of Quebec was betrayed, my French-speaking countrymen openly and strongly asserted their resentment for those who had so odiously misled them and they were determined to take sweet revenge at the first opportunity.
However, still thirsty for power, the Liberals thought that they would have to find a way of appeasing those people who were obviously dissatisfied. To what trickery should they resort to make them forget their repudiations and their treachery? They had it in their bag. Although all provinces, and especially the province of Quebec, had been promised that the revenues they had agreed to surrender to the federal government were for the duration of the war only, the time had come to abuse their good faith and to refuse to hand them back the essential sources of revenue needed to meet their obligations and ensure their survival.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that they had found a way to go about it. Although a person who borrows money and refuses to give it back to the lender would be accused of theft and condemned as a criminal, the Liberal party, scoffing at the law, and thereby setting a shameful example, decided not to give back the money collected from the provinces, I would even say under false pretences, and decided to keep it, in order to appease the people with social legislation, for which they now take all the credit, and which would enable the party to win future elections.
And here let me state at once, as a warning to those who might be tempted to do so because I know that some people are careless with the truth, not to construe my remarks as meaning in any way that the member for Quebec West is opposed to social legislation. My record proves the contrary. All the social legislation enacted by the Quebec government has been brought about since the death of the Liberal party in our province and I have been one of those who, modestly but sincerely, requested that legislation, having taken part in all electoral campaigns against Liberals in my province for the past 25 years.


Jean Lesage: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, I should like to proceed undisturbed with my speech and if-

The Budget-Mr. Dufresne


Jean Lesage: I was just going to ask-


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, I would like to proceed with my speech without interruption, and I ask the minister if he would kindly be seated.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. minister wishes to put a question to the hon. member for Quebec West who, at the same time, says that he wants to proceed with his speech without being interrupted. So!


Jean Lesage: It is because he had forgotten-


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be compelled to reply to a lot of interruptions.


Mr. Lapointe:: Where were you at the time of the by-election in Beauce?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, I want to
assert before all Canada that the Liberal party, which boasts of administering the federal budget so as to give the people all kinds of social legislation from which it benefits, is shamelessly misleading the Canadian people.
True, it is paying family allowances, distributing old age pensions; it is contributing by grants to public health and education; all that is true. But what is even truer and what the people should know, is that the federal Liberal government is being generous with money that belongs to the provinces, money it has taken away from them by means which the rules of the house do not permit me to qualify; money which it refuses to hand back, in spite of the most solemn promises which are today being disregarded in the same way that Hitler in 1939 disregarded his agreements with Poland. To sum up, it is scattering with lavishness money which does not belong to the federal government but which, to use the expression of Liberal senator Jacob Nicol, has been stolen from the provinces.
The proof, Mr. Speaker, that such social legislation has no other purpose than to secure the votes and the confidence of the Canadian people is that during all the elections that have been held since the end of the war, the attention of the people and of the electors has been deliberately turned away from the actual problems of an administration which is gradually upsetting our economic stability. The only matters discussed have been those that can provide certain classes of society with financial advantages which, I repeat, are made possible by the money
[Mr. Dufresne.!

taken away from the provinces and which they refuse to give back to them. Today, as a result of an inconsistent administration, that same government, responsible for one of the worst unemployment situations which our country has known, is cynical enough to refuse to live up to its responsibilities. When in 1945 unemployment insurance benefits were established-and the worker is entitled to those benefits because he is sharing the cost with his employer-the federal government undertook to assume responsibility for the consequences which could result from an unemployment situation such as we are facing today.
While at this very moment, more than
700,000	Canadians are being crushed by the weight of their misery and cannot find employment, while those unemployed are growing restless and are crying for work to provide for their needs and for those of their family, we are witnessing here, Mr. Speaker, a sad and shameful performance.
We see the Liberal government refusing to assume the responsibility to which it has committed itself; it is playing football in a brazen, daring style, thereby adding to the grief and misery of the unemployed.
Now that more than ever the time is ripe to do something to prevent Canadians from going hungry, our strong protests are being laughed at. What is being done by those who truly have a sense of honour and who have at heart the welfare of the Canadian people?
While in thousands of homes people are going hungry, while poverty and hardship have invaded those homes, while in those same homes small children are suffering from the lack of basic necessities and are undernourished, while we are demanding for them not abundance but at least something to prevent them from starving to death, we are given the pathetic performance of Liberal members-most of them elected by those unfortunate unemployed-laughing at our demands. Mr. Speaker, they are showing by their attitude towards the unemployed an utter contempt which will be remembered, I am sure, at the next general election.
The Liberal government, now that it must face the sad and shameful fact of unemployment. in a country having unlimited resources like ours, refuses, I repeat, to recognize its responsibilities. It wants others to share that burden to such an extent that they will be unable to agree, so that once

more it will be in a position to cast upon others the blame it does not have the courage to accept or to lace.
Have you ever seen a more inconsistent government, more impudent to say the least, than the one which is now scuttling the future of our great country?
Not satisfied with collecting practically all the country's revenue, thereby depriving the provinces and municipalities of the means necessary to their administration, it is now shirking its duty and the responsibilities it had agreed to assume. The Liberal government in Ottawa wants to make the Canadian people believe that assistance to the unemployed is the responsibility of the provinces and municipalities.
Can you imagine more impudence on the part of a government? Cynicism goes so far as to say that although the matter is the responsibility of the provinces and of the municipalities, the government is nonetheless willing to grant generous assistance. What generosity, Mr. Speaker, with money that does not belong to us.
I repeat what I have already said, unemployment is entirely a matter for the federal government to deal with. I therefore urge the government to give it the immediate attention it deserves. Let us forget about conferences and political football games, and hasten to feed the hungry. Petty political interests have never done any good to the people. I therefore insist that the government forget about security of power, at whose altar it worships, and look instead to the needs of the people for whom the word security has unfortunately lost all meaning. Let the government stop acting with a view to winning elections. That is not the proper objective of a political party; nor does it agree with the definition of the word democracy. May I remind the Liberal party that democracy means government for the people, and not party security!
Let us take a look now at the situation facing the federal Liberal party and into the reasons why it clings to its policy of centralization. Why is the party acting in such a way as to prevent the provinces from recovering those sources of revenue which were borrowed from them? Why is it bent on conserving them at any cost?
Because the provinces, if these sources of revenue were handed back to them, would naturally have more money-and by the way, is it not theirs?-and then they would be in
The Budget-Mr. Dufresne a position to dispense benefits in the fields allotted to them by the Canadian constitution.
If the provinces recovered their own money, the federal government would have less and could not therefore continue to pay for the social legislation it has introduced with somebody else's money. As a result, the Liberals could no longer brag to the electors, because they would automatically be deprived of their platform. They would have to tax, and everybody knows that that is hardly popular among the people who are already too heavily burdened with taxation.
I believe I have sufficiently demonstrated, Mr. Speaker, that every irresponsible measure brought forward by the government was by no means directed to meet the needs of the people, but solely to win elections and to remain in power.
Again I say to the government: you are shutting your eyes so as not to see, and closing your ears so as not to hear that in Quebec city, more particularly in my riding, destitution and poverty have long since made their appearance and extend into the constituency of Quebec East, which the Prime Minister represents in this house.
What is the Prime Minister waiting for? When will he deal with this situation which cannot be tolerated any longer in his native city? On behalf of mothers and fathers overcome by poverty and dire need, I ask the Prime Minister in particular to show at least a bit of compassion and come to the aid of those unfortunate people! I urge the Prime Minister to give these hungry and ill-clothed children some solace and comfort. They are part of our human capital, the nation's future, and it is a crime to contribute to their slow and painful extermination.
Before looking for a permanent solution to the unemployment problem, which brings disaster to our homes and endangers the future of Canada, let us grant temporary assistance through the immediate implementation of the works project I have been asking for in this house for more than a year.
Quebec city and the surrounding area being the section of the country most affected by unemployment are clamouring for the public works I have been requesting ever since I was elected to this house.
Not only is the destitution of the unemployed disregarded, not only are they left without any means of livelihood, but the entire population of Quebec is allowed to be slowly poisoned by the St. Charles and Lairet

The Budget-Mr. Dufresne rivers, which keep giving off their sickening stench, a constant hazard to the health of our fellow citizens.
What is the Prime Minister waiting for before he takes action? This is a most urgent problem and I have no doubt that if the mayor of Quebec city is here in Ottawa today, it is for the purpose of asking that the unemployed be given work. Once and for all, let the Prime Minister rid us of those open air dumps and sewers, which are a shame and a disgrace to Quebec city, and also, I repeat, a constant danger to public health.


Jean Lesage: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the hon. member uses parliamentary language when he says that it is unworthy of the Prime Minister to do this or that. The hon. member said a moment ago that it was a crime for the Prime Minister to act in such a way. I wonder if all this is parliamentary language.


Pierre Gauthier: It is quite indecent.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I have never said that the Prime Minister was a criminal. I did not mean either that he was unworthy. All I said, and say again-I hope the minister is listening closely this time-was that, if the Prime Minister's residence happened to be near those foul sewers, in his county, instead of on Quebec heights, on Grande-Allee, in Quebec South county, he would soon realize that it is unworthy of a prime minister to let human beings inhale this noxious stench.


Jean Lesage: That is what I mean.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I did not say he was. I mean that if he were there, he would realize that.


Jean Lesage: It's a smelly interpretation.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: If the minister were residing in that area, instead of the attractive part of the city, on Citadel heights, he would find out that the smell is not altogether pleasant and he would probably make representations to the cabinet and ask the Prime Minister, on behalf of his electors, to rid them of these open sewers.
Once again, I want to state the general feeling of our workers. These good workers are not asking for handouts or for direct relief from the government. They have inherited from their forefathers their industry and they want to pass it on to their children and their children's children. They want to have the satisfaction of earning their daily


bread, and that of their family, by the sweat of their brow and by making use of those working abilities which Providence has given them.
Perhaps I have been a little harsh on the government and the Prime Minister, but I feel it is about time someone stood up in this house and spoke on behalf of the hungry. This is no time for flowery speeches.


Some hon. Members:: Ha! ha!


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, do you hear those intelligent guffaws from representatives of people who are now writing them hundreds of letters each day, asking for something to eat. This is no laughing matter.


Jean Lesage: It is permissible to laugh.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: To me, those guffaws of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources are ludicrous and unseemly. One would think he had taken leave of his senses.


Jean Lesage: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I don't consider it unseemly to laugh at a member who is having a good time indulging in clownishness in this house.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I thank the hon. minister for his statement. At a time when the government is being asked to feed the hungry, and to undertake work projects so that there might be bread on the tables of the needy, the hon. member for Quebec West is said to be indulging in clownishness. I take due note of that remark by the minister, and I hope that newspapers in the province will feature in bold headlines those very words of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources who, unfortunately, for a moment, has just lost his bearings. For the gratification of my hon. friend, I will merely say that I have perhaps been somewhat hard on the government and the Prime Minister-


Mr. Boisvert:: Not at all!


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Not too much?


Maurice Boisvert: No, no. Keep it up!


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I am glad to know that the hon. member for Nicolet did not feel involved.


Jean Lesage: Knowing where it came from-


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: But, aware as I am that it is time something was done about it, I am speaking on behalf of the hungry. This is not a time for rhetoric- and I hope I have not been guilty of any-but it is a time for action, and I made these remarks knowing

that, as a member of this house, I was doing the duty i undertook to fulfil.
Mr. Speaker, if the government votes millions to assist other nations whose economy needs restoring, and to prevent their enslavement by communism, I am all for it. But I am praying the Lord to mould the minds of our leaders and make them realize that, if it is their duty to prevent other nations from falling under the sway of materialistic and godless bolshevism, they will have to legislate in such a way that Canada may stop this hideous plague of communism from implanting deeper roots among our fine Canadian people.


Jean Lesage: Will the hon. member permit a question?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Certainly, go ahead.


Jean Lesage: Did the hon. member not support the Liberal party in 1945 and, more particularly, did he not take part in a byelection campaign-in the county of Beauce, I think-as a Liberal party member?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, I had been told so many wonderful things about the Liberal party that I thought it necessary to see for myself. I took a jaunt about that party, but was so disgusted with the things that went on that I rushed out of there and returned to the true fold of common sense.
Is the hon. minister satisfied with my answer?


Jean Lesage: I asked, because at that time, you were criticizing on the Liberal side.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Before I leave the chair, may I invite all hon. members and our colleagues of the press to come to my chambers so that we may perhaps argue some of the points which have not yet been touched on.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. L. D. Crestohl (Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak in this debate I am impelled first of all to join my colleagues in congratulating the minister on the first budget he has brought down. It discloses evidence of deep and considered attention to every phase of our economy and is almost characteristic
The Budget-Mr. Crestohl of the minister's personality because in it he reflects cautious yet ingenious study but always with an eye to the well-being of our people. Those with a political axe to grind must of necessity, even though microscopically, seek reasons to criticize it, but I feel that deep down also in opposition hearts there is a secret admiration for the minister and his splendid budget, for which the entire country is grateful.
I should like to turn now, Mr. Speaker, to the two subjects which have principally engaged the attention of the house since the opening of the present session, unemployment and immigration. Neither of these two have by any means been satisfactorily solved. It is my respectful submission that, considered separately, it is difficult to solve them because, in my humble opinion, they are basically interdependent upon each other for solution, and since both of them seriously affect the overall national economy they are appropriate subjects for examination during a budget debate.
I therefore offer to the house some observations to indicate first the degree of interdependence of the one upon the other and then to suggest that in dealing with them jointly some progress might be made towards their solution.
I should like first of all to refer- in a general way to a number of complaints that repeatedly come before parliament affecting these two subjects. We are told almost annually that a large portion of the wheat crop cannot be easily sold. The dairy farmers lack markets to absorb their produce. The coal mined in the maritime provinces is crying for customers and mines are virtually at a standstill. The lumber output for 1953 was too high for the market then available. Thousands of people are laid off by the railways, and we hear constant complaints from the struggling textile industry, as we did this afternoon from the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. White).
All these, Mr. Speaker, create an alarming growth of unemployment that cannot be lightly brushed off by the words "seasonal" or "functional". We should explore the basic causes of these problems and attempt to find a basic remedy.
Let us first of all examine the western farmers' quest for wheat markets. They grow much more wheat now than they did previously, although the number of farmers has not increased. This, of course, is largely due to mechanization. To sell this ever-increasing output there must be consumers at home or abroad. Satisfactory export markets are becoming more difficult to find. What then will the farmers do with the surplus wheat?

The Budget-Mr. Crestohl
Does the house realize, for example, that every 100,000 people require 16 million loaves of bread yearly? By simple mathematical calculation it becomes obvious that sufficient people in Canada could turn the wheat growers' nightmare into a dream without having to depend on substantial foreign markets or on handout subsidies from the people of Canada.
The same applies to the dairy farmers in so far as their surplus butter, cheese and other products are concerned. More people in Canada supplying more domestic appetites and more domestic consumers of produce will certainly bring smiles to the faces of the dairy farmers. The advent of oil and dieselization is largely responsible for increased unemployment for coal miners, and cripples an industry that is already limping badly. Waves of new immigrants, many of whom may settle in the maritimes, will not only revive but will stimulate coal mining as an inexpensive fuel and restore employment for many of our coal miners.
The lumber industry, Mr. Speaker, is another poignant example of the urgent need for more immigrants. The president of the Canadian Lumbermen's Association called for a voluntary reduction-and I emphasize the expression-a voluntary reduction in output for 1954 because, he said, the 1953 production was not absorbed by the available market. Reduction in output means increased unemployment. The converse is equally true. Adequate markets mean increased production. More production provides increased employment.
Then the textile industry, we know, is suffering badly. Customers are its very lifeblood, and unless it receives a so-called shot in the arm large numbers of textile workers are facing unemployment. Does the house realize the extent to which technological advances have reduced employment in this industry? I am told that a factory's capacity, formerly requiring 100 employees working 40 hours per week, is now produced in half the time requiring approximately half the number of workers. To further aggravate the plight of textile manufacturers, it appears that notwithstanding all the legislation which we may enact it is impossible to stem the flow of American textiles into Canada. Consequently, without an export market and with the competition of low-priced textiles, there is little breathing space for Canadian manufactured textiles.
Most other industries in Canada are struggling with similar difficulties. Our markets are shrinking. Japan and Germany have now vigorously re-entered the export field. If a permanent peace is reached with the

iron curtain countries, they too will seek additional foreign markets. With low priced labour in these countries we will find increasing difficulty in competing with them for foreign trade. That is a fact, Mr. Speaker, and almost all hon. members who have spoken in this debate have agreed upon this fact. We cannot, therefore, afford to ignore it. It is a hard and cruel fact. We may not like it, and we do not, yet it is one that we must seriously wrestle with.
What is the answer to dwindling foreign markets? To me there is but one answer. Markets we must have. If we cannot have them abroad we must have them at home, and these must be developed and maintained at the same rate and at the same pace with our production. Unless this is done our entire economy is seriously jeopardized. This largely explains our present unemployment problem causing the country much distress. It is my respectful opinion that providing spasmodic relief for unemployment by way of subsidies, unemployment insurance, increased public works or any form of social welfare relief is, as the Quebec premier quite properly termed it, only a palliative. They are definitely not cures. We must seek and find definite cures. To find them, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully suggest that we should meet the serious problem squarely head on. We should stop dodging it as we have been doing for years. We should nationally take a forthright look at ourselves in the mirror. We may be astonished at what we will see.
We will realize, Mr. Speaker, that our 15 million people are living at a national cost that could easily sustain a population of at least 30 million. For example, I am told that it costs about $60,000 to build an average mile of highway in Canada. It costs the United States, immediately across the border, the same amount to build a similar mile of highway. Yet, by ratio, a mile of highway in Canada services only 100 automobiles by comparison with 1,000 serviced in the United States.
The railroads offer a sharper illustration. It costs as much to build a mile of railway in Canada as it does in the United States. The figure, I believe, is about $100,000 per mile. Yet, the same mile of railway is put to much greater use in the United States than it is in Canada. Statements were made on the floor of the house that large numbers of railroad employees have been laid off. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who is always so genuinely and extremely concerned about these matters, asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) during one of the debates, "to allay fears of

further Canadian National lay-offs". The minister explained that the officials are most anxious to hire the men, and will in fact hire them as soon as the traffic improves. Sure, the hon. member's fears might be allayed if he and the members of his party will help to provide traffic for the railroad. But they will certainly not do so by supporting a program of selective immigration, as does the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis.) They will have to be more generous than that in their views on immigration.
Do they not realize, Mr. Speaker, that the lay-off is directly due to a lack of sufficient people in the country to use our expensive and costly railway systems. The two transcontinental railroads could, with present equipment or with little added rolling stock, handle at least two or three times the volume of their present traffic. This additional volume would certainly not only prevent lay-offs, but would moreover provide additional employment. Must there, Mr. Speaker, be only three or four daily trains between Montreal and Ottawa, and only two trains daily between Ottawa and Toronto or between any other similar terminals? This may be sufficient for the present population.
In the United States, on the other hand, there are trains between comparable centres every hour on the hour. We have the roadbeds in Canada. We have the rolling stock, but, alas, we do not have the traffic. If we had the population more trains would run, more people would travel, more freight would be carried, and thus many more railroad people would be employed.
The same thing applies to all our other public utilities, be it our canals, telegraph lines, harbours, air terminals or the seaway. The cost of operating these services, as well as the cost of government, defence, public works, and social welfare would also be more economically sound, following the well known economic theory that increased volume reduces cost.
The fact is that our present per capita overhead is out of proportion with that of other countries. The sooner we have the courage to recognize it, the sooner will we realize that only a greater number of taxpayers can distribute these carrying charges more equitably and to a proper ratio.
We speak with a sense of pride, Mr. Speaker, about our having astonished the world by our productive capacity. But we must realize that unless we provide consumers who absorb our production, we are actually in danger of being crippled by this industrial colossus which we have ourselves created. It seems to me that our increasing
The Budget-Mr. Crestohl
productivity, stimulated by technology and science, without adequate markets, will progressively constrict our economy and accelerate our tempo of unemployment to the point that our manufacturing needs in Canada today will require only a fraction of our present labour force to produce.
I repeat and emphasize, Mr. Speaker, our productive ability has actually outraced our consuming and marketing capacity to a point that may ultimately strangle us. It is like a spiral working its way inwardly towards the choking centre and is extremely dangerous.
Think of it, Mr. Speaker; we are just a tiny country populationwise and yet we are one of the largest producers in the world. We make nearly everything, aeroplanes, tanks, ships, locomotives, atomic products and so forth. We are one of the world's largest suppliers of aluminum, wheat, nickel, asbestos, gold and other minerals. We enjoy the reputation of having made more progress in the last 50 years than any other country in the world, and yet despite all that we have an aggravated unemployment problem.
In our position, we should be the last country in the world with this type of headache. It is not a natural consequence of our progress. Quite the contrary, it is a most unnatural one and should disturb us as to its cause. It appears to me, Mr. Speaker, that whilst we have raced ahead in every field of productivity, we have been woefully delinquent in the one thing that could sustain this development. We have failed to keep our population growing collaterally with our other levels of progress.
There seems to be an underlying fear of more people in Canada. Whether or not this emanates from labour circles I am not sure, but it does exist. In my judgment, Mr. Speaker, its very existence is a disservice to the future well-being of our country. This fear, I believe, is the basic reason for this menacing imbalance in our entire national economy.
This is indeed a painful situation, Mr. Speaker, and forebodes increasing national problems unless vigorous and courageous steps are promptly taken to remedy it. I therefore, respectfully urge that we now accelerate our activities to make up for lost time and bend every effort to return to a proper balance our growth in population with our growth in industrial and scientific development.
This urgency is abundantly supported by Canadian public opinion. I have in my files a collection of editorials and statements from the press across Canada calling for more

The Budget-Mr. Crestohl people. It will be most informative to hon. members to briefly review some of them, and with the indulgence of the house I would proceed to do so. I start by quoting from an article and editorial appearing in a paper on the west coast.
I quote from the Cowichan Leader of Duncan, British Columbia, for December 30, 1954:
If we could wish Canada any one thing in particular for the New Year it would be a recordbreaking immigration wave . . .
We need immigrants. We can never develop fully without many millions more. The year 1955 is a good time to start, now that we are taking the lid off our large treasure house of resources.
And from the east of Canada, quoting editorially from the Truro, Nova Scotia, News of January 3, 1955:
The case for immigration is simple. In peacetime, "New Canadians" mean enlarged domestic markets for Canadian products barred by restrictive trade practices from export markets . . .
In wartime . . . "New Canadians" are a source of strength to this country's manpower resources.
Then the Kelowna Courier of June 21, 1954, states editorially:
Canada needs more, not fewer immigrants; indeed it is ridiculously underpopulated at present, and this is reflected in a domestic market which is so small as to hamper both industry and agriculture. The Okanagan, for instance, would have no marketing problem if Canada had a population of thirty or forty million.
And from the Bowmanville, Ontario, Canadian Statesman of January 21, 1954:
A greater population for Canada affords the solution of so many national problems, that it astounds thinkers on the subject that it is not more vigorously attacked and pursued by government on all levels.
The Hamilton Spectator of March 7, 1955, states editorially:
Canada can now produce far more than our people can consume. The larger our population, the larger the Canadian market-and the more jobs and better pay.
Then the Swift Current, Saskatchewan, Sun, of February 10, 1954, states editorially:
So long as immigration progresses at a snail's pace, economic independence for Canada from the vagaries of the export market will not soon be realized.
Why this timidity about immigration? Surely people, and more people and still more people is the only answer to the problem of markets.
Then, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Charles Daley, minister of labour in Ontario, is quoted in the Port Arthur News-Chronicle of December 29, 1954, as follows:
Canada needs more immigrants for her expanding economy, development of her domestic market and the spreading of her national overhead over more people.
Editorially the paper continues:
Such views are both sound and timely. Just how timely is indicated by Mr. Daley's statement that in Ontario alone, since 1949, over 350 new

industries have been established by immigrants from the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany and other countries.
Number one target for tomorrow in Canada should be more people.
The Montreal Star of November 13, 1953, reports the statement of Mr. J. D. Ferguson, president of the Canadian Manufacturers Association, as follows:
Canadians are acting like a bunch of ostriches . . .
They depend on the sale of goods to other countries for 24 per cent of their income, and Americans for only six per cent.
Accordingly, Canada, to raise its standard, must either assure itself of its foreign markets and increase them, or else create a domestic market.
And from Ottawa, quoting the Canadian Labour Journal for January, 1954:
With some adjusting of our economy, and a larger population, a much greater home market could be developed in Canada which would free us to a great extent from our present dependence on foreign markets as outlets for our products.
It is interesting to observe, Mr. Speaker, that much of this vast wave of public opinion some 25 or 30 years ago opposed immigration into Canada. Of course the times have changed, and the circumstances and conditions today most certainly justify this change in public opinion.
Some labour circles, however, do not go completely along with these views. They seem to prefer a slower and more selective form of immigration. They are apprehensive that immigrants would crowd the labour market. I would like to say that I would be the first to oppose any move that might be harmful to the workers of this country. In this instance, however, I do not share their view, because they seem to place the emphasis on the immediate consequences of increased immigration, while I prefer to take the longer-range view.
It is true that there may be some pockets of employment during the adjustment period, although I feel that it would not be worse than it is at the present time. But in the long run, Mr. Speaker, immigration would prove to be a great boon not only to our labour force but to the over-all future of our country whose well-being is our first concern.
There seems to be a view that immigrants may deprive Canadians of their jobs. I would like to attempt to explode this bogey. In 1953 I believe some 200 fur workers in the Montreal area were unemployed. They blamed this on the government for having that year admitted 194,000 immigrants, among whom they said there were some 200 fur workers who grabbed their jobs at sacrifice salaries. They therefore urged that immigration to Canada be stopped.

At first blush their complaint seemed to have a basis. What they did not realize however was that these immigrants were also
194,000	potential users of fur coats, since our climate calls for the use of fur coats. That, they completely forgot, or they completely overlooked. The immediate problem may have existed; there may have been some dislocation for the fur workers; but in the long run there were 194,000 additional fur coat customers in Canada, which would provide work in the years ahead for many more than just 200 fur workers.
This is so true of every other commodity produced in Canada and is abundantly confirmed by authorities on the subject and public opinion across Canada, some of which I would like to quote briefly.
The first quotation is from the Letter-Review of April 7, 1952-as far back as 1952-published in Fort Erie, Ontario, which states:
Unemployment, in part seasonal, is causing leaders of labour unions to press for restriction of immigration. This is a short sighted policy advocated regularly by economic illiterates.
More immigration, not less, is the cure for unemployment. Every immigrant is a new customer for the products of Canadian industry and agriculture, increasing opportunities for employment in all parts of the country.
I quote now from the Winnipeg Tribune of December 18, 1954, in which G. S. Thor-valdson, Q.C., president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, states that "experience through the years had shown that immigration creates jobs rather than unemployment".
Again I would like to quote the Hon. Charles Daley who, on November 25, 1954, is quoted in the Grimsby Independent as follows:
Immigration in the long run creates work for others in Canada rather than taking jobs away from others.
And from the Amherst, Nova Scotia, Daily News of December 21, 1953, speaking editorially:
The truth, of course, is that immigrants make jobs: that instead of an immigrant taking away a job from somebody born or already here he actually makes more jobs for him.
That, in its simplest form, is the case for more immigrants.
Then from the Windsor, Ontario, Daily Star of August 7, 1954:
In normal times the argument that immigrants take jobs from other people is fallacious. Because they create, by their purchasing power, as many jobs as they take-or more.
Then my final quotation is from the Winnipeg Tribune of February 25, 1954, which contained an editorial which stated in part:
During the past few years there has been a growing outcry from certain quarters to restrict 50433-221i
The Budget-Mr. Crestohl immigration on the ground that newcomers grabbed jobs and caused unemployment. The government should ignore these outcries. The fact is that Canada needs more people to help the country develop and to provide stable markets for industrial and agricultural products.
To bulwark these opinions I should like to offer a few figures. Since the end of the war Canada has admitted over one million people. During this period we enjoyed years of reasonable prosperity, as one hon. member who spoke today clearly stated. The Financial Post made a survey which partly explains this prosperity. It points out that these immigrants produced a market for some 210,000 houses, 220,000 radios, 100,000 passenger cars,
100,000	refrigerators, 200,000 washing machines, besides food, clothing and everyday requirements.
There was little or no unemployment during the waves of immigration into Canada. Apparently our accelerated production is now catching up with our almost stagnant Canadian consumer market and our dwindling foreign market, and I fear that our problems will grow progressively worse until we compensate or create the necessary replacement markets.
We in Canada speak with the greatest pride of our God-given natural resources. We are fortunate to possess them, but let us recognize that the greatest natural resource of them all is not that which is buried in the ground but that which walks upon it in the form of human beings and is able to convert the buried treasures into their real national asset. Let us also realize that it is the people of a country that represent its very strength and its very life and develop its future.
What, after all, has contributed most to make the United States the world's greatest nation? Its natural resources? Or its people? It was the continuous waves of immigration between 1890 and 1910 that enabled our neighbour to the south to become the leading nation in the world; not its natural resources but its people, uniquely its people.
Therefore I urge respectfully that a courageous change in our immigration policy should be promptly and seriously considered. It should be altered from a negative to a positive approach. Our policy should direct the immigration inspectors to examine prospective immigrants with a view to finding grounds to admit them rather than to ferret out reasons to exclude them. There are thousands of prospective immigrants waiting. The department has the applications but processing is delayed because policy does not permit the officials to deal with them. What a pity!
Among those who are waiting are many highly trained technicians, skilled craftsmen
3500	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Girard and families of substance, but they are excluded because they do not yet fall within the so-called admissible categories. These must be changed. We should stop playing around with categories and with choking restrictions and display the dauntless courage of our convictions. Additional staff should be hired if necessary to expedite processing and a vigorous assault should be made on every possible source of immigrants.
Our fast-growing country, our vast industrial potential, our advancing standard of living and our defence requirements create a voracious appetite for people. This appetite cannot be satiated by a spoon-fed immigration program. No, not by a mere selective trickle of immigrants will we meet our country's ever-increasing need for people. We need millions, not hundreds or thousands, but millions.
Our approach should frankly be that we seek and want immigrants, and if they are in good health, if they meet our security requirements and have integrating possibilities, they should be welcomed. Our immigration officials are compelled by regulations to make decisions which I know they wish were otherwise. I know they would personally be much happier men if they could say "yes" more frequently than "no". A change in policy and regulations should be made to make this possible and help produce the results we seek.
It is my respectful submission that if we are really to benefit from our vast natural resources, we should not deal with them in a dog in the manger fashion. Some countries live behind an iron curtain; let us not behave as though we have dropped at our ports of entrance a golden curtain behind which we Canadians gloat and past which no one but the select can enter.
On the other hand I am convinced that only a generous lifting of this golden curtain, together with a farsighted and courageous immigration program, will enable us to enjoy the blessings of a happy country. More people will provide an abundance of consumer markets. This will sustain an abundance of production, and this in turn will provide an abundance of employment. This program will in addition help build our defences, assist in lowering our per capita overhead cost of maintaining our ever-increasing national responsibilities, and cumulatively shower upon our country heavenly benedictions for sharing with our brethren in greater numbers the bounteous natural resources which the Almighty has placed in our trust.


Mr. Fernand Girard (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, before going on with my speech I would like to give a friendly welcome to the


new member in our corner. While he is sitting to the left he is not a leftist member. If there are any others who feel that they would like to come here, they will be welcomed. We do not accept everyone, but we need some good members.
(Translation) :
Mr. Speaker, during the next few minutes I would like to raise a problem which is now stirring public opinion in the province of Quebec, a problem which only Ottawa can solve equitably.
I do not intend speaking at length on the budget, because I fully approve the judicious remarks of my colleague, the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Poulin). As independent members of the house, we have, although with some reservations, deemed it our duty to support the present budget, because it is a step toward lowering of taxes. We regret, however, that the minister left aside other important matters, such as increasing the basic exemption for personal income tax, decreasing extravagant government expenditures, finding an efficient solution to the unemployment problem, and adjusting family allowances in conformity with the rate intended by the government in 1945 and the spirit in which they were enacted, from which they have strayed as a result of the increase in the cost of living during the past seven years. However, we believed that by supporting the new Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris), we might be able to bring him to decrease government expenditures, which are truly extravagant.
Mr. Speaker, the matter I would like to bring to the attention of the house relates to the name of the future Canadian National hotel in Montreal.
I understand that the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) have received numerous requests from every corner of the province and even from outside, asking that the hotel be called "Chateau Maisonneuve". If my information is correct I believe that over 200,000 protests and representations have been or will be received by the Canadian National. I have personally received several hundreds of them; that is why I am rising to support the project.
Mr. Speaker, why do we want a French name for this Montreal hotel? I hardly feel it necessary to indicate any reasons here since they all seem so perfectly evident, the

point at issue being the respect due to the rights of the French-speaking citizens of this country, within the confines of their own home.
We want a French name for the very reason, no doubt, which has prompted the officials of the Canadian National Railways to refuse it. It is clear that the company has been guilty of no excessive zeal with regard to the respect of the confederative rights of the two great races of this country.
May I add that as far as the immediate interests of the tourist trade go, a French name would certainly be preferable, financially, since it is the very French character of the province of Quebec-where this future hotel is to be built-which constitutes an attraction for American tourists.
On behalf of various tourist trade promotion groups campaigns have already been launched in order to ensure that our Quebec cities and towns retain that French character which business interests are unfortunately causing them to lose.
There is already a Queen's hotel in Montreal; a second one would create confusion. Personally, I dare say that a queen must prefer having her name honoured elsewhere than in the commercial field.
Mr. Speaker, is it not unfortunate that, on matters which may seem so unimportant, we should have to create a movement of opinion in the midst of an entire population, as is the case in relation to the name to be given to that hotel?
Why is it that in addition to their normal legislative functions, French-Canadian members must insist so often upon the respect of the rights of the French-speaking element with respect to details, perhaps, but which are nevertheless important because of their dangerous recurrence?
We may be insisting upon many matters which may look trivial when compared to the great problems which confront our nation but it must be realized that the accumulation of little injustices encroach dangerously upon the sacred rights of the French-speaking population.
French Canadians would not deserve the title of true Canadians if they did not exert themselves to remain true to themselves, thereby contributing to the enrichment of our Canadian spirit.
Imagine for one moment that a French name were to be given a large Toronto hotel; maybe then our state of mind would be understood.
Our constitution and our government acknowledge, of course, the French fact and its handsome contribution to the cultural
The Budget-Mr. Girard vitality of our country, but we must fight constantly and frequently to obtain constitutional bilingualism on a bit of a cheque.
The government treats us as equal partners in the development of our country, but its public service won't give us more than 13 per cent of its higher positions.
French is one of the official languages in our country, but on the very floor of this parliament it is spoken by only a few, at the risk of not being understood by the majority.
Furthermore, in order to show that we must fight always, even though the French fact is recognized by the constitution, 1 quote the following from page 2 of the Montreal Gazette of yesterday:
(Text):
Decision of the Senate-Commons committee currently studying capital and corporal punishment to hear evidence from one of Canada's two official hangmen, raises new problems. The official in question, Quebec's own official executioner, is reported to speak only French.
(Translation) .[DOT]
If indeed our rights were recognized, it should read instead that as the official representatives of our bilingual country were not able to understand one of the official languages, that had caused some difficulty. As a matter of fact, the recognition of our rights with regard to bilingualism should not be practised at the bottom but at the top.
Of course, we are at home within the confederation, but it is made unbearable for us. There is always a "but" implied in a thousand details, which is perhaps unpleasant for the house, but much more so for those who suffer from them and those who have to denounce them.
There might be the temptation to apply the famous speech from Rostand's L'Aiglon "Not a prisoner, but"; when talking of our people. There is always a "but", which is the only real obstacle to national unity, a "but" that fathers separatism, a "but" that keeps us constantly on the defensive, a "but" that stops us from co-operating openly in the normal process of our national destiny.
It is from Ottawa that the initiative must come for the removal of this "but" that is jeopardizing national unity in this country. By asking the Canadian National Railways to agree to give a French name to a hotel being built in one of the largest French cities in the world, this government would make a gesture of fairness and national unity. Therefore, in concluding my remarks, I would like to make a personal appeal to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) who cannot refuse his fellow countrymen not a
3502	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Perron favour but the recognition of their rights. He cannot refuse his intervention for a measure which not only is in the interest of the future hotel itself, but constitutes a safeguard for the sacred rights of the French-Canadian people.


Mr. Robert Perron (Dorchester):: Mr. Speaker, the economic slowdown in this country over the past fiscal year has been mainly due to the poor wheat crop in the west. Or so, at least, the Minister of Finance's budget speech would have us believe.
I would like to call to the attention of the government the fact that the crop in the province of Quebec has been no better. Because of constant rains throughout the summer our farmers, who have had great difficulty in seeding last fall, have had almost complete failures. I do not think it exaggerated to state that, at least in my county and adjacent counties, the crop has been just about one-fourth of what it generally is and that the grain produced is of inferior quality.
This has possibly not influenced the national gross product in as spectacular a fashion as the poor wheat crop in the west, but it has nevertheless placed the farmers of our rural counties in a difficult position. They are faced at this time with a shortage of good quality seed grain. This short supply means that the seed will cost more, so that farmers will have to spend hundreds of dollars more than before for spring seeding.
The situation is serious and many farmers do not expect to be able to sow their fields, which would be a disaster for themselves and for the economy in general.
Other members of the house have mentioned that situation, in particular the member for Bonaventure (Mr. Arsenault). The member for Bonaventure writes excellent books but sometimes makes bad speeches. He told the house about the situation in the province of Quebec on the agricultural front, but it is to the provincial government that he applied for help. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that he would have been wiser to put to good use the marked influence he exerts upon the federal government and ask it to take action to solve that very acute problem.
And he might have put forward numerous precedents. To mention only two cases, when Nova Scotia apple producers were heayily hit and when the western farmers needed help recently, the central government was not reluctant to grant them the help called for in such


predicaments. I do not see why, when it is the farmer in the province of Quebec who needs help, the federal government should not be as liberal as it has been elsewhere, in the face of a situation which is exactly the same and which is due to identical causes.
Therefore I ask the government to provide them with some assistance, in co-operation with the different agricultural organizations of our province, either by way of loans-for our farmers do not want handouts-or by way of subsidies.
There is no doubt that the prosperity of our farmers is the very basis of the general prosperity of our country; as a matter of fact, unemployment is directly connected with and due to our agricultural recession. It will come to an end at the same time as the agricultural depression.
If you read the report of last year's operations under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, R.S.C., 1952, chapter 110, you will see that the loans to farmers, and guaranteed by the government, have gone down by $35 million in 1954. In other words they were reduced from $98 million in 1953 to $63 million in 1954, a difference of $35 million. These figures are clear enough, and show how the farmer is in need of money, either to buy agricultural implements, improve livestock, or to carry out certain building and improvement projects on the farm.
The effect of that situation is to paralyse the general economy of this country, and this is why the government should not hesitate to help eastern farmers who had a poor crop last year, in order to solve the economic problems of this country and prevent them from getting worse.
To go on with my suggestion, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the government should not amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act so that it might be possible to ensure the loans of money needed by the farmers in the spring for their seed purchases.
The loans made to date, under this legislation passed in 1945, amount to $513 million, and the loans which the government is called upon to reimburse, according to its guarantee, amount to only $149,814, which is a very insignificant figure, that is, of 1 per cent. This means that loans to farmers are very secure investments. They are probably the best the government could make.
At all events, if the government decided to amend the law in this way, I would be pleased to vote in favour of the amendment.

There is another question I would like to deal with briefly and which concerns the price of pulpwood in the province. It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the price of pulpwood is much too low when compared with the cost of paper.
The hon. member for Bonaventure suggested a minimum price of $15 per cord. Objectively speaking, being one who has never bought or sold any, I believe that the price should be much higher, in the neighbourhood of $25 or $30. When paper was cheaper, indeed much cheaper, companies paid from $25 to $30 per cord. In my opinion, such an amount would be fair to the farmers and settlers of the province. However, prices offered by the companies during the last season have been extremely low, so much so that the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) had an inquiry made to ascertain whether there was collusion between the various companies to fix the sale price, so as to do away with competition. I congratulate the hon. Minister of Justice for having instituted that inquiry.
I am sure that this thing will be inquired into with that earnestness and that fair-mindedness typical of such inquiries.
However I should like to refer to a point which I note in the speech of the hon. member for Bonaventure, and which shows that my hon. friend was not in earnest. Here are his words as reported on page 3248 of Hansard for April 28:
2. I respectfully urge-
The hon. member wanted the provincial government to set a minimum price. I quote:
I respectfully urge the Hon. Maurice Duplessis, premier of the province of Quebec, and the members of his government, to adopt an order in council fixing the minimum price to be paid to pulpwood producers in the province of Quebec. Such a minimum price would have to be at least $15 a cord, delivered at a truck loading site, for the eastern part of the province.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister of Canada is most assuredly one of the most learned members of the Canadian bar. With your permission-if I may be allowed to digress- I would like to point out that this year marks the fiftieth anniversary of his admission to the bar of the province of Quebec. This happy occasion will be observed in Quebec city next Saturday, at the same time as the similar anniversary of the chief justice of Quebec, and of other distinguished members of the bench and bar. Chief Justice Albert Sevigny, by the way, once sat as Conservative member
The Budget-Mr. Perron for Dorchester in this house before becoming its Speaker, a position which you now occupy with such dignity and which he himself also occupied with great dignity.
I would like to avail myself of this opportunity, even though the Prime Minister is not in the house at this time, to offer him my congratulations and my best wishes for a long and happy life.
To come back to the point, the member for Bonaventure has asked the provincial government to set the price of the wood at $15 a cord. I wanted to state that he had committed a great legal heresy when he made that statement and that the legal sense of the Prime Minister must have been shocked by such a request on the part of a government member.
No doubt about it, from the legal and constitutional point of view, no government has the right to fix the selling price of a given product unless as a measure of national emergency, as was the case during the last war when the federal government fixed and froze prices, under the authority granted by the War Measures Act. Outside of that, apart from those measures of national emergency, the fixing of prices is a legal impossibility under the system which now prevails in Canada.


Mr. Arsenault:: May I direct a question to the hon. member?


Robert Perron: Not now. I am coming to my conclusion and I have only a few more words to say. You may do so when I am finished.
In my opinion, the only way to act in the matter was to make an inquiry, as was done, and besides to ask the lumber companies to increase the prices paid to farmers, prices which are ridiculously low when compared with the price of paper and those companies' financial statements. There is nothing we can do now but wait for the result of that investigation, which will be properly carried out, I am sure.
Before resuming my seat, I beg the government to do everything in its power to tackle the agricultural problem prevailing throughout the country, thereby solving the economic problem of all Canadians.


Bona Arsenault: Can the hon. member
tell me whether it is the duty of the Quebec provincial government to do something for people who sell and produce pulpwood? Second, why did the government of the province of Quebec deem it advisable to set a
3504	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Perron maximum price for newsprint in the province? Third, why did the present premier of Quebec, the Hon. Mr. Duplessis, consider, twenty years ago, on May 12, 1935, that it was the duty of the Taschereau government to set the prices that should be paid farmers and settlers for their pulpwood?


Robert Perron: As for the first question, Mr. Speaker, I don't think that the hon. member for Bonaventure is able to prove that the government of the province of Quebec has ever fixed the price for newsprint. I don't think he is able to produce an order in council fixing the price for pulp or newsprint in the province of Quebec.
I know that some years ago the premier of the province of Quebec asked the newsprint companies for a special rate on sales to newspapers in the province of Quebec, as he had also for the price of pulpwood. If I remember well, recently, at a convention held in the winter, the premier of the province of Quebec asked pulpwood companies to increase their price on wood bought from farmers and settlers.
I don't want to add to the discussion, but I feel that the hon. member was mistaken when he suggested that the government of Quebec was going to fix a floor price on pulpwood. That would be incompatible with free trade and the economic system under which we live.
As for the second question, I did not understand it very well. I do not remember what the premier of Quebec said in 1935. If the hon. member had a text, I might perhaps answer him. Now, under the circumstances, I must say, in the words of Lafontaine: "I was not born yet".


Bona Arsenault: So you admit that the provincial government cannot do anything for the farmers or settlers?


Robert Perron: I did not catch that.


Bona Arsenault: You are saying that the provincial government will not do anything by way of increasing the price of pulpwood for either the farmers or the settlers.


An hon. Member:: He did not say that.


Robert Perron: I admit that the provincial government can recommend to the pulpwood companies to pay higher prices, but there is the free interplay of competition to be considered, when it comes to buying or selling pulpwood. The federal government has made 

inquiries as to whether the corporations had set up a combine to prevent competition, which could result in the increase of pulpwood prices in the province of Quebec. This is precisely what is being investigated. I also believe this to be the only legal and constitutional means provided by our economic system.


Bona Arsenault: Does the hon. member not know that in Ontario pulpwood producers have been protected by law since 1937?
(Text):


George Hugh Castleden: Mr. Speaker, apparently topics for the budget debate are not exhausted. It is my intention this evening to talk about the weather and perhaps to be a bit unusual by suggesting it is possible that, in this case, we may be able to do something about it. Available meteorological records indicate that over the past three years there have been some of the most astounding and unusual storms, tornadoes, floods and droughts in the history of the world. Lack of reliable information on the effect which thermonuclear explosions may have on the weather, aside from their effect on human beings, raises doubts and fears in the minds of people everywhere. People everywhere are asking for the facts, and I submit they are not getting them.
This week the Canadian prairies were visited with the worst storm on record. Reports of that storm tell of a cloud of dust four miles thick blowing into the province of Saskatchewan and meeting there a snow and rainstorm from the north with the result that the worst flood conditions in the history of that province were produced. Reports tell us that it actually rained mud there for a matter of over half an hour and that there then followed a torrent of rain which left a large portion of the province under water. The immediate losses of millions of dollars in damage to roads, bridges, communications, power lines, and individual personal losses of people in livestock, buildings and other property, are only the immediate losses. The effects on the already rain-soaked soil of that province, which depends to a large extent upon its agricultural production, are predicted by many as putting an end to any possibility of a normal crop for 1955.
I hope that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), who is in his seat, I notice, is taking steps to see that under P.F.R.A. drainage crews will be working on those projects

where provincial surveys have already been made in order to help clear up the drainage situation. It should be remembered by all that the present catastrophe comes after three years of increasingly abnormal moisture conditions in that province which culminated last year in a flood and rust damage that wiped out 70 per cent of the farmers' net income.
As to the effects of nuclear explosions, it is quite natural that scientists should disagree. When man is experimenting with the unknown secrets of nature in today's scientific world, it is natural that some scientists will disagree with others as to the effects. They are going to continue to disagree until full research has been made. Our protest is that the research job is not being done. Therefore, great damage is being done to public morale and to the confidence of the people everywhere. The world needs the facts regarding the possible dangerous effects of radiation not only upon human beings but also upon weather conditions.
Professor Frederick Soddy, who is a British Nobel prize winner, is recently reported in the press as saying that he strongly denounces those scientists in the world who are saying there is no possible connection between unusual weather conditions and nuclear explosions. He is supported in this statement by another Nobel prize winner, the French physicist Charles N. Martin, who claims that among the dangers of thermonuclear explosions is the danger of not only deleterious but also permanent effects upon our climate. These men are supported by no less a leading scientist than the late Dr. Albert Einstein himself.
Surely, with the existence of the possibility of such dangers to the people of the world, an immediate independent investigation should be made by the most reliable scientific experts available. Important support for this idea of an investigation and the urgency of research was given at a conference in New York city just last month. The federation of American scientists met in New York and not only requested immediate establishment of a commission to make the investigation under the auspices of the United Nations, but they strongly urged that large scale atomic tests be discontinued until the investigation was made.
Surely, under those circumstances, Canada should move through representatives in the United Nations Organization to establish such an investigation at once. It is my belief we are about three years late now. We in this C.C.F. group demand this of the government, that until such an investigation under a competent independent scientific commission is 50433-222
The Budget-Mr. Castleden made, H-bomb tests be stopped. We believe that such a request should be made to the United States government itself and to the U.S.S.R. through the United Nations Organization. It is important to the world.
People everywhere are always apprehensive of the unknown. Our urgent request is to ascertain the facts so far as humanly possible so that people will know the truth, and through that truth they can free themselves from their apprehensions, and act in the best interests of all.
I maintain that to permit ignorance to continue with a lack of proper investigation is criminal, is wasteful and is wrong. May I suggest to this government that if the facts later come out that nuclear tests do affect the climate and that the beliefs held by some of these scientists are correct, yet the government has done nothing about starting an investigation, then the people of Canada will rise in righteous indignation. They will be justified in doing so. If this government supports the move for the best possible scientific information by an independent commission under the United Nations, then the government will have done its duty. I maintain that that is the very minimum of its responsibility. The people of Canada demand the truth. The people of Canada are entitled to all possible information.


Mr. Irvin Sluder (Swift Currenl-Maple Creek):: While I was home during the Easter recess, Mr. Speaker, my constituents were kind enough to suggest to me that I should make a few remarks in this budget debate. I have recently come from the west. It was my privilege and pleasure, I can assure you, to ride on that crack new Canadian train of which every Canadian will be proud. It is a cracker-jack train. The first opportunity you have to ride on the new Canadian Pacific train, "The Canadian", or the Canadian National's new train, "The Super Continental", I am sure you will be well rewarded, happy and proud of this new service.
My constituency of Swift Current-Maple Creek is so large that it takes even this crack train about three and a half hours of constant running to cross it. The time passes quickly with music and all the facilities on that type of train, so that one does not find the hours too long. The surprising thing to me is that for the past 50 years the employees of the railways have had the same kind of accommodation that is now available on the new train. The brakemen riding the freight trains of this country have had vista domes on the cabooses for the last 50 years, and it took that long to make them available to the passengers on these trains. However, it

The Budget-Mr. Studer takes time to bring benefits to mankind, and I think all of us can forecast still greater improvement in Canadian train service in the future. We will have the best, if we have not already the best, train service in the world.
I think the Canadian National should be congratulated upon its window display in the Sparks street office. Since it is the jubilee year in Saskatchewan, there are scenes showing the various areas of Saskatchewan and Alberta. In yesterday's Journal, I believe, there was an item stating that only 25 per cent of the Canadian people leave their home province. Well, that is not good enough. If we in Canada wish to have any comprehension or understanding of what the rest of Canada is like, I think it is high time some method was provided so that we could have a closer association between eastern and western Canada, a much closer association than we have had in the past. I do not know of anything that will bind a country and a people more closely together than association, and through that association the understanding of the different people in different parts of Canada. The sooner that can be augmented, the better for all of us.
Canada is a vast country, almost several countries. The people of this country need this association more than the people of any other country of which I know. Let us this year, in this jubilee year of 1955, accept the invitation of Saskatchewan and Alberta to visit those great provinces, both of which have been associated with the Dominion of Canada since 1905. My province has created as much, if not more wealth, irrespective of whether it be mineral or other wealth, over that period of 50 years through the production of foodstuffs for mankind than any other province in the dominion. It is well worth seeing. While you are there, one particular place to visit, of course, over and above every other place, is that superior constituency of Swift Current-Maple Creek.
There are reasons for that. Every year they have one of the greatest celebrations in Saskatchewan, and it will be particularly good this year. It is the largest rodeo east of Calgary. They will give you three days of celebration, centring on July 1, that you will never forget as long as you live. Not only will you be in a position to enjoy yourself and see what has happened in Saskatchewan, particularly in the southwestern part of Saskatchewan where much of the dominion government's money has been spent-much of it has been spent for rehabilitation purposes since the thirties-but you will see that part of the country in the southwest that 

was believed to be in a hopeless situation during the drought and despair of the thirties.
As I mentioned before, no other area has recovered as southwestern Saskatchewan has. And we want to show the people of Canada where their money has gone and what it has done so they will know, as a result of that, and from that experience, that the same remedies can be applied anywhere, should similar conditions exist at any time in the future.
Now, that area is suffering some reverses today, because we know that in some areas of Saskatchewan there is too much moisture. But seldom has that situation existed in southwest Saskatchewan. Indeed, we are not even interested down there in Selkirk rust-resistant wheat, because we are always placed in a position-at least we think we are-that the only time we get a crop in southwest Saskatchewan is when the rest of the country is all rusted out. And when the rest of the country is not rusted out and has only sufficient rain to obtain a crop, then we have a crop failure in southwest Saskatchewan. Because for years we have been deficient in moisture.
Everyone will sympathize with the people and the farmers in Saskatchewan who have suffered heavy losses. But certainly there is nothing to despair of, because Saskatchewan can recover as no other province can. Its people have had to be experienced in knowing how to recover.
I noticed in yesterday's issue of the Regina Leader-Post that the province is ready to lend its assistance, and I am sure the dominion government will never be outdone. It never has been outdone by any organization or any government in providing assistance for all the people of Canada in every possible way, when need has arisen. And I am sure the dominion government will do so again-in fact, it has already offered- and will give service when it is needed in Saskatchewan.
Then, in addition to what you will see in Swift Current-Maple Creek, we have also some points of historical interest there. We had the north west mounted police at Fort Walsh in the Cypress hills in 1883. If it had not been for the mounted police, history would have been different in Saskatchewan, because after Custer's massacre in Montana on the Great Bend, 5,000 of the Sioux Indians moved north into Canada; and a handful of north west mounted police, honoured today as they were then, kept that band of Indians under control.
Swift Current was the stopping point of the troop movement west during the Riel rebellion, and the trail used was Battleford trail, during that war.

Then, we have other historical sites in that area, but it would take too long to describe them. You will have to come out there and see it for yourselves. We are having an old timers' reunion, where all of those who have been in that country for 65 years will be having a celebration, such as has never been seen in any other part of Canada during that period of time.
It is the greatest country in the west. And we have something more than that. We have beards out there in southwest Saskatchewan. Yes, we have beards. The he-men in Swift Current and in Maple Creek have beards such as you have never seen since the days of the apostles. We are known as the original bearded city of Swift Current, and the practice originated a number of years ago.
And there was a purpose in growing beards, because beards are important in that country. In fact, beards have been important since the creation of man. The downfall of man began when he became smooth-shaven. If you will read your history, particularly your biblical history, you will find one thing, dating back to the time of Samson, who, when his hair was shorn, lost his strength and was captured by his enemies, and was destroyed.
I think we should be on our guard, as we are in Swift Current-Maple Creek, in regard to what is going to happen to mankind if we continue as we have been doing in the past. Because as man became clean-shaven, and as he lost his luxurious beard, he lost his virility and masculinity, and man began to decline. And then it was the woman's influence began to rise. And if this situation continues we are going to be dominated by women.
Why, we see the day coming right here in the House of Commons; there are four of them here already. We will be exactly like some of the aboriginal tribes, where the men are cast aside-well, no, they are not cast aside; they have to do the work. Can you imagine anything worse than that? And the day is coming when we will be treated just the same as the male bees in a beehive-we will be worthless.
So, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that it is not only a local problem-this problem of beards 

but that it is a world problem. And, you know, if you go through history you will find that all the conquering tribes were bearded. And what I am worried about is the number of people in Russia who are growing beards. I suggest we should give this serious consideration. But the men of Swift Current and Maple Creek have found the answer because they have placed man back in his proper position. For whoever heard of a woman with her lovely complexion, when she 50433-222J
The Budget-Mr. Studer snuggles up and gets the feeling of those bushy whiskers-why, they become absolutely helpless. Because they are in the hands of man, from that time on, and they will never have anything further to do with the Schick-shaver, or a slick-shaver, man.
The only reason I, representing Swift Current-Maple Creek, have not grown a beard is that I am just too busy being a member of parliament to always have to carry a stick around to keep the women away. So, on July 1, on to Swift Current-Maple Creek in Saskatchewan. Every member in the House of Commons is invited, and people from the rest of Canada; and you will come back from there feeling that the trip was justified. You are invited to come out to that country, where men are men and women are women-and if there is any difference, thank the Lord for it.
While I am speaking on the subject of western Canada I would like to say this, that each one of us who believes in modern progress has appreciated the advent of television in our midst. I understand it is the purpose of television that it shall be a boon to mankind in any particular area of the country, and that those who are deprived of the benefits of this service will not be in a position to maintain the high standard of education and the full enjoyment of culture and religion experienced by the other areas in the country having it.
Swift Current-Maple Creek will be deficient in the matter of television service. I understand that the higher the television tower is, the farther the telecast beams are transmitted. In any case, we have the highest altitude of any area in Saskatchewan. I believe it is between 3,000 and 4,000 feet. And by putting a thousand-foot television tower in our area we could beam telecasts all over the province of Saskatchewan.
I think the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation would do well to put a station there, and if they did we could service all the people in the province. While that has not happened yet, there is still time to have that service in that area of the country. I think we should adopt the principle whereby, when any member of parliament can show that a television station can give television service to cover a hundred thousand people, the C.B.C. and the government should give serious consideration to giving service to that number of people. We can do that in Swift Current-Maple Creek even though that country is sparsely settled because we have sufficient height of land and the beam will cover the whole constituency which is 300 miles from one corner to the other. It will service half the constituency

The Budget-Mr. Studer of Kindersley, half the constituency of Rose-town-Biggar and will even extend into Montana and over into Alberta.
The only thing that has retarded us so far, the only reason why we may not be completely up to date is that we have not had the advantages of this service. Our people should have the educational facilities provided by television which are given to other people in Canada. We should have the cultural and religious benefits which only television can give. We should have the knowledge that can be transmitted through television in regard to agricultural production. We have a great number of organizations like the 4-H clubs and we have the second largest experimental station in Canada. Any investment made to provide television in southwest Saskatchewan will be more than repaid in the benefits granted to the people, and the investment itself will be repaid.
Coming back from Saskatchewan we were in contact with many farmers in our constituency. We have heard during this debate of the needs of the farmers and again a very poor picture has been painted by some hon. members of the House of Commons regarding the situation in Saskatchewan. Whatever the situation may have been it certainly has been aggravated by the weather conditions of the past week. If that catastrophe had not transpired the situation as I found it in Saskatchewan would not have been as serious as it has been described here in the House of Commons.
I do not believe that the government of Saskatchewan believed some of the speeches socialist-delivered in the House of Commons regarding the situation in Saskatchewan. If the government in the province did believe it and if that situation actually existed they should have done something about it rather than just wait for the dominion government to carry the burden. Of course if some members of parliament can convince the dominion government to carry a burden that it should not properly carry then they have an ability over and above the ordinary.
To my mind every provincial government in the country should carry its share. The provinces are in a unique position to be able to at least set an example. They may not have the facilities or the money to the degree that the dominion government has, but they could go a little way and set an example. I have not seen evidence of the least effort being made in Saskatchewan to make any move whatsoever to correct the condition which it has been claimed by socialist members in this house exists in Saskatchewan.
What the farmers need in Saskatchewan is the final payment on wheat, and more than


that they need facilities to sell their wheat. The sale of their wheat will be of more value to them than the final payment. Those are two great needs. If there is a third one, most certainly it is good weather. If those needs can be satisfied I am satisfied the people of Saskatchewan will again put in their crops and unless weather conditions are completely abnormal they will deliver the same production as they formerly have.
I do not think we should overlook some of the difficulties which have been encountered in regard to the movement of grain. Some people in the west feel that it has not moved fast enough; they feel that the government or the wheat board has left undone something in regard to the movement of grain. What has actually transpired? There was the dockers' strike last fall in Great Britain which handicapped the movement of grain for almost two months. I do not know of anything that our government could have done about that because it was a foreign affair. Before that we had the grain handlers' strike on the west coast and lately the grain handlers' strike at the head of the lakes.
Nevertheless, in spite of all these difficulties, some advance has been made and, as has been stated by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), it is believed that most of the wheat in western Canada will be moved before the next crop year. Of course there is criticism and agitation in western Canada by political parties, and perhaps that is the way it should be. Do you know what I heard in Swift Current-Maple Creek? Our socialist friends were going around the country saying that the grain handlers' strike at the head of the lakes had been instituted by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. They were saying that the minister had made a statement during the winter that he was going to move this grain during the coming summer, and as he had failed to move the grain he had instituted that strike.
I do not know how many people in western Canada believed that, but there is one thing I think they know and that is that at no time when there was a strike, no matter how seriously it affected the farmers, did the socialist party lift a finger to stop it. We all have responsibilities. I did not expect the leader of the socialists when he was over in Britain to interfere with the dockers' strike there or try to settle it, but if he had the interests of the western farmers at heart perhaps he could have made some suggestions without making himself obnoxious. Perhaps the government of Saskatchewan could have put forth a little effort in connection with grain

handlers' strikes wherever they happened especially as they affected the farmers.
Do not forget the time when we had a railroad strike in 1950 which paralysed industry in Canada. The socialists did not do anything about that. A special session of parliament was called in an endeavour to correct that situation and a solution was presented but every socialist in this house with the exception of one voted against the settlement of that strike. We are still suffering from that strike because you cannot make up lost movement of grain and you cannot regain markets that have been lost because of grain stoppages.
What do the socialists think of strikes? Are they in favour of them? Everyone has the right to strike, as we all know. No one would want to take that away. But I would say that the socialists actually favour strikes except when they have one of their own. They had a transportation strike in Regina in 1953, but that was a horse of another colour. What did the socialists do about that? They had advertisements in all the papers of Saskatchewan, and I quote the Leader-Post of July 6, 1953, which is a capitalist paper, do not forget, which said that the men should not strike because they were making more money than anyone else and that the cost of living had come down during the last eighteen months.
At the same time they were complaining about that and using it to their advantage in Saskatchewan. It all depends where the shoe pinches. If we are going to work together in the settlement of the nation's difficulties, then I think we should be able to honestly expect some assistance from all governments in Canada including a socialist government.
When there is a strike the socialists are hesitant to say anything. They are ready to talk about anything if they think they can get more prestige, but they are certainly silent on the occasions of strikes. Some of their leaders in Saskatchewan remind me of a little puppy, and in saying this I do not want to get into any dog controversy such as they had during the last election in the United States. A puppy is a harmless little creature, always lovable. When you take out a puppy and he knows where he is going he trots along in front with his tail up in the air full of life. But when he does not know where he is going he hangs behind with his tail between his legs and does nothing but whimper. That is about as close a comparison as I can make of what I have observed about the socialists. There has been great competition in connection with the selling of grain, as everyone knows. This government, through
5, 1955	3509
The Budget-Mr. Studer its Prime Minister, through its Minister of Trade and Commerce and through other members of the government, has left nothing undone to try to acquire markets and stimulate the movement of that grain. Has anyone else made any suggestions that would make it possible to sell Canadian grain? The only solution offered by the socialists, as far as I can see, is that we give it away. I do not know to whom we are going to give it. I do not know what government wants it. I do not know of any government that has made an appeal for it. In the meantime there is only one way in which the farmer can obtain the reward for his labours, and that is to sell it. The government has left nothing undone to make that possible.
I do not think that any socialist or any other member of the opposition has contributed anything to promote the sales. I would say they have retarded them in most of the speeches, the canned speeches that have been delivered in the House of Commons by the socialists from Saskatchewan. Not one jot or tittle have they contributed by any one of their speeches to the movement of one bushel of grain. I think they can do better than that. I would say that, if farming and agriculture is in such a condition in Saskatchewan as has been described by the socialists, then I wonder why they are not selling their land-no, not selling it, giving it away, because they are at least supposed to share part of that with someone else. Why are they acquiring more property? Why are the socialists in Saskatchewan acquiring more land if agriculture is on its way out? From the socialist speeches I have heard it is useless for me to go back and seed my land or raise chicks. We had 500 chicks and we had more trouble in caring for them than with some of the babies owing to the very cold weather that occurred. It is useless my raising livestock if agriculture has gone entirely to pieces.
I think we should have more encouraging words for the farmers of this country. I think the farmers have more faith in our country than other people and than other parties give them credit for. I think that, if we get a good crop again, the government will help them get it marketed. I think we can look forward to another good crop year and the prospect of selling the grain to the best advantage through our wheat board, operated under the government as well as or better than through any other system or through any other government that I know of.
With regard to our present budget, I think everybody in Canada is congratulating the Minister of Finance on this new budget. Some

The Budget-Mr. Studer hon. members tell us that this budget is a bad budget. They tell us it is handicapping farmers and that no one receives any benefit from it; that the government perhaps made a move in the right direction but should have gone much further. The government could not remove any more duties on farm implements, because they have all long ago been lifted. You may go into Montana and buy any piece of machinery-and the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) may buy any piece of machinery-and bring it back across the line, without duty, and purchase any repairs that you wish. I am glad that the government listened to our appeal last year, when we suggested that they take the duty off truck tires and every other commodity the farmers need. They reduced the taxes on automobiles; and everybody admits that the farmers need automobiles.
I suggest that the federal government has set a wonderful example in this budget to all the provinces of Canada; and if they followed suit we would have a much better economy. What is stopping the Saskatchewan socialist government from taking that $100 off an ordinary car, which is the tax they have to pay there. The federal government reduced the tax; certainly that province could follow suit. They are not in favour of taxes. What is stopping them from taking off the 3 per cent tax on farm fuels that the farmers have to use? What is stopping them from taking off the 3 per cent tax on building materials, to stimulate building activity? What is stopping them from making some kind of contribution which some members in the House of Commons say that the federal government should be making?
If this budget is bad, I hope we have a lot more just as bad in the future. I hope we continue to have tax reduction budgets. I hope we continue to have incentive budgets, so that the people of this country can invest their money and know that it will not be all taxed out of their hands. If the people of this country would invest their money in new enterprises, it would provide jobs in the country. In Saskatchewan they tried to do it through the state, and what happened? They have no qualms about it. Out there, if the government factory does not pay dividends-they are against profits, but if it does not pay a profit-out it goes, and the labouring people with it. Sometimes they take up the slack in regard to those they have discharged from employment by putting them into the government. They have that method of absorbing them into the government of Saskatchewan or having them unemployed or placing them in the position where they have no alternative but to join the


army. The hon. member for Regina City (Mr. Ellis) said that the Liberals were suggesting that that was the Liberal cure for unemployment, to have unemployed men join the army. If that were so, why have we not our quota filled in the army, the navy and the air force; which we have not up to date? That is not the Liberal solution to unemployment, but it is the socialist solution to unemployment, and we have no intention of stealing any socialist platform in regard to that method of settlement of the unemployment problem. So I would say that they are not worried in Saskatchewan over the depression. They have had the highest budget expenditure of any time in their history. So, if they would follow suit with the Dominion of Canada and reduce the taxes, certainly all the people of Canada could have the advantage of it.
I have been asked on several occasions by the labouring people in Swift Current-Maple Creek to make a speech on labour. I would very much like to do that because there is sympathy with both the farmers and labour. Everyone wants labour to prosper, and everyone wants the farmers to prosper. I think that labour has some very good representatives here in the House of Commons. They have certainly accomplished their aim in forwarding the objectives of labour. But I am not one who thinks that labour can make agriculture prosperous but I do think that agriculture can make labour prosper. I concentrate on what I think is a fine endeavour to augment, stimulate and advance production to the position where everyone in Canada can enjoy the benefit of it. Agriculture is fundamental and responsible for the welfare of labour. Never have I seen prosperity throughout the land when agriculture was not productive, when it was not in prosperity. Strange to say, farmers often are not in that position; farmers have the ability, capacity and productiveness to make everyone else prosperous except themselves. That seems to be one of the difficulties in connection with agriculture. I am sure the rest of the people of Canada will wish to see that the equilibrium is maintained in regard to farmers and other wage earners or other productivity in the Dominion of Canada.
So we have a budget that reduces the taxes, a budget that is an incentive to employment. We have a budget that leaves something for the little fellow. You cannot add nothing to nothing. You cannot take away nothing from nothing. Some of our critics say that we should have enlarged the exemptions. However, we have now the largest exemptions of any country that I know of. In Canada a single man has a $1,000 exemption, and a married man $2,000. In the

United Kingdom, even under a Labour government, the exemption was $385 for a single man and $660 for a married man. In the U.S.A. the exemption is $600 for a single man and $1,200 for a married man. In Australia the exemption is $224 for a single man, and $448 for a married man. In New Zealand the exemption is $1,013 for a single man, and $1,350 for a married man. Comparing that with Canadian exemptions, we are far above all other countries on an equivalent basis in regard to the exemptions that are allowed. So the little man cannot be entirely exempted from paying taxes-at least he is not in Saskatchewan. I do not know of one single person, no matter how poor, who does not pay equal taxation with the rich in Saskatchewan. I see no exemptions there whatsoever. There are many more exemptions under our dominion government's policy than under any other government that I know of in this country. You cannot, as the socialists say, bring the rich down to the level of the poor. And then no one is in a position to pay taxes. We need to bring the poor up to the rich. That is our objective. We shall never be satisfied until we attain it. Then everybody can pay taxes. Then there will not be any necessity for exemptions that we are talking about today.
A royal commission was advocated in the budget. I think that was one of the most important things that was incorporated in the budget of this year. That is an indication of Canada's thinking with regard to the future: determine our economic responsibility and our economic possibilities for the future. While they are considering those economic possibilities, I think there is a wonderful opportunity for this royal commission to determine the earning power of the different groups, occupations and industries throughout the Dominion of Canada. When we can determine the income and the purchasing power of those different occupations, whatever they may be, across Canada, we shall then be in a position in which we can balance that economy as between one industry and another.
That procedure will eliminate the constant controversy in the different groups and occupations in Canada as to who is having the best standard of living, who is taking more than his share, and the constant agitation with regard to the farming population, and their contention that they are taking what is left and are not receiving their share of the national wealth. The sooner we accomplish that end and get on that basis, I think the sooner we shall be in a position where there will be a more satisfactory economic condition prevailing throughout the Dominion of Canada.
The Budget-Mr. Studer
We have had considerable advice from the opposition groups in connection with what the government should or should not have done. But that advice cannot explain away the fact that this is a good budget. Any budget that reduces taxes is a good budget. As I mentioned before, I think we should continue to have that type of budget so that over a period of years we shall be in a position where more and more benefits will accrue to the people. I have heard no alternative that was of any consequence to what has been done. I have heard no alternative whatsoever except, incidentally-and this is by way of correction-what in some people's opinion should be instituted, but nothing that is permanent or that possibly could be adopted. I have heard nothing that the socialists might advocate that would be of any value, nothing that would indicate that they practise out in Saskatchewan what they preach here in the House of Commons. I have heard nothing from the Social Crediters who seem to be feeling more or less happy these days with regard to what their prospects may be in connection with future government here in Canada, the financial ability of the people and of the services that they may be in a position to offer to the people of Canada.
But before you can offer any social service to the people of Canada, there is one thing that you must do about it. You must vote for it. No one can obtain a social service in this country unless through this parliament we vote for that social service. If we vote against the social service, certainly none will be applicable. I think the Social Credit party is active throughout the whole country in connection with advocating family allowances, leaving people with the impression that Social Credit was possibly the originator of these family allowances and, as they were possibly the originators, they should be entrusted with the responsibility of increasing them. I have been told that even on the telephone poles throughout the province of Quebec there are posters suggesting that the people contact their member to have the family allowance increased or perhaps have the family allowance doubled. But as I mentioned before, you cannot have a social service unless you vote for it. You cannot claim to have had a part in the social service unless you can claim to have voted for it.
On looking at the history of family allowances, I notice that in 1944 it was incorporated in the speech from the throne through this Liberal government. Various subamendments were offered and then the final vote came to accept this speech from the throne
3512	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Studer which had the family allowance incorporated in it. In that speech from the throne were included these words:
The family and the home are the foundation of national life. To aid in ensuring a minimum of well-being to the children of the nation and to help gain for them a closer approach to equality of opportunity in the battle of life, you will be asked to approve a measure making provision for family allowances.
The vote on the motion for an address in reply was taken on February 10, 1944, and was as follows: Yeas, 146, composed of reactionary Liberals and reactionary Conservatives; and nays, 21, representing the progressive vote for humanity at large by the opposition members of the splinter groups.


Charles Edward Johnston: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Irvin William Studer: They voted against the motion for an address in reply to the speech from the throne, in which family allowances were incorporated.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understand that the hon. member for Bow River is rising on a point of order.


Charles Edward Johnston: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I want the hon. member to indicate to this house whether or not, as he has inferred, the Social Credit party voted against that amendment for family allowances. I had occasion today to look up the record because I suspected that this speech was going to be made. However, I did not know by whom or when. Otherwise I would have had the Hansard here. I am saying to the hon- member who has the floor now that he is absolutely wrong- In that debate, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: At this moment the hon. member is going beyond raising a point of order. He is arguing that what the hon. member has just said is not correct. Having asked the hon. member to say whether the party to which the hon. member belongs had voted for or against the amendment in question, he should not go beyond that but should wait for the reply of the hon. member who has the floor.


Mr.   Johnsfon@Bow River: I shall be pleased to do that, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


Irvin William Studer: Page 364 of Hansard of 1944, on the main motion-


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


Irvin William Studer: -in regard to the adoption of the family allowance measure,-


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was no such thing.


Irvin William Studer: -the following names are written, and they are written there in indelible ink. There is nothing that any Social Crediter can do that will erase it. They are written there at page 364. The nays are as follows: Blackmore, Bryce, Burton, Castleden, Cold-well, Dorion, Douglas (Weyburn), Fair, Gillis, Hansell, Hlynka-


Charles Edward Johnston: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Irvin William Studer: -Johnston (Bow River),
Knowles, Kuhl, Maclnnis, Marshall, Nicholson, Noseworthy,-


Charles Edward Johnston: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Irvin William Studer: -and some more, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No more nonsense.


Hugues Lapointe: Do not look hurt.


Mr. Speaker:: At the moment the hon. member was asked a question he had just exhausted his time. Do I take it that the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) will adjourn the debate?


Mr. Robichaud:: Yes.
On motion of Mr. Robichaud the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Tomorrow we shall begin with the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. Then we shall take the resolution with respect to the Yukon Quartz Mining Act; then the estimates of the department of northern affairs; and then those of the departments of post office and justice.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, before this matter is disposed of, may I say that I would have hoped that it might be possible to continue this debate. By everything that I can learn, it would seem to me that this debate would be concluded tomorrow. These interruptions over several days only have the effect of protracting the debate and separating the discussion. At a time when there is so much discussion taking place with regard to the rules and methods of facilitating the business of the house, I would think one of the ways in which that business might best be facilitated is to have debates of this kind continue on, day by day, until they are terminated.


Walter Edward Harris: I agree with all that has been said, but it has been my unhappy lot to find out that hon. members opposite are often just

as inclined to change the debates from time to time as hon. members on this side.


George Alexander Drew: We do not have the choice.


Walter Edward Harris: I have taken all this into account in deciding that it would not likely be possible to complete this debate tomorrow, and that is why I have announced the business in the manner I have.


Mr. Low:: I wonder whether the minister's fears are not rather that there will not be enough here to approve his budget tomorrow if we go on with this debate. My own feeling is that we should continue the debate and
Business of the House finish it. I believe we can finish it tomorrow and that there will be enough members remaining here over the week end for the vote to be taken tomorrow.


Walter Edward Harris: I have not the slightest doubt that if all hon. members voted on the budget according to their real beliefs they would all vote for it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let us take the vote tomorrow and find out.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 6, 1955