1957-04-02

Mr. Speaker:: Our hours of sitting for the balance of the present session have been changed by some special orders, and it might be of assistance to hon. members if I were to recite the new sitting hours established by the special orders that have been adopted and those that have not been changed and still remain in effect according to present standing orders.
Pursuant to standing orders and to special orders made on March 27 and March 30 last, the hours of sitting of the house for the balance of the present session, unless otherwise provided at a later date, will be as follows: Monday, Tuesday and Thursday, 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., 2.30 p.m. to 6 p.m., 8 p.m. to 10 p.m.; Wednesday, 2.30 p.m. to 6 p.m., 8 p.m. to 10 p.m., Friday and Saturday, 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., 2.30 p.m. to 6 p.m. I thought this would help hon. members and others who are interested in our proceedings.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Sixth report of standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Hunter.
Twelfth and thirteenth reports of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.- Mr. Henderson.


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, before motions are proceeded with I should like to raise a question of privilege. I do this because I understand that by the rules the speech which was made yesterday while I was not in the house is now in the position that I cannot reply to it because we have voted on the question which was then before the house.
Hence on a question of privilege I should like to point out that the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. McCullough), when I was out meeting a delegation on potatoes yesterday, made some rather serious charges involving me personally and a livestock breeder in Alberta named P. J. Rock.
The first statement I wish to refer to was that P. J. Rock is "perhaps one of the greatest Liberal supporters in the province of Alberta." When I was first introduced to P. J. Rock- and it is now about 20 years ago, when I was attending the Royal at Toronto-a previous minister of agriculture in the province of Alberta introduced me after saying this: "This gentleman is one of the best livestock breeders in Canada but he is not a supporter of our party". As a result of that introduction I have never discussed politics with P. J. Rock. I have always confined myself to discussing livestock matters and ideas with him; and on each occasion that I have been with him I have been at the Toronto Royal or the Calgary Stampede, and there has always been a sufficient number of people about of all political parties so it was not a very good opportunity to discuss politics.
The other two occasions on which I have met Mr. Rock or have been with him are these. One occasion was when the livestock people asked me to speak at a livestock judging contest which was being held at Mr. Rock's farm about 20 years ago. I have forgotten the exact date, but it was shortly after I became minister. The only other time was in Calgary a year ago at a meeting at the exhibition grounds.
This further statement also comes from his speech made yesterday: Rumours persist that (a) some of these sheep have not been destroyed; (b) substitutions have been made; (c) some sheep were moved from P. J. Rock's flock to a farm in Manitoba. Then the hon. member said: "I am inclined to believe these rumours." Those are not charges against me. They are charges against Mr. Rock. I submit that it would have been more appropriate for him to have made those charges outside of this house rather than under the protection of this house.
The third statement to which I wish to refer is this: "It is now up to the minister to clear the air."
What I wish to suggest is this. I know I must have the unanimous consent of the house in order to have the suggestion agreed to, so with the unanimous consent of the house I suggest that the committee on agriculture and colonization be convened to meet tomorrow, Wednesday, April 3, at eleven o'clock; that the charges contained in the speech of the
2956	HOUSE OF
Committee on Agriculture and Colonization hon. member for Moose Mountain be submitted to the committee for immediate investigation; that the committee have authority to call and subpoena witnesses and produce papers relating to the charges and to meet from time to time even while the house is in session until the committee is prepared to report. I think it is important that this should be done at once. I would suggest that the committee meet tomorrow at eleven o'clock.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to meeting the request for consent that the committee be asked to meet. I wonder if the chief Liberal whip-assuming the committee will meet tomorrow morning-would make a motion to the effect that the name of Mr. Argue be substituted for that of Mr. Johnson (Kindersley) on that committee. I shall be glad to send over the motion in written form.


Mr. W. G. Weir (Portage-Neepawa):: I shall be glad to assent to the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and move that the name of Mr. Argue be substituted for that of Mr. Johnson (Kindersley) on the standing committee on agriculture and colonization.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: am quite prepared to agree with what the Minister of Agriculture has said. I do feel, though, that it would be much preferable to have a special committee of this house set up with powers to call witnesses, be able to examine the place where these sheep were buried and call-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edward George McCullough: -before it all the people connected with this matter, as well as all memoranda and papers in connection with this whole question of compensation paid to Mr. P. J. Rock. I think then, if the terms of reference of such a special committee were made sufficiently broad, we could get to the bottom of this matter. I should like to see the minister support that sort of committee rather than have the witnesses called before the agriculture committee, of which I am a member.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, all that is suggested by the member for Moose Mountain will be possible to be done before this committee. The only difference there can be is in personnel. There will be no limitation on persons who can be called. Anyone whom it is suggested should be called will be subpoenaed and brought here. The officials will produce information at once, immediately the committee meets, in order to answer the


questions which were asked in the speech made yesterday by the hon. member for Moose Mountain.


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Before you pass by motions, it is quite correct that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre indicated his assent to the course that had been outlined by the Minister of Agriculture, but I did not hear you, Mr. Speaker, put the motion. I understood you put the motion moved by the chief government whip, but not the motion that these matters should be referred to the agriculture committee by unanimous consent.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, is there unanimous consent to have the matters mentioned by the minister referred to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization? I have the text of the suggestion here:
That the standing committee on agriculture and colonization be convened to meet tomorrow, Wednesday, April 3, at eleven o'clock a.m., and that the charges contained in the speech of the hon. member for Moose Mountain be submitted to the committee for immediate investigation and that the committee have authority to call and subpoena witnesses and produce papers relating to the charges and to meet from time to time even while the house is in session until the committee is prepared to report.
I think all we need to agree to at the moment is that the charges referred to by the minister, and made in a speech in the house yesterday by the hon. member for Moose Mountain, be referred to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) asked a question of myself and of my colleague the Minister of Labour. The question was:
Are employees of the Department of National Revenue and the unemployment insurance commission paid mileage and living expenses when compelled to be absent from their respective offices on government business? If so, are these extra allowances considered as income for the purpose of taxation?
At that time I undertook to reply without notice, and I misunderstood the reference to allowances. Actually, travel regulations have been laid down by a series of orders in council which provide for the reimbursement of travel expenses incurred on government business by persons employed in the public service. The reimbursement of such expenses is not considered as income for the purpose of taxation.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Without entering in any way into a discussion of the merits of the prosecution against the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation under the Lord's Day Act, will the minister say upon what basis the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation contends that it is not liable to the federal laws of this country?


James Joseph McCann: No, Mr. Speaker, I make no comment on it, except to say that I will bring the matter to the attention of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and give their answer as soon as possible. My job is to communicate for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to parliament.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister whether he agrees with the contention of counsel for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to the effect that the C.B.C. is not liable because it is an agent of the crown. Does he agree with the proposition that the C.B.C. is an agent of the crown?


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, I am not competent to give any kind of opinion or judgment on legal matters.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Revenue. Was he consulted by the chairman or any official of the C.B.C. before the C.B.C. placed before the court the defence that the C.B.C. is an agent of the crown and therefore not liable to the laws of this country unless those laws are specifically made applicable to the crown corporation?


James Joseph McCann: No, there was neither consultation nor questioning by the C.B.C. with reference to the matter.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour. With reference to the recommendation by the deputy minister of welfare for the province of Ontario that an incentive to employ workers over 65 could take the form of a corporation tax exemption in proportion to the number of people
Inquiries of the Ministry employed by a company, will the minister recommend such a measure to his colleagues as a means of helping to solve the problem faced by the rapidly increasing number of our citizens who are over 65 years of age?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I noted with interest the report referred to in the paper this morning. As my hon. friend has indicated it was a report on the part of the deputy minister of welfare to his minister in the provincial government of Ontario. While I welcome any discussion that opens up more opportunities for older workers, I think I should not make any comment on a report that has not yet received the attention of the provincial government.



ESTEVAN, SASK.-INQUIRY AS TO FEDERAL ASSISTANCE POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward George McCullough: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. My question arises out of the statement read in the house by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources on March 26. The Prime Minister will recall it included a statement made by the Minister of Fisheries in connection with the International River Improvements Act, giving the federal government jurisdiction over works constructed on rivers crossing the international boundary and over the flow of water in those rivers crossing the border. The statement further indicated that the federal government would be prepared to assist in the construction of publicly-owned power sites in British Columbia, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
Will the government, on the basis of this statement, assist in the cost of development of the $40 million publicly-owned power site now being undertaken at Estevan in my constituency?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I would not like my answer to imply that I agree with the construction the hon. gentleman places on the statement that is in writing on the records of this house, but I can say to him there has been no suggestion from the authorities of the province of Saskatchewan that they would wish any assistance from the federal government in connection with this Estevan project. But the policy, such as it really is, is available for consideration in connection with any project in any province that would fit the requirement of appearing to be an economical, self-liquidating project.

Inquiries of the Ministry CUSTOMS TARIFF



ALLEGED INABILITY TO IMPORT CERTAIN MEDICINAL MATERIALS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. I am sorry I have not given him notice of my intention to ask it.
Will the minister kindly explain to the house why, under the orders of his department, when Canadian citizens have attended the Hoxsey clinic for cancer at Dallas, Texas, and feel that their lives have been saved, or that there has been a big improvement in their condition, they are not allowed under customs provisions to obtain medicinal material which they are convinced is of benefit to them. It is stopped at the border.


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, I shall take the
hon. member's question as notice.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance if he is yet in a position to answer my question of yesterday as to what items on the order paper have top priority. Perhaps my question was expressed in broader terms. What is the order of priority with respect to the items on the order paper?


Walter Edward Harris: I am not in a position, Mr. Speaker, to give the order of priority, but I do think that by proper rationing of its time the house could wholly dispose of the order paper and do as well some of those things which ought to be done with respect to the estimates.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the Minister of Finance a question supplementary to the question and answer of a few minutes ago. In case the house is not able to deal with everything on the order paper, which is a fair supposition, can he say whether the bill respecting hospital insurance has a reasonably high priority?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the preamble. I think all members of the house genuinely desire to do the public business and clean it up before prorogation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, when does the government intend to call the hospital insurance bill for second reading?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I have always been forthright with my hon. friend and all members opposite in giving them plenty of notice about any particular item so that they will be prepared to discuss it. I intend to follow that practice for the remainder of the session. However, at the moment I propose to go forward with the budgetary resolutions should the budgetary debate be completed tonight.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the government, and I expect it should be directed to the Minister of Finance. While visiting my riding over the week end I received several complaints from grocery merchants asking if there was any information given to manufacturers with respect to the removal of the sales tax on tea and coffee prior to budget night?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, the answer of course is no; but I think in fairness to the manufacturers of tea and coffee I ought to say that they came to Ottawa as part of a delegation six or seven weeks before budget night and presented their request for removal of the sales tax at that time. As is my custom with all delegations I made no statement whatever of my intentions.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: May I address a further question, Mr. Speaker. Would that have any reference to the fact that salesmen were sent out giving a reduction of approximately 1 cent a pound on coffee and tea if merchants would put on a special sale of the product in a particular municipality?


Walter Edward Harris: I have no idea, Mr. Speaker, and I did not know that any such campaign was put on.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I would like to tell the house, then-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: -that hundreds of-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: If you want to talk I will just stand here.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member for Huron realizes that he cannot at this time comment upon the answer that has been given.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Now that there has been an opportunity for the advisory committee on the United Nations emergency force to confer with Mr. Ham-marskjold since his return from his interviews with Nasser in Cairo, can the minister bring the house up to date concerning the functions of that force at the present time?
I ask this particularly because of dispatches this morning from the United Nations in New York which indicate that Mr. Hammarskjold had stated that the United Nations emergency force is now to "assist"-with that word in quotation marks-the Egyptians in the Gaza strip policing. Also, two or three days ago there were dispatches to the effect that the members of the force were now to be considered as guests of Egypt.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the United Nations emergency force is deployed inside the Gaza strip and along the Egyptian side only of the demarcation line. The headquarters of the force remains in Gaza city, and the base for the force is being removed from El Arish, a town in Egyptian territory, to the town of Rafa, which is inside the Gaza strip.
As a result of discussions in Cairo between the Secretary General of the United Nations and General Bums and the government of Egypt, requirements were laid down by General Burns as being necessary for the continued operation of the forces in the Gaza strip and to make its functioning on the demarcation line effective. Those requirements were agreed to by the government of Egypt in so far as the co-operation of that government was required and a statement on this matter was issued yesterday by the secretary general, to which my hon. friend has referred today. The first paragraph of that statement, which is the important one, reads as follows:
The advisory committee-
This statement is a message from the secretary general to the government of Egypt.
The advisory committee notes with appreciation the secretary general's statement on the understanding reached with the government of Egypt
Inquiries of the Ministry concerning the arrangements under which the United Nations emergency force would operate and which are established in accordance with the requirements of the force as presented by the commander. If, in practice, these arrangements were to prove insufficient or unsatisfactory the committee would revert to the issue and consider with the secretary general such further proposals as he might make or wish to make to the government of Egypt in order to provide for satisfactory conditions for the functioning of the force.
Mr. Speaker, it was the unanimous view of the advisory committee that the arrangements made between General Burns and Mr. Ham-marks j old and the authorities in Gaza and in Cairo should be satisfactory for the effective functioning of the force inside the Gaza strip and on the demarcation line.


Howard Charles Green: Is there any arrangement to the effect that joint patrols will be made by members of the United Nations emergency force and of the Egyptian police?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there have been arrangements under which the patrols of the United Nations force and the Palestinian police force inside Gaza would co-operate in the matter of joint patrols.


Howard Charles Green: Well, the Palestinian police force is under Egypt, is it not?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, the Palestinian police force in Gaza, Mr. Speaker, is something apart from the Egyptian police force, although it is, or was before the military intervention last October, under Egyptian control.


Howard Charles Green: Is it not still under Egyptian control?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, of the exact technical position of the force at the present time, but I will be glad to look into it.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport with reference to a Canadian Press dispatch which I sent to his office this morning. Was the plane carrying refugees from Europe and from which passengers had to transfer at Gander certified as meeting the requirements of the air transport board before the flight left Europe, and will all planes carrying refugees in the future be certified as satisfying the requirements of the air transport board before they take off?


An hon. Member:: Where were they going?
2960	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I think there is a misconception in the mind of the hon. member for Broadview as to the circumstances of this case. I would like to thank him for sending me the clipping from the Globe and Mail. However, I would point out that the incident to which he refers is that of a United States aircraft making a flight from Vienna to McGuire air force base in New Jersey, and that is not a flight coming within the jurisdiction of the air transport board or of the Department of Transport itself.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I understood that the plane was actually carrying refugees to Canada, but I would like to ask the minister a supplementary question. Are all planes carrying refugees for Canada certified as meeting the air transport board requirements before they leave Europe?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to refer to the subject of the clipping itself. The clipping makes it perfectly clear that the refugees were bound for the United States and not for Canada, and I would like to emphasize that because of that fact the flight does not in any way come under Canadian regulations or those referring to the air transport board.
So far as planes that are operating in the carrying of passengers to Canada are concerned, I think the hon. gentleman should be aware that a certificate of airworthiness is issued for the aircraft after original inspection, and when the certificate is renewed it is subject to further inspection or at least the log of the aircraft is carefully examined by departmental officials to determine whether the certificate should be renewed. But it is not the practice, and I do not believe it is the international practice, to provide for departmental or official inspection of any aircraft before it makes a flight.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence, or in his absence to his parliamentary assistant, or in his absence to someone on the government side, with regard to a matter which I drew to the minister's attention last night. Has the minister a report for the house concerning the crash of a Mitchell bomber a few weeks ago at the airport at the city of St. James, Manitoba?


Second, as a result of the court of inquiry held with respect to the crash, are any special steps being taken to provide for greater safety for people living near the St. James R.C.A.F. airport?


Walter Edward Harris: My recollection is that the hon. gentleman asked a somewhat similar question of the Minister of National Defence before, and the answer was that the court of inquiry had not at that time completed its investigation. I shall draw the question to the attention of the department to see if we can get an answer by tomorrow.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question. In a press report in the Telegraph-Journal of Saint John, New Brunswick, of Saturday, March 30, the following statement is made:
The Prime Minister has selected the Honourable Mr. Winters as Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island representative in the cabinet to assist the Atlantic provinces economic council in its submission to and requests of the government.
Has the Prime Minister selected anyone to represent the provinces of New Brunswick and Newfoundland respectively in the same capacity?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There has been no selection of anyone to represent any one province. I informed the members of the delegation who called recently that the Minister of Public Works would be glad to act as the liaison to transmit to the departments particularly concerned any of the further representations they might wish to make.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Did that include the four
Atlantic provinces or just Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That was
merely addressed to. the Atlantic provinces economic council.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Then the report is in error.



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question
to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of a Canadian Press report

that the Liberal leader in Nova Scotia is pressing the government of Nova Scotia to agree to the federal government's hospital program, can the minister say whether he has had any word from the government of that province in connection with this matter?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I have
nothing further from the government of Nova Scotia other than what I indicated the other day, but the action taken by the Liberal leader is, of course, the kind of action one would expect.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In' view of the action of the Liberal leader in Nova Scotia as reported by the Canadian Press, can the minister say what is being done by the Liberal leader in the province of Manitoba, who happens for the moment to head the government of that province?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I cannot say what is happening with respect to the Liberal leader in the province of Manitoba, but I can say that the minister of health of that province has been particularly active.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What has been the result
of that activity?


George Harris Hees: I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare arising out of that asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The minister said the minister of health of the province of Manitoba has been particularly active recently. What form has that activity taken?


Mr. Marlin:: My hon. friend obviously was not listening to the question put by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who said the Liberal leader in Nova Scotia had been pressing the government of the province of Nova Scotia in this matter.


George Harris Hees: Is the minister of health of the province of Manitoba urging the premier of Nova Scotia to come into the health plan?


Murdo William Martin: I misunderstood my hon. friend. I thought he was talking about Nova Scotia.


George Harris Hees: Manitoba.


Murdo William Martin: All I can say is that the minister of health of Manitoba was here about ten days ago.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Telling you about his disaster plan?


Murdo William Martin: No, he was telling about the disaster that is going to overcome my hon. friend's party.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Bend is wrong as usual.
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS



REQUEST THAT FUELING AND REPAIRS BE DONE IN CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lamblon Wesl):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. It concerns the fueling and "dieselizing", if I may use that word, taking place at Port Huron of through passenger trains from Chicago to Toronto and from Toronto to Chicago. Why is this work being done in Port Huron instead of in Sarnia or some other Canadian city? Will the minister make an effort to see that it is done either in Sarnia or some other Canadian city instead of in a United States city?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I shall have to read the question in Hansard so I can understand it.



REPORTED INEQUALITIES IN DELIVERY QUOTAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Would the minister comment on the serious inequalities in grain delivery quotas on the prairies, whereby Alberta has 4 or 5-bushel quotas at about three-quarters of the points and Saskatchewan 2 or 3-bushel quotas at a proportionate number of points? Are box cars being made available in such numbers as to equalize the situation?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Of course the reason for the inequality is that during the winter months the port of Vancouver and all other Pacific ports are open and, as far as eastbound shipments are concerned, the ports of Fort William and Port Arthur are closed. After the storage space at Fort William and Port Arthur is filled up, cars of grain eastbound can only be unloaded at the lakehead to the extent of the rail movement east from Port Arthur. The situation on the prairies will equalize itself after navigation opens at the head of the great lakes.



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. J. MacEachen (Inverness-Rich-mond):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is the minister in a position to tell the house when the increased

The Budget-Mr. Rowe payments under the Maritime Freight Rates Act will become applicable to shippers in the maritime area?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, upon the budgetary announcement that further assistance would be given to the maritime area under the Maritime Freight Rates Act the Department of Transport began working out with the railways, the shippers and others concerned a new schedule to be published at an appropriate date, from which time payments would be made. I rather think we will be able to give the date in the course of the next three or four days.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, April 1, 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.
Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, while this budget debate has progressed in a rather chequered way, one day on and one day off, nevertheless we who have observed this house for some time are always satisfied-despite the variety of parties, the differences of opinions and the novel philosophies that are presented from time to time-that we have common and mutual desires and worthy objectives as to what is best for the country, its economic welfare, national security and so on.
On the other hand today I believe-and I think I can observe it-that the people of this country are keenly concerned. They are especially concerned with reference to major problems. They are concerned with reference to the state of agriculture. They are concerned about the tremendous adverse balances of trade and the disproportionate amount of that trade which has been with the commonwealth countries and European countries, about all our trading eggs being in one basket. As well they are concerned about high taxes. Many people are concerned greatly over the ever-increasing interest rates that affect so many persons.
The present budget, however, offers no solution whatever for any of these particular problems. In fact it is barren of any conception that there is in any of these problems any danger to our national economy. The government seem to be so quiet and smug that they cannot be alarmed about anything. It is
[Mr. MacEachen.l
certainly a pre-election document, intended to charm more than to alarm the people of Canada at this particular time.
I realize that there are some minor changes. However, these fundamental issues are quietly disregarded while election sops and hand-outs are more or less noisily paraded at this time. They boldly reduce taxes on pickles, prunes,, pies and mustard for the housewife, but they maintain higher costs than ever; I refer to the mortgage costs of the home owner. They bring in a reduction in the price of bubble gum but they keep the tax on the baby's boots. They do many little things in a small way.
I realize that there is some spirit of generosity in this pre-election budget, because I find that the aged have had their pensions increased sufficiently to buy two extra cups of coffee per day. Some of our children have had their pensions increased by at least a maximum of 4 cents a day. How far this will go for the purposes for which it was intended is hard to say. However, there is one thing that is certain. There never was so little spread so far so close to an election. The real issues concerning the people have been carefully disregarded. Nothing has been done to help solve any of these other problems. For five years this government has been complacent. It has been growing more complacent all the time, a fact which seems in keeping with the situation when a government gets old and tired and has been in office too long. But never before have I known them to so smugly disregard essentials and to play around with so many small issues which they believe will serve a temporary purpose. These other issues are the intelligent concern today of the farmers, the businessmen, the home owners and many others from coast to coast in this dominion.
Today the situation of agriculture in our so-called new society is alarming thousands and thousands of experienced farmers, and is confusing many young farmers throughout Canada as to whether they should carry on. I know the minister tells them all is well. The Minister of Trade and Commerce tells them everything is fine. So far as the government is concerned we have had no leadership in agriculture for the last 20 years. We have had "followership". The minister rises and tells us from time to time that he had a deputation of a few farmers down to see him and they told him what to do. Sometimes he follows their advice and sometimes he does not, but mostly he follows it.
However, I have not heard of any real, concrete assistance to help in any real way.

At times we are told to produce more. At other times we are told to produce less. People are somewhat confused. One year we are told that we have 78 million pounds of butter and that it is not too much of a surplus. The next year we are told that we have 38 million, and that it will be about a reasonable and adequate amount. Hence it is difficult for the farmers to know just which way to move.
I realize that there has been a great deal of controversy with reference to parity prices. Many farmers throughout the dominion feel, and I believe rightly so, that they have not had a proper share of our national income. When you stop to think of it, Mr. Speaker, you will find that in this dominion we have had a great many safeguards for other classes of people. Much of this legislation has been good. We have unemployment insurance, which costs the taxpayers of Canada $60 or $70 million. It has been an excellent thing for those men who have been out of employment. It would have been an excellent thing for those who had been out of employment on other occasions but who did not have it. I am extremely glad that we have it now.
We have minimum wage laws. I do not think there is an hon. member in this house who does not believe that this is sound legislation in keeping with the advancement of our modern society. We have fixed freight rates for the products the farmers haul on the railroads. We have fixed rates for almost every other form of public ownership. I think it is only reasonable that the farmer should feel that he is the forgotten man in this whole shuffle and change in our national society. We are not living in the days in which we were living some years ago. This is a new order, you might call it. It is not the same. The labourer is worthy of his hire. Labour is receiving much more of the national product; and so it goes all the way along the line. We have subsidies for mines which have been to advantage.
However, when the farmer asks for parity he is told by the government that it is not sound. Very little effort has been made to meet his complaints in that regard. I realize that some propositions have been put forward that we believe might be economically unsound. Nevertheless we have had no concrete effort put forward. The farmers of Canada are sorely disappointed. They are disgruntled at the present time; they are dissatisfied, and they are confused as to what is going to become of Canadian agriculture.
I am satisfied, Mr. Speaker, that we must grapple with this situation; that we must have a degree of parity prices that will
The Budget-Mr. Rowe give the farmer a square deal in this new form of what might be termed a subsidized economy.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: Why did you
vote against our amendment, then?


William Earl Rowe: Because it was like many other proposals you have made; it was unsound, and would not solve the problem. I have never been enamoured, confused or surprised by anything that might come from my hon. friend in that regard. I know his intentions are good, but his solutions are often spectacular and novelistic.
I do feel, Mr. Speaker, that we have a very dangerous situation in this country. There is no one who knows anything about agriculture who is not aware that we have had falling prices for the last four or five years. I have been closely associated with agriculture for some time and I can recall, as I think the Minister of Agriculture can, that even in the days when the dollar was worth more than it is today farmers were selling barley for 96 cents a bushel and wheat for $1.20 a bushel before world war I.
It is true that at times those products have sold for less since those early days. I can hear someone say what about the thirties? The Minister of Agriculture will not say that now, because history shows that those conditions resulted from the failure of those who now sit to your right to pay proper attention to the trend of the times.
We had our storage glutted with unsold wheat just as we have at the present time. We had practically lost every vestige of the British market. We have lost that market twice now under the guidance of this same group. They say three times and out, but I believe they will be out the second time. The Minister of Agriculture smiles in satisfaction, believing that they will never be defeated in his time. In all these years we have not had anything in the way of real leadership from the government in meeting this basic problem of the rise and fall in prices.
Then there is the problem of the mechanization of agriculture. When I entered this house we had about 40 per cent of the population engaged in agriculture, whereas today we have about 15 per cent. I know that some of this decrease in the number of people engaged in agriculture is attributable to mechanization, but some of it is attributable to the fact that young men see very little hope in a career in agriculture unless agriculture is given some form of assistance, co-operation, you might say, from the government.
I am not going to pursue that at any length because I know there are other problems that
2964	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Rowe are also very important. Everyone who wants to build a home is interested in the tight money policy of the government. They are trying to impose this tight money policy upon the people. Everybody who pays taxes is equally concerned about the loose money policy of the government. They have taken $400 million more from the people than they said they would take, and they have spent $200 million more than they thought they would spend. Yet they turn around and say, "We will increase the bank rate so the worker cannot build his home and the farmer cannot get a loan to produce more cattle or hogs". One will rise and tell you, almost with the chestiness of an economist, that production will solve inflation. Another will rise and tell you that we cannot lend any money to increase production. One will rise and tell you not to spend any more money, and another will rise and tell you he spent $200 million more than he thought he was going to spend. Mr. Speaker, stop and think what really has happened. No wonder these people are concerned. No wonder the heather is almost on Are.
My friends laugh. These smug, quiet old gentlemen have been in power so long they do not know what is happening. Some of us who have not had as much responsibility in this house as they have had, and who have listened to the rumblings in the mulberry bushes, have heard the farmer talking. We have heard the labour man talking and the businessman. I shall not name the ridings in which I heard these things because I do not want to make the ministers nervous. You hear people say, "I have voted Grit for the last time".
Why is that? It is because the Liberals have been in power so long they have become smug and complacent. They do not know what is happening. This government has raised interest rates six times in 14 months. Why was that done? Was it to stop production, to stop the spending of money? If a shortage of goods is going to increase inflation, then can the Minister of Finance tell me how fewer houses will make houses cheaper? Is it going to make it better for the home owners to increase the interest rates on mortgages? Is it going to make it better to have the governor of the Bank of Canada say that liquid assets must be raised to 15 per cent and that 7 per cent of them must be put in short-term loans? It must be done in a hurry or you are not going to produce much.
It is no wonder that our bank managers are somewhat concerned, as well as our farmers. Our farmers are concerned because they do not know when, if ever, money is


going to come. The bank manager is concerned because he does not know where in the world it is going, and they refuse to let him lend money. The Minister of Finance is concerned because he does not know what the governor of the Bank of Canada is going to say, and the governor of the Bank of Canada is worried because he does not know what the Minister of Finance is going to say. Everybody is worried, yet they have the business of this country by the scruff of the neck. Today no one can build even a garage without finding out what the Minister of Finance and the governor of the Bank of Canada say. It does not matter what credit you have at the bank. By some arrangement they have things tied up so tight there is only half as much money available for loans as there was last year, even if you have credit. In fact if you have,-I would not say the right connection, but if you approach them in a diplomatic way you can do better if you do not have any credit at the bank.
I am just as worried about inflation as anybody else in Canada. I am just as worried as the Minister of Finance is, but I am worried more about his novelistic cure-all than I am about the inflation itself. A farmer may go to a bank and want to borrow money to produce 10,000 pounds more beef. Even if he has the credit he is refused the loan. Is that going to stop inflation?
Make the houses scarce so that the builders will bid against each other; make the beefsteak scarcer so it will cost more. To my mind, Mr. Speaker, it is novel and unsound.
I would suggest to the Minister of Finance and to his governor of the Bank of Canada that they call in some others, some other smart men, some other bank managers, some men who have had as much experience and more than either of them, and sit down as a committee and try to iron out a policy that will elicit the confidence of the business people of this country, the confidence of people who are building houses, the confidence of people who are carrying on construction, the confidence of people who will eventually, if given encouragement, lower rather than increase the prices of houses, lower rather than increase the cost of other products by increased production.
I realize that the government has problems; in fact I realize it more than I imagine they do at any time, because they think as long as they are there there are no problems. In the last seven years they have increased the taxes of this country by 100 per cent. It seems to be the watchword of the Minister of Finance and of the government that if we want prosperity we must tax the people more; if we

want production we must increase the interest rates. It is no wonder it is a brand of economy that many of the leading lights in the financial world are growing concerned about, and especially some bank managers.
We have mentioned on this side of the house on many occasions-it has been brought to the attention of the government time and time again-that we have an adverse balance of trade that threatens the economic independence of this country; that it is growing by leaps and bounds. It is growing steadily every month, but even that does not shake them. They will not listen to the boards of trade, the chambers of commerce, the manufacturers' associations, the farmers, the professors in universities and many people who have given some thought to these problems and who are intelligently concerned about where we are going.
I can well recall, Mr. Speaker, when we had an adverse balance of trade with the United States alone of $300 million in a year. That alarmed those in power at that time. It is $1,400 million now, but that does not even get a serious look from them. In fact the Minister of Trade and Commerce says it is the healthiest thing that has happened in Canada; it is a sign of good economic health, a sign of our abounding prosperity.
It is true that the United States likes this country and we like them. It is true that their investments are a great boon to our prosperity. I know my hon. friends across the way would like to say that this party has been opposed to their investments. Why, Mr. Speaker, it was this party and the policy of this party 75 years ago that started the real investment by the United States of America in Canada, by a sound fiscal policy. But we have never felt, and many more have never felt, that you could continue year after year to buy more and more than you sell and be prosperous, even though your customer is satisfied to lend you $500 million a year to pay for it.
What we bought last year I believe was an all-time high, and we had an adverse balance of trade of $1,298 million on commodity trade alone, or about $1,600 million of an adverse balance on current account. When you get up there, Mr. Speaker, $100 million does not make much difference. A country the size of ours might go broke on an adverse balance of $1,300 million almost as quickly as it might go broke on $1,400 million. It is like the Irishman who said he would rather go broke on $100,000 than $10,000 if he was going to go broke.
The Minister of Finance says it is a better sign of prosperity to have $1 billion against you than to have $500 million. I beg your pardon; the Minister of Finance has never
The Budget-Mr. Rowe been that reckless yet. It was the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I hope they get more cabinet solidarity before the election. I am not going to put the Minister of Finance on the spot.


Walter Edward Harris: You could not.


William Earl Rowe: Because with these high taxes and high interest rates he has enough to worry about, without having the highest adverse balance of trade that we have ever had in our history. But, Mr. Speaker, that did not disturb them last year, and it did not disturb them in January and February of this year that we had a much higher adverse balance of trade in those two months than we had in the first two months of last year. It is up higher than ever before.
There are many people in this country, Mr. Speaker, who are beginning to wonder if it is a safe line of trade policy to buy, as we have, $4,400 million more in the last five years from the United States than we sold to them, even if they are good enough to agree that it is a nice policy and they are good enough to lend us the money to buy the goods. Perhaps this is such a fabulous country that we can stand it. It must be fabulously wealthy and resourceful to stand the management it has had in recent years.
I have had a little experience, Mr. Speaker, and I have watched parties in this parliament; I have watched business people try to make ends meet. I have had some problems in that regard myself on different occasions. I never could find ways and means by which I could steadily buy more than I could sell even if my customer lent me the money to pay for it, or my seller lent me the money to buy it, and be in a sounder economic position.
However, I do believe there is another danger which our people are worried about, bad and all as our adverse balance of trade is, and that is putting all our trade eggs in one basket. We have done that to a greater extent than any other nation in the world has ever done. Today we are trading with the United States of America to a greater extent than ever. It is true they are our friendly allies; it is true there is only an invisible border between us; it is true there are those in Canada who would like to join the United States and Canada. It is true there are those in Canada who would rather be closer to the United States than to the commonwealth. It is true it is a great country, the strongest industrial country in the world, the greatest and strongest ally of the free world. But, Mr. Speaker, is it sound for Canada, even if we are taking advantage of our friendship with the United States, to tie our kite entirely to them?
2966	HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Rowe If prosperity fades there it is bound to fade here; if depression comes there it will come worse here. I do not think it is any sounder, Mr. Speaker, to put all our economic eggs in that basket alone, even though most of them will be there, than it is to listen to the United States of America on international and external affairs. One is just about as unsound as the other.
The only difference is that in economic affairs the United States has always seemed to know where it is going. In external affairs it does not seem to know where it has been or where it is going next. No matter where they lead this government follows them. When they disagree with Britain this government follows them. When they tell Britain to get out the government follows them. When they move in the government is ready to follow them.
In the matter of trade the same old argument is used. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have heard in this house from these same apostles of free trade with the United States the same old argument used by the late leader of their party, "We must not provoke the United States of America." We could raise tariffs-countervailing tariffs, if you will- and we could raise duties, but we must not provoke them. We do not want to provoke the United States but there are one billion four hundred million reasons why we should take a look at what they are doing to us.
Mr. Speaker, I know the United States likes our country. I know it is a natural sequence to their policies and practices to have them invest to the extent they have in Canada. Today the United States has invested $13 billion-$13,000 million-in Canada. They have increased their investment by approximately $10 billion since the war. It is a fact, Mr. Speaker, as you and every hon. member within sound of my voice know, that a great deal of the money that is coming in here is for bonds and loans so we can pay for the adverse balance of trade.
Mr. Speaker, this government-I should say this party, for that is all it will be after the election-must take a look at the course we are following with regard to export and import trade. No matter what party is elected on June 10-and I should not make the announcement, because it is not my prerogative-this country must stop, look and listen as to where we are going in export and import trade. The condition must be equalized whether it is done by way of exchange or otherwise.
I am amazed that the Minister of Trade and Commerce would stand up in this house and tell us that an adverse balance in trade is a healthy sign, and leave the impression

that the more adverse our balance of trade is the healthier is our position, and then go to Minneapolis, Chicago or other places in the United States and tell them it cannot continue if we are to have economic soundness in Canada. That is not blowing hot and cold in the same country; it is only blowing hot in one country and cold in the other.
Mr. Speaker, there is another aspect of this which far transcends sentiment. It is hard, cold and rugged business sense from the standpoint of our economic soundness and international security. I am referring to the need for a different concept from what this government has toward our commonwealth relations. It is not good enough for the Minister of National Health and Welfare or the Prime Minister to chide us who say we should have closer commonwealth relations and say, "We love the motherland, the commonwealth, so much". It is interesting how they emphasize that. Why, they love her so much they do not think it is necessary to talk to her.


Mr. Philpott:: Have you ever heard of Bermuda?


William Earl Rowe: My courtship days are long passed, but if I loved a girl I would at least speak to her occasionally.


Mr. Winters:: There are times when one does not need to speak.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Have you stopped?


William Earl Rowe: We in this party have pleaded for commonwealth conferences. The Prime Minister says it is not necessary that we hold them. We are glad that at least the prime ministers are going to meet, but such a meeting is a far cry from a British commonwealth trade conference. The honeyed words of the Prime Minister and members of the government are fine, but just compare the government's attitude toward trade relationships with the commonwealth with that of Mr. Menzies of Australia. Stop and think of it. It is not a case as some suggest of Canada being tied to the apron strings of the United Kingdom, or as some would say, old Britain. That is not the point.
Just as agriculture today is in a new concept of Canadian society, as I have mentioned, the commonwealth is in a new concept of a society of new nations. It is no longer the old British empire or the old commonwealth we talk about; it is now a society of more or less new and independent nations, but it is based on the friendships and the traditions and the soundest relationship that any group of nations ever had in the world's history. That relationship is interlocked not only in trade matters but in matters of security.

Mr. Speaker, I realize the problem that exists today. I realize that we have a great market in the United States for many of our raw products; but I also realize, and you must too, that that country produces pretty much the same products we produce. If not, why do not these great champion salesmen the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture sell the United States some of our surplus wheat and other surplus agricultural products?
You can tell me there are 10 billion reasons why they have that large surplus. The people of the United States are friends of ours. They speak the same language and produce the same products, but we have never in our history sold the United States as much mixed farm products in one year as we sold to Britain before the Liberal party came into power in 1921, and every dollar of that market was lost before they went out of power in 1930. We regained a great portion of it through British commonwealth conferences and the Liberal government has lost it again.
As Job said, "How long, O Lord, how long." How long can the people of Canada tolerate such a trade policy? That is what is wrong with our agricultural position. I believe through commonwealth trade conferences we could sit down and work out a sound economic commonwealth agreement.
Not only is this possible, but there never was a time when it was more important than now when western Europe is planning a free trade bloc. It is important that we examine our commonwealth relations, whether or not Britain becomes a member of that bloc. We should stop and think of the possibilities provided by close associations. The countries of western Europe have too many people and we have not enough people. Many of their people would be glad to settle here. There is ample opportunity here for many more people.
I believe it is equally important from the standpoint of international security that we examine our trade relationships, because the United Nations is shoved here and there, sometimes by Nasser and sometimes by Khrushchev, people without much similarity of background, traditions and other allegiances. And great as they may be and necessary as we may think they are, there is no secure basis for the united nations of the world other than a closely knit and firm understanding existing among the new society of free independent nations of the commonwealth, for that is what the old commonwealth is becoming. A close association between the countries of western Europe and the newly evolved commonwealth to my mind would mean a great deal. There has never
The Budget-Mr. Brisson been a time, Mr. Speaker, when it was more necessary to have conferences than now. There has never been a time when a government has talked so much about its friendship with the commonwealth and done so little about it, so far as conferences are concerned.
The leader of this party has repeated this, before he became leader and since, and that is one of the reasons the people across this country are today swinging behind the new leader of the Conservative party; also because this government has sat so smugly and complacently and has done nothing on these fundamental issues. He has not been saying it for election purposes. He is not saying it to attract political support; he is saying it from conviction. He has said it for five years in this parliament and on this side of the house.
The government has not, in my opinion, exploited its advantages so far as trade is concerned. I do not think our friendship is so great that we can be smug or that we do not need to talk about these matters; they concern us so much. I do think however, Mr. Speaker, that western Europe and the British commonwealth are important.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry
to interrupt the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe, but I must inform him that his time has expired.
(Translation):


Mr. Lomer Brisson (Saguenay):: Mr. Speaker, I think it can be said that of all Canadian constituencies, mine is the one which, since 1950, has expanded more than any other. To convince the hon. representatives of the Canadian nation, sitting in this house, of the truth of such a statement, I need only mention the gigantic developments of the Iron Ore Company in the area of Seven Islands and Knob Lake, the undertakings of the Quebec Iron and Titanium at Havre St. Pierre, those of the Quebec Hydro on the Bersimis river, those of the Mid-Canada Line in the heart of Ungava, those of the British Aluminum Company at Baie Comeau, those of the Spar Mica at Baie Johan Beetz and those of Aconic Mining at Natashquan.
As a result of these investments of the order of one billion dollars, the industrial production of my riding has now reached almost $200 million. New towns, such as Shefferville and Hauterive, which now have a population of about 3,000 each, have been created. The town of Seven Islands now has a population of 8,000 as compared to 1,200 in 1950. At present, the total population of the constituency of Saguenay exceeds 56,000, double that of ten years ago.

The Budget-Mr. Brisson
It is by no means exaggerated, moreover, to state that during the same period lumbering, power development and mining have provided employment to a large number of outside workers, encouraged and stimulated the economic activity of the south shore of the St. Lawrence, not to mention that of the whole national economy. I might repeat at this point, by the way, what was stated by the chairman of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, the hon. Lionel Chevrier, according to whom the presence of iron ore in the Ungava had been the decisive argument which had promoted the Canadian government to proceed with the opening of the St. Lawrence seaway.
The economic prospects of the constituency of Saguenay seems even more impressive if we take into account its hydroelectric power potential which is of the order of 12 million h.p., its timber reserves which represent close to one fifth of the total forest area of the province of Quebec, the wealth of its mineral resources which have only just begun to be surveyed, the possibilities for further expansion of the industries already operating there and finally the projects of the Cartier Mining Company at Shelter Bay, those of the Canadian Javelin Company at Wabush Lake, those of the Fenimore Company at Ungava Bay, the harnessing of the Hamilton falls by the Brinco Company and the possible extension of the present Seven Islands-Knob Lake railway to Ungava Bay by the Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway Company.
It will therefore be readily understood that the constituency of Saguenay will increase its production and its population fourfold and even fivefold over the next twenty-five years.
Following that statement, I should like to quote a few figures which were submitted to the Gordon commission by the board of trade of Baie Comeau.
In 1957, the production of pulpwood in my constituency will amount to one million cords valued at 25 million dollars; in 1958, it will reach 1,200,000 cords valued at 30 million dollars, and for the year 1981 it is predicted that production will reach two million cords valued at 60 million dollars.
In 1957, production of paper pulp will amount to 110,000 tons valued at 9 million dollars. In 1958, it will reach 125,000 tons valued at 10 million dollars and, for the year 1981, it is estimated that production will reach 250,000 tons valued at 25 million dollars.
The production of paper in 1957 will be
165,000	tons, valued at 21 million dollars; in 1958, it will be 180,000 tons, valued at

23 million dollars and, according to estimates for the year 1981, production will reach
300,000	tons worth 40 million dollars.
As regards iron ore, production in 1957 will amount to 13 million tons, valued at 143 million dollars. In 1958 it will be 2d million tons, valued at 220 million dollars and, in 1981, production will reach 35 million tons valued at 525 million dollars.
In 1958, production of aluminum will amount to 40,000 tons worth 20 million dollars; in 1981, it will be 300,000 tons valued at 180 million dollars.
In 1957, the production of electricity will represent 25,000 horsepower representing a value of 500 million dollars; in 1958, it will reach one million horsepower valued at 20 million dollars and, in 1981, three million horsepower valued at 60 million dollars.
We thus come to a total of $198,500,000 for the production of 1957, $323 million for 1958 and $890 million for 1981. If we add to this a steel plant at Seven Islands in 1981, when we can anticipate an annual production of $200 million, the annual production of Saguenay riding, in 1981, will have reached one billion 90 million dollars. If this figure is compared with the forecasts of the Gordon commission as to Canada's total production in 1981 ($75 billion), we see that Saguenay county alone will account, in 1981, for l/75th of our total national production.
On the basis of those figures, it should fittingly be stated in this house that the present Liberal government has closely co-operated with capital and labour to the unbelievable expansion of my riding. Since 1949, wharves and airports have multiplied and mail delivery has greatly improved. Employment has been more effectively managed by two employment offices.
Bush workers have benefited from unemployment insurance and fishermen will soon do so. For its part, the federal department of National Health and Welfare has distributed health and social security benefits. Moreover, the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has enabled many of my electors to become home owners.
While cordially thanking the various ministers for giving my numerous requests favourable consideration on a great many occasions, I must remind them that my constituents will be expecting more of them over the next few years because I know that the Liberal party will once more obtain an expression of the elector's confidence come voting day.

With a normal population of 60,000 people and a floating population of an additional
50,000	during the winter, the Saguenay cannot get through the four winter months unless it can get at reasonable prices the various commodities it needs. On the other hand the shipping of the raw materials produced in my constituency cannot be interrupted for so long a time.
I hope that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler), following the representations made to him by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Legare) and myself, will not wait too long before providing the south shore of the St. Lawrence with a winter port, because winter ports are not lacking on the north shore. This would make trade between the north and the south shores of the St. Lawrence far easier. As a matter of fact, he would merely have to put an icebreaker in service to keep the river clear of ice all year round.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I must say that I would have liked the house to have an opportunity to discuss the resolution which I had put on the order paper on January the 8th last and according to the terms of which the Canadian National Railways would have been asked by the government to look into the possibility of building a railway line in the Saguenay district between La Malbaie and Seven Islands. May I be allowed, at least, to suggest that the study of this project be made during the next parliament since, in my view, it is essential that the people of the constituency of Saguenay be provided with means of transportation 365 days a year, for freight as well as for passengers.
If we expect the constituency of Saguenay to develop at the expected rate, it is indispensable that the industries already there have advantages similar to those enjoyed by other industries in other parts of this country. The various communities in my constituency need a year round service in order to be able to communicate between themselves.
There are two main problems which I wanted to bring to the attention of the house concerning the future of my constituency. I hope that the Liberal government may bring these projects about in the near future. They are both extremely important to the economy of Canada as a whole.
(Text):


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues who have preceded me have made clear, we of the C.C.F. have no confidence in the government which has brought down the budget now before the house. In our view there are at least two things that budget proposals ought
The Budget-Mr. Knowles to do. They should lay before the house fiscal measures designed to gear our economy to meet the nation's needs and to deal with the economic problems facing us at any given time. In the second place, budget proposals should make adjustments in taxation so as to remove unjust tax burdens from those unable to bear them and impose taxation on those who can afford to pay.
This budget does neither of these things. Therefore we regard it, as my colleague the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Cameron) has already pointed out, as a budget that is politically inept and economically unsound. Because the budget failed to grapple with the problems which are the proper subject matter of a budget we were not surprised that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) went out of bounds and chose in the course of his budget speech to talk about matters which he did not lay before the house in the form of resolutions or notices of motion. I refer to what he had to say regarding the changes that are proposed to be made in seven other statutes, statutes that come under the direction of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) or the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe.)
I think we are all quite clear on this point. The proposed changes in the various pension payments and in veterans benefits are outside the scope of budgetary proposals. They are not before us in the resolutions that will be considered by committee of the whole if the motion we are now debating is carried at a quarter to ten tonight. Nevertheless, because the minister realized the shortcomings of his budget as a budget he tried to cover up those shortcomings by taking unto himself the prerogative of announcing certain changes the government intends to make in seven other statutes now on our statute books. Those seven statutes are the Old Age Security Act, the Old Age Assistance Act, the Family Allowances Act, the Blind Persons Act, the Disabled Persons Act, the Pension Act and the War Veterans Allowance Act.
May I say that we welcome the fact that increases-I will bring in the adjectives later -are to be made in the allowances, benefits and pensions that are paid under the seven statutes to which I have referred. But I want to register very strongly our objection to the course the government has proposed for dealing with these very important statutes. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this group that the whole field of social security and the whole field of what we do for our

The Budget-Mr. Knowles veterans are too important to be dealt with in some makeshift way just on the eve of an election.
These matters call for full and proper consideration of the kind that we have been pleading for since this parliament met following the election in 1953. Everyone knows that the best arrangement that was ever made in the field of social security came as a result of long and hard study given to that matter by a special committee of parliament in 1950. Everyone knows that the best consideration of the welfare of our veterans has come out of committee deliberations by a committee composed of veterans representing all parties in this house.
We greatly regret that the government has seen fit, during the years of this parliament, to do nothing about these matters in the proper way and yet to come along, just on the eve of an election, with some makeshift device-which has not yet reached the floor of the house-to make miserable, miserly increases in the hope that they might have some influence on the electorate on June 10 or whatever the election date may be. We insist that increases there must be. The minister knows that he will have our support in making sure that those increases are brought into effect before this session ends, whenever it ends. But he also knows that he has our condemnation and that of all people who are interested in social security being dealt with on a proper basis for the way in which matters are being handled.
I also want to say something about the amount of the increases which the government has proposed. There are those who may argue that, in the case of the increases under the Pension Act,-the $125 rate that goes up to $150 and the $170 rate that goes up to $200, the one single, the other married-at least those increases are better than the others. But even those increases fall far short of what the Canadian Legion has requested; and it has been our experience across the years that the Legion is quite responsible in the requests that it makes to the government and to parliament. Apart from those increases to which some hon. members of the house like to refer more than to some of the others, may I say that the other increases are an insult to the good name of Canada and an insult to the pensioners and to the recipients who are covered by these various pieces of legislation.
Of course the amount which is best known to us is this $6 figure which was picked out of somebody's hat as an increase in the amount of the payment under the Old Age Security Act, the payment under the old Age Assistance Act, the payment under the Blind Persons Act and the payment under the

Disabled Persons Act. The $40 rate of pensions for people in those categories was arrived at in 1949. I know that the government likes to point out that universal old age pensions began in 1952. The Minister of National Health and Welfare in a speech on March 22 of this year referred to the fact that these other items of legislation came into being in 1952 or later. However, the fact is that $40 as a rate for old people and blind people-the other rates have been assimilated to these pensions-was arrived at in 1949; and any comparisons that are going to be made between what is paid after this session is over and the present figure must be comparisons between 1957 and 1949.
I remind hon. members that in 1949 the gross national product of this country was of the order of $16 billion a year. It is now of the order of $30 billion a year. That figure represents an increase of over 80 per cent. Yet the government asks our older people, our blind people and our disabled people to settle for an increase, in what we pay them out of our great wealth, of only 15 per cent or $6 a month. I say again that this $6 increase is an insult to those who are to receive it. But it is also an insult to the good name of Canada and an insult to the heart of the Canadian people which is essentially sound and wants to do the right thing by our older people, our blind, our disabled and all those who are the recipients of social security in one form or another.
At this point may I say a word with regard to the treatment accorded to one particular group. I refer to the single recipients under the War Veterans Allowance Act, be they veterans who are single or widows of veterans. We resent very deeply the way in which the government-though it has increased by some amount practically all of the other benefits, single or married-has refused to increase the $60 single rate which is paid under the War Veterans Allowance Act.
I know that the ceiling on permissible income has been increased. That is fine, in a sense, for those who are able to earn some other income. It is also a bit of a boon-a $4 boon-to recipients of the war veterans allowance who are over 70 years of age and are drawing old age security. I know also that it is possible for recipients of the war veterans allowance, by submitting themselves to a second means test, to apply for the assistance fund contribution and thereby to increase the total amount that they are receiving. But why should this particular group of people-the single veterans and the widows-under the War Veterans Allowance

Act be treated differently from other recipients of social security and veterans legislation and be put in the category of having to submit to a second means test or get extra money by a roundabout way? Why was it not possible to make an increase in their benefit rate as was done for all the other groups? We deplore most strongly the discriminatory attitude which the government has taken towards the single veteran and the widow under the War Veterans Allowance Act.
One of the answers of the government is that in certain respects it has reached the figures for which the Legion asked sometime ago. That answer does not correspond with the kind of messages we are now receiving from Legion branches. If the government wants to talk of what the Legion is asking for, I might point out that so far as the War Veterans Allowance Act is concerned the Legion has requested that the permissible income ceiling be raised to $1,200 single and $2,000 married. The government is still far short of meeting this very justifiable request.
I come back to the old age pension, the blindness allowance and perhaps one or two other social security benefits and I want to draw attention to what I regard as two of the most despicable tricks that any government has ever played. Out of his largesse, out of the magnanimity of his heart, the Minister of Finance stood up here on March 14 and announced an increase of $6 a month in old age security, old age assistance, the blindness allowance and the allowance for disabled persons, along with other increases.
My, he must have had to sharpen his pencils and work hard to find $6 per month out of our gross national product of $30 billion. But he did not tell us the whole story that night.
The rest of the story was told on March 22, eight days later, by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. We remember that particular speech. The Minister of National Health and Welfare had not given any indication he was going to speak in the budget debate but after my friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) recounted something of the interesting tour the minister had around the world, the minister found it possible to make a speech. In that speech he told us what the new ceilings would be with regard to the Old Age Assistance Act and the Blind Persons Act. I do not think he told us, at least I have not been able to find it anywhere, what the new ceilings would be under the Disabled Persons Act but I presume they will be similar to those under the Old Age Assistance Act.
The Budget-Mr. Knowles


Walter Edward Harris: They will appear in the supplementary estimates that I table, I hope by the end of the week.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Minister of Finance has now told us two things. He has told us we will soon know what the ceilings are and he has told us that this matter will be dealt with by tabling supplementary estimates.
May I make my remarks on the basis of the new ceilings which the Minister of National Health and Welfare announced in his speech on Friday, March 22. He indicated that in the case of a single recipient of old age assistance the amount of the pension goes up by $6 and the amount of the permissible income goes up by $10. In one sense that is fine because it means that the single recipient of old age assistance will get the full $6 increase regardless of any other income he may have. But what did the Minister of National Health and Welfare tell us about the married couple on old age assistance? The Minister of Finance on March 14 gave such a couple $6 per month each, a total of $12. But the Minister of National Health and Welfare says the increase in the ceiling on permissible income for a married couple hoth of whom are on old age assistance will be from $1200 to $1320 per year, an. increase of $120 a year or $10 per month.
Let us carry that through, Mr. Speaker. Here is a married couple now drawing $80' per month under old age assistance because-both of them are between the ages of 65 and' 69. The ceiling on their income is $100 per month. They own their own home which is assessed as being worth $20 per month, so we will say they are at the ceiling of $100 per month. When the new rates come into-effect, will their pension go up from $80 to $92? No, the new ceiling is put at $110 per month so their pension will go up to only $90 per month. Every married couple where both the man and the wife are on old age assistance, in other words between 65 and 69, where they are presently at the ceiling so-far as the means test is concerned, will get an increase of only $10 per month instead of $12 per month. In other words, the Minister of Finance stood up on March 14 and said to married couples on old age assistance,
I am giving you $12 per month. The Minister of National Health and Welfare stood up eight days later and said, I am sorry but this government cannot afford it so we are taking back $2, $1 each. We are putting the married recipients of old age assistance in a special class, if they are at the means test ceiling. They will get, not this magnanimous $6 per month but only $5 per month. How small, how despicable, how mean, how low can a government get?

The Budget-Mr. Knowles
If it is bad, Mr. Speaker, for the government to act in this mariner with respect to two old people on old age assistance I ask you to consider the case of the blind. The government is doing the same thing with respect to the blind where there is a married couple both of whom are receiving the blindness allowance or one receiving the blindness allowance arid the other old age assistance. The Minister of National Health and Welfare made it clear in his speech on March 22 that in the case of a single recipient of blindness allowance the increase in the ceiling is greater than the increase in the allowance. So long as that is the case, each recipient gets the full increase. But in the case of the married couple, both of them blind and both on the blindness allowance, the ceiling is raised by $120 a year, from $1680 to $1800, which is $10 per month. So again, Mr. Speaker, you have this government putting $12 per month, $6 each, into the pockets of our blind people where they are married and both of them on the allowance, but if they are at the present means test ceiling then the government comes to those two blind people who cannot see them doing it, and takes back a dollar each. I say again, seldom has a government in this country stooped so low, seldom has a government in this country done anything so mean, so inhuman, so despicable-


Mr. Cresiohl:: Stop being so melodramatic.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thank my hon. friend for
his interjection'; that is all it is to him, melodrama. That is all it is to him, this inhuman action of this government. He regards it as something that should be praised and supported even when the facts are laid before him, even when the government, which I presume he still supports, pays a $6 increase but says to certain people, particularly blind people who are both on the allowance, "If you have a little bit that gets you up to the means test ceiling, we are sorry but we cannot afford to give $6 per month each; in your case, we will make it only $5 per month each." I say that anybody in this House of Commons who votes confidence in a government that stoops to a trick like that-well, at least he should have his head examined but before long he will have a chance to have his politics examined.
As if this sort of performance is not enough of an insult to our older people, our blind and our disabled, paying them so little in the first place and then putting in these tricks with regard to the means test and taking some of it back, there is something else I think is very unfair, if not deceiving. Perhaps before I go to that, I should say

to the government that one of the reasons I was particularly startled over these means test changes which are so inimical to the welfare of our older people is because they have done it before once or twice. When' it was done some years ago it was suggested to some of us through channels that are sometimes used that it was a mistake. Here it is being done again. I remind those who have been here long enough that in 1943, when Mr. Ilsley first raised the old age pension from $20 to $25 per month, he forgot to change the permissible income ceiling with the result it was reduced from $125 to $65.
The government made the same mistake in 1949 when it increased the pension from $30 to $40 per month. It did nothing about the permissible income ceilings, with the result that the other income that persons could earn was reduced from $20 a month for a single person to $10, and from $30 a month for a married couple to $5 each.
I think I can say, because after one has been around here a number of years one has experience on many committees and meets a lot of people, and even has cups of coffee with Liberals, and so on, that it was realized back in those years that what was done was a mistake; but it is being done again. It is being done again in these proposals which are not before us in this budget but which will be before us by means of the supplementary estimates to which the Minister of Finance made reference a moment ago. It is being done in the proposal that there be permissible income ceilings in some cases, namely in the case of the married recipients of old age assistance, the married recipients of the blindness allowance, and I presume-I have not seen these figures yet-married recipients of the disabled persons allowance. In their cases the permissible income is going up by an amount less thari the increase in the allowance, which has the effect of taking out of the pockets of those people, if they are married, $1 out of the magnanimous $6 which the Minister of Finance offered to these people on the night of his budget speech.
There is another trick that seems to me to make it impossible for any hon. member in this house to vote confidence in this government when this debate ends at a quarter to ten tonight. I suppose it is not too much of a surprise for the government to try to fool the people by talking about these pension increases becoming effective July 1, when it knows that that means July 31, but I do not think it is being completely fair with the Canadian people. Every time a government spokesman, a minister or a backbencher.

talks about these increases he refers to them as becoming effective on July 1. Technically, that is correct, but everyone who has had anything to do with these various benefit programs knows that the cheques are paid at the end of the month. The increase that is technically effective on July 1 will not be received by the recipients until July 31; sometimes the cheque is not received until the next day or two, which will make it August 1 or 2. Therefore the real effective date of these increases is not July 1, three weeks after the election, but July 31 or August 1, seven or eight weeks after the expected election date.
It does seem to us that if the government could not find a way to make pension increases commensurate with the rise in our gross national product, could not find a way to meet the figure which we have proposed, which has been voted down, or some other figure in between the government's $46 and the C.C.F. proposal for $75 a month, at least it could start by paying this miserly $6 increase sooner than July 31, or August 1.
I can tell the government that a good many letters which have come to me since these increases were announced, apart from the other things they say about the increases, do wonder why there cannot be an earlier increase. I wonder whether the Minister of Finance, I wonder whether government members know how many old age pensioners over 70 years of age have died since March 14, since the $6 increase was announced, without receiving it?


James Joseph McCann: Do you think that killed them?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would not be surprised but what some of them might have dropped dead at the heartlessness of the government. I can understand the laughter of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann); $6 a month would not mean anything to him.


Mr. Hodgson:: He is getting a pension now.


Mr. Lapointe:: Silly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hon. members keep throwing in these interjections about melodrama and silliness. They do not realize how serious this problem is to the human beings we are talking about. On March 13, in answer to certain questions of mine, the government gave statistics which showed that in the 12 months of 1956 the number of old age pensioners over 70 who died was over 60,000. Our senior citizens over 70 in Canada pass on at the rate of 5,000 a month. By the law of averages, Mr. Speaker, 2,500 of our senior citizens 70 years of age and over have died since budget night without receiving the $6 increase.
The Budget-Mr. Knowles According to the figures given by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, or by his parliamentary assistant, on March 13, as can be found in Hansard of that date, 22,500 Canadians 70 years of age and over who on budget night learned that there was to be a $6 increase will have died before that increase is put into effect at the end of July or on August 1. I suggest that that kind of trickery, that kind of unfairness with Canada, that kind of unfairness with our senior citizens is such that this government deserves tonight at a quarter to ten the rebuke of the motion that is now before the house being defeated.
We in this party have talked about these things, pensions generally, pensions for our veterans and so on, not because they are part of the budget; they are not; they are not in the budget. The minister said by way of an interruption in my remarks that he would be tabling supplementary estimates later this week and I presume the house will have to find some way of dealing with them before the session ends. We have talked about old age pensions, pensions for the blind, pensions for disabled persons and for our war veterans, because the minister introduced these matters in his budget speech. But, I emphasize, they are not part of his budget. They are not part of what is before us in the motion now before the Chair. If and when some device is found at this session, as I hope it will be, to put these increases through so that they will be effective at the earliest possible date-I think they should be made effective immediately, certainly no later than May 1-the government will have our support; we will vote for the increases. We certainly do not approve of the ceilings in the case of the married persons, and we do not accept the amounts of increases as being adequate.
As a matter of fact, there is something to be said for this matter being dealt with by way of supplementary estimates; for that seems to leave the question of finality open until after the election. Perhaps it is well that it is being done that way, so that after the election we will not be saddled with $6 as the maximum amount of the increase, but so that we will be able to put through parliament a much more substantial increase for all of these groups of our citizens.
I say to the government, I say to parliament as a whole, if after the election is over we are on the other side of the house forming the government of this country there will be substantial increases in all of these pensions. If, perchance when the election is over we do not happen to be on the other side of the house but happen instead to be the official opposition I can tell the government that there will be prodding on these

The Budget-Mr. Huffman matters of the kind that an official opposition ought to give, something a lot stronger than the government has had in the last few years, the kind of prodding that will make action a necessity.
But these questions are not before us today. All that is before us today is a motion for Your Honour to leave the Chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means. If the motion carries and we get into committee of ways and means, with what will we be dealing? With pension increases? No. We will be dealing with budget resolutions and, as we in this group have already pointed out, the budget resolutions do not represent sound or sensible proposals. They do not come to grips with the financial or economic problems of the country. In other words the budget itself is not worth voting for and therefore we ask why should we bother going into committee of ways and means to deal with it at all?
In point of fact all that will be before the house tonight at a quarter to ten when this debate ends is the question as to whether or not this house has confidence in the government. This government has shown that it is inept and utterly unresponsive to the real needs of the human beings who compose this great country. The issue at the end of this debate is clear. Does this house have confidence in the kind of government that we have on the treasury benches at the present time? We say, "no."


Mr. E. B. Huffman (Kent, Onl.):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on this last day of the budget debate to take some time to commend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) on the budget he has brought down and also to point out a few matters that I think should be looked into as time goes on.
The hon. member who has just taken his seat said that tonight at 9.45 this house will be asked to vote confidence in the government as represented by the hon. members sitting on the treasury benches. I am sure that newspapers express very well the ears, eyes and voices of the people of the respective communities they serve. A recent editorial which appeared in my own local newspaper said that the Minister of Finance's budget was a realistic budget having in mind all the phases of the growth and development of this great country of ours, to paraphrase its content.
I also rise at this time because of the remarks that were made last evening by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George

(Mr. Richardson) as they appear at the bottom of the first column of page 2937 of Hansard. He said:
One does not need to be a great student of economic affairs to say that if the farmers of western Canada, the fishermen on both coasts and in the inland waters of Canada, the trappers, those engaged in lumbering, if all these primary producers do not apply their labour to the natural resources of Canada we shall not long have economic well-being. Those of us who live in the city of Montreal just as those who live in the great city of Toronto or the city of Winnipeg . . . are particularly concerned and genuinely interested in those problems which are of immediate concern to miners, fishermen and all others throughout Canada whom we regard as primary producers.
I would like to commend the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George for his reference last evening to the primary producers. I think it reveals an excellent trend when an hon. member representing one of the ridings of the great metropolis of Montreal makes a remark such as was made in the speech to which I have just referred. I think it augurs well for the future of agriculture and the primary producers when the people living in the city are taking note that the primary producers must have a full share in the natural growth of this country and enjoy all the progress that other segments of our population are enjoying. Because of the interest displayed by people in the cities I am sure that this condition will come about.
I would like to make one suggestion, and it is this. Practically every service club throughout this country has what they call a rural-urban night. On these occasions the primary producers such as those referred to by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George sit down with the people who represent business, finance and industry and engage in consultation and discussion of their problems. I suggest that such activities should be encouraged.
I do not know of any better way by which people living in cities can learn of the conditions that prevail among the primary producers and I am sure that with the full understanding that can be gained through associations of that kind the urban people will help the primary producers achieve the goal that is so necessary for the full development of this country and its continued prosperity.
As a farmer in my own right I would like to point out one matter in particular which has affected the income of farmers during the past year. In my own area last year we had a rather backward and wet spring. The summer was far too cool to produce the type of crops that we normally produce in the best manner. At the end of the growing season frost occurred much earlier than usual and the result was that the net return to the producers in my area was much lower than it would have been if we had had normal

weather and a normal growing season. I know from personal experience that many of our people have experienced the same difficulty I did on my own property. Those who have been engaged in farming for many years realize that this is a normal situation which occurs every so often and for that reason they accept it as a matter of consequence and are looking forward to a better season this coming year.
In his opening remarks a brief while ago the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) said something to the effect that this government follows along, is essentially a follower. I do know that this government has followed the recommendations which have been made from time to time by the commodity groups which have come here to make representations. I commend the government for taking the advice of those people who are primarily interested in this type of effort.
Then again the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe said that he was in favour of a degree of parity prices. I think there is quite a difference between what some of the members here feel in regard to parity prices and what was expressed by the provincial minister of agriculture when speaking in London to a group only this past week. The minister had this to say, that he did not believe in parity prices, but following his address he cleared up the point by saying it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to set fair parity prices and he questioned whether they could be established. In this same address the minister of agriculture for Ontario said that the future of farmers is bright, and I quite agree that we have reached the low point as far as agriculture is concerned. I do agree with the minister of agriculture for Ontario and I do agree with the Minister of Agriculture for Canada that these things which we have experienced during this past while are things of the past and that we will enjoy, as the minister of agriculture for Ontario says, a greater share of the natural wealth than we are enjoying at the present time.
One of the things that I would like to mention and which I think can be of particular value, especially in the area from which I come, is this: On the last budget I spoke about the difference in freight rates that apply to United States corn coming into this country, United States soybeans coming into this country and going over Canadian-owned roads and delivered at processing plants in Canada, which, on a mileage rate, is much more favourable to the United States products. Again, and only briefly, I would like to suggest to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) that this problem might be 82715-188J
The Budget-Mr. Huffman referred to the board of transport commissioners to be reviewed and I am sure that something would be done that would be to>
the betterment of the producers of these commodities in the southern tip of Ontario.
Another thing that enters into the picture as far as the prices of these commodities are concerned at the present time is the strong position of the Canadian dollar. There-is a tariff of 8 cents against corn coming into-this country, but on the basis of the present price and the strong position of the Canadian-dollar that tariff is reduced to almost 3 cents in place of the 8 cents that was established. I quite agree that we all take a lot of satisfaction from the fact that our economy is such that it commends itself to the higher dollar value.
I was very pleased the other day when the-Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) made the-statement in the house with regard to the-marketing legislation. The farm organizations from our part of the country and all of Ontario which were here placed a very sound argument before a committee of the cabinet, and by their representations sought to have an amendment made in relation to farm marketing legislation. In our own area I presume that it is more highly organized than any other part of this country because we have so many specialized groups. We feel in our area that it would be impossible to carry on with the farm marketing organizations without the amending legislation that was proposed. I have heard on the floor of this house statements by members of the government commending some of our organizations to other commodity groups because they had been most useful organizations in helping to bring about orderly marketing and good conditions within the groups which they served.
I would like, for a few moments now, to indicate that I feel that the freight rate structure should be carefully analysed and for this reason. Out of every 100 tillable acres across my county, 21 acres are devoted to corn. In one township alone 35 acres out of every 100 tillable acres are devoted to the production of corn. On a survey of the elevators which handled cereal crops in our area in this past year it was found that 55 per cent of the cash realized from the sale of cereal products was realized from the production of corn, and so I think you will see how important it would be to us if the freight rate structure was fully analysed and if it was realistic in relation to other commodities; also that United States corn would not have an advantage on a per mile rate basis.
Before I resume my seat I would just like to refer to the statement that was made

The Budget-Mr. Huffman [DOT] on March 30 by the member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy) who had this to say, in referring to the travel bureau:
I submit that if we cannot do any better than that we should scrap the travel bureau and give [DOT]this money to the provinces in proportion to their ,population.
I would like to commend the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Xesage) for the way in which the travel ibureau has advertised Canada in the United States.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Order. I am sorry I have to interrupt the hon. member for Kent (Ont.) but it is five o'clock and the house should now proceed to the consideration of private and public bills.


An hon. Member:: Carry on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: With the consent of the house the member may continue for a minute.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edward Blake Huffman: Thank you. I would like to commend the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources for the manner in which the bureau has operated. They have put out a very excellent booklet entitled "Vacations Unlimited" and we have attracted many United States visitors to our country. However, only recently an unfortunate statement was made by the first citizen of the province of Ontario when he was speaking in regard to Rondeau provincial park. He said that Detroit residents on vacation had taken the choice building lots at Rondeau park and then denied people access to the beaches.
Well I know this was a statement possibly made in haste and I think it is regretted even at this time. I am sure that we in our district welcome to Canada all those who would come to see the parks that we have. I do not want to discuss the pros and cons in regard to the charging of fees, as this is solely a matter of provincial administration, tout I do say this: we as Canadians welcome .all those who want to visit our parks because they do add to the income of the people of our area and we regard them as very welcome visitors.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Has the hon. member for Kent (Ont.) completed his remarks?


Edward Blake Huffman: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: The hon. member for Kamloops. It being five o'clock, the house will proceed to the consideration of private and public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill No. 283 (letter V-9 of the Senate) intituled:	"An act for the relief of
Margaret Chapman Ramsay".-Mr. Henderson.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Orders Nos. 41 to 76 inclusive, the first group on the order paper, are all divorce bills set down for second reading. Is it agreeable that they be taken in one motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will you please call them one at a time, sir?



MARGARET CHAPMAN RAMSAY

Mr. W. J. Henderson (Kingston) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 283, for the relief of Margaret Chapman Ramsay.


Mr. Claude Ellis (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort (Mr. Bryson):
That Bill No. 283 be not now read a second time, but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the main motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried on division.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.



VICTOIRE BERGERON ROUGEAU

William James Henderson: the second reading of Bill No. 284, for the relief of Victoire Bergeron Rougeau.


Edward George McCullough: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce):
That Bill No. 2S4 be not now read a second time, but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost, shall the main motion carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.



PAUL EMILE DOUCET

William James Henderson: the-second reading of Bill No. 285, for the relief of Paul Emile Doucet.


Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: move, seconded by the hon. member for The Battlefords (Mr. Campbell):
That Bill No. 285 be not now read a second time, but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker,. I rise really to offer an explanation of our position in respect to this bill and as it might apply to other bills. There are a number of divorce bills on the order paper and the time availabe for private members' bills is expiring very rapidly. We feel that perhaps it is not just fair to those people who have paid their money, whose cases have been heard and who have been granted these divorces. There may be some reason why they should not be granted, but it does appear to us that there may be some strategy on the part of some hon. members to hold up these divorces for some other reason.
If the other reason is that the TransMountain Pipe Line bill should not come before the house it would mean that those people who are interested in these divorce cases will have to pay the price for the TransMountain Pipe Line bill not going through. We think that is not fair, and if the pipe line bill is not to go through it could be talked

Private Bills-Divorce
out. We do not believe that these people who have paid their money, and gone through all the divorce proceedings in the other place, should be the victims of that.
We have been voting with our colleagues to our right on these cases as a protest against this particular method of handling divorce bills. We do in this matter appeal now for some fairness. We could abstain from voting; we could go out of the house or we could vote the other way. However, it will take just as much time, so we will not be saving anything even if we did those things. I suppose we will continue to vote as a protest to this method, but I think we should appeal to the judgment of all members now and not have these people the victims of any strategy, if there is any strategy in it.


Leon David Crestohl: I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) for the very fair remarks he has made concerning this matter. Apparently there are some tactics being resorted to, and I should like to question the propriety of any member in the house or any group in the house resorting to these sort of tactics which, in simple language, are a waste of time, a waste of parliament's time, a waste of the country's time and a waste of the country's money. If there is something factual, if there is something realistic, if there is a principle involved, I think hon. members owe it to the house and owe it to the country to say why they resort to these tactics. Apparently there is some reason that these gentlemen will not disclose to the country for resorting to these tactics.
It is unfair to hon. members in the house and if it were possible at all to censure hon. members for resorting to these tactics, certainly such a censure should be imposed. If the house lacks the authority to impose such a censure, the facts should be drawn to the attention of the country so that in due time the country may impose a censure upon any group that resorts to these kind of unfair tactics wasting the country's time and money.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we have just listened to a typical Liberal speech.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: 
Mr. Mcllrailh:: Nobody believes your
reason-


Stanley Howard Knowles: -they want to throw the rule book into the Ottawa river and censure the members who are doing what the rules permit.


George James McIlraith: You are misusing the rules. The inference from the hon. member's remarks was that he did not believe that you were making the motion in this particular case because of the merits of the case but rather for another purpose having to do with another bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is not what the hon. member said, but I may say to him and to the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) and to the hon. lady member who is interrupting and to the rest of the members in this house, that they know that across the years, across many years, going back to a period before most of us were in this house, members in this group and those who preceded us before our party was formed have objected to this way of dealing with divorces.


James Joseph McCann: That is aside from the point now.


George James McIlraith: That is aside from the point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We have tried by every means at our disposal to persuade parliament that it should not be dealing with divorces in this way. I may say that earlier in this session, when we did let some divorce bills go through in batches, we were criticized for having forgotten our fight.


Mr. Richardson:: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? I have not been here very long. Has the hon. member ever proposed

in this house a bill for the establishment of a separate divorce court in Newfoundland and Quebec?


Stanley Howard Knowles: My genial friend from St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Richardson) has not been here very long, but I thought he had read the papers and he would know of some of the things that the premier of his own province does not like. I may say that on several occasions I have proposed a bill to amend the Exchequer Court Act so as to provide for that court to have jurisdiction in matters of divorce with respect to persons who reside in provinces where there are no divorce courts. That bill, when I have presented it to the house, has had in it a clause to make it clear that if divorce jurisdiction were conferred upon the Exchequer Court of Canada it would exercise that jurisdiction only at the city of Ottawa. My hon. friend knows that the Exchequer Court of Canada is a circuit court; it travels throughout the country, but it would be my thought that if we did find some other way of dealing with divorces than by having them heard in parliament we should still respect the desire of the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland not to have anything in the nature of divorce courts in those provinces, or sitting in any way in those provinces. That is the reason why in the bill to which I have referred we had that clause making sure that in dealing with divorce the Exchequer Court of Canada would exercise that jurisdiction only in the city of Ottawa.
I may say to my hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George that the reason I prepared that bill and presented it at a number of sessions, as I have done, is that the present Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), when he was Minister of Justice, directed to me a similar question many years ago when we were protesting parliament's handling of divorce in the way that we are dealing with the one now before us. It was a good question when the Prime Minister asked it a dozen years ago or more. Up to that time all we had done was to protest; we had not made any concrete suggestion as to an alternative. We thereupon produced an alternative and submitted it to parliament a number of times. When it has been submitted parliament has refused to accept it; but at least my hon. friend now knows that, along with our protest against this way of doing things, we have suggested alternatives.
I might also say to my hon. friend the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George that in the committee on procedure that met a couple of years ago we discussed the matter. Some of us tried to suggest ways and means of finding some alternative. My hon. friend
Private Bills-Divorce
knows that not only has the bill to which I referred been presented here, but a similar bill was presented in the other place last session or the session before. In other words, the question of finding an alternative is under serious consideration by those who are interested and that includes those of us who protest against this way of doing things.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we not only protest against parliament handling divorce while at the same time taking the position, as we do, that we should not impose divorce courts in the provinces that do not want them, but we feel that so long as parliament insists on handling divorce, it should do its job.
The hon. member for Cartier said that it is time-wasting. Certainly, the handling of divorce is time-wasting. I do not think the purpose of the election on June 10 is to pick 265 people to join with 102 Senators in handling divorces. I think this is the sort of business that should not be before parliament at all, but while it is here-


Mr. Boisvert:: It is in the constitution.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In the constitution?


Maurice Boisvert: Yes.


Mr. Byrne:: You never heard of that before.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I know the argument about one of the headings under section 91-


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: You are out of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am answering the question asked by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George. The hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska refers to the constitution. I know about the clause respecting marriage and divorce which is one of the headings under section 91 of-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Kootenay East is rising on a point of order.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: In my opinion, the hon. member is entirely out of order in discussing the principle of whether divorces should be handled in this house or not.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Who started it?


Mr. Small:: He was asked a question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think all hon. members would agree that the discussion is out of order on this amendment. I had been hoping that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was going to make some reference to the suggestion which had been made by the hon. member for Macleod and I therefore allowed the matter to continue.


Harold Edward Winch: If it is out of order to challenge the Liberals, why was it raised by two members on the Liberal side without their being called out of order?

Private Bills-Divorce


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Hon. members will agree that three hon. members from different sides of the house have spoken on this matter.


Harold Edward Winch: Why were not the Liberals called to order, if they were out of order?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I will not pursue the matter further. I trust the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George is satisfied that I have given a serious and comprehensive answer to his question.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: Mr. Speaker, if I am out
of order you will tell me so. I have listened to what the hon. member has just said and he has restated his position on this matter. The situation at the moment seems to be that those people domiciled in the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The point of order having been raised, I cannot allow this type of discussion to take place on this type of amendment.
Carter	McCubbin
Cavers	McCulloch (Pictou}
Crestohl	Mcllraith
Dinsdale	Mclvor
Eyre	McMillan
Fairey	Mang
Forgie	Marler
Fraser (Peterborough)	Mitchell (London)
Goode	Mitchell (Sudbury)
Gregg	Monteith
Hanna	Philpott
Hellyer	Proudfoot
Henderson	Richardson
Houck	Robertson
Howe (Wellington-	Rowe
Huron)	Schneider
Huffman	Shipley, Mrs.
Hunter	Stanton
James	Stick
Kirk (Antigonish-	Tucker
Guysborough)	Tustin
Kirk (Shelburne-	Weir
Yarmouth-Clare)	White (Waterloo South)
MacLean	Winters-52.
McCann


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. Is the main motion agreed to?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I say a word?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has spoken on the amendment. Is the committee ready for the question?


Harold Edward Winch: circumstances-	: I believe that		in	the


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: putting the question.		Order. I	am	now


Harold Edward Winch: amendment.	I was	speaking	on	theThe house	divided	on the amendment	
(Mr. Stewart, Winnipeg North) which was negatived on the following division:
Argue
Balcer
Barnett
Blackmore
Bryce
Bryson
Cameron (Nanaimo)
Campbell
Castleden
Ellis
Gagnon
Girard
Hahn
Hansell
Johnston (Bow River) Jones
YEAS Messrs:
Knight
Knowles
Low
McCullough (Moose Mountain) Patterson Perron Poulin Quelch Small
Smith (Battle River-Camrose)
Stewart (Winnipeg North)
Thomas Winch-29.
NAYS Messrs:
Anderson	Batten
Applewhaite	Byrne
Ashbourne	Cameron (High Park)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Carried on division.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.



ANDRE MICHEL ALLARD

William James Henderson: the second reading of Bill No. 286, for the relief of Andre Michel Allard.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. McCulloch (Pictou):: Oh, oh.


Mr. Castleden:: "Oh, oh" what?


Stanley Howard Knowles: We feel with respect to this bill as we did with respect to the other three that have been before the house today-


George James McIlraith: That is that the pipe line bill should not come on.


George Hugh Castleden: You would like a little discussion, would you?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -that it should not be considered by the house in terms of its being approved on second reading until its subject matter has been discussed by a committee of this house. This was part of the answer that I was prepared to give to my friend the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Richardson) when we were on a previous bill but I was prevented from doing so because I yielded to him and lost my right to speak again.
I say to him now what we have tried to say to the house with respect to a great many bills this session, that we do not think

the house should be asked to give the approval that is involved in second reading until a committee has studied these bills. It is obvious from the way the votes have been going today that the house as a whole does not share that position and therefore we shall not move the same amendment to this bill.
I say to my friend the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) that we have always recognized the point that he made, namely that these people who come to parliament under our present practices have a right to have their petitions and their bills considered, whatever may be the outcome of that consideration. So far as we are concerned, whatever may be our attitude to any other piece of legislation that is on the order paper, we shall do what we can to see to it that before this session ends all of the divorce bills on the order paper are given consideration by the house. There are one or two which we feel should not be allowed to pass and we will single them out when the time comes.
Perhaps at this point, Mr. Speaker, I might indicate to you and to the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Henderson) who is sponsoring these bills that after Bill No. 286 which is order No. 44 has been disposed of we would be willing for a number of bills to be taken in one motion, being orders Nos. 45 to 88, both inclusive. Now Your Honour recognizes a slight problem there because order No. 77 is different from the others in that it is an order for resuming an adjourned debate. I leave that problem in your hands.
Also, if the house were to give unanimous consent, we would be willing to give second reading in one motion to orders Nos. 101 to 122, both inclusive. I trust I have made it clear as to which bills we are prepared to give consent in one motion. There are others in the excluded numbers which we wish to raise later on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Shall the motion carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Carried on division.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Items 45 to 76 are
divorce bills. Is it unanimously agreed that these should be entertained in the one motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is moved by Mr. Henderson and seconded by Mr. Weir that 82715-189
Private Bills-Divorce
these bills now be read a second time. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Carried on division.



SECOND READINGS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 287, for the relief of Tekla Stefura Lawrentowcyz, otherwise known as Tillie Stefura Lorentowich.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 288, for the relief of Joseph Fernand Gerard Mallette.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 289, for the relief of Mary Helen Joyce Lamberg Elfstrom.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 290, for the relief of Joan Gertrude Mitchell Sams.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 291, for the relief of Eileen Madeleine Conroy Wettlaufer Sobie.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 292, for the relief of Esther Kahn Colomay.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 293, for the relief of Doris Jean Lussier Strike.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 294, for the relief of Mary Freeman Kurtaz, otherwise known as Mary Freeman Curtis.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 295, for the relief of Gilbert Jacques Lafontaine.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 296, for the relief of Shirley Chernofsky Rynd.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 297, for the relief of Roy Porter.- Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 298, for the relief of Miloslawa Zaleska Boski.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 299, for the relief of Marie Marcelle Therese Dagenais Chesnel.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 300, for the relief of Marie Louise Armand Josephine Wouters Haire.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 301, for the relief of Robert Car-ruthers Burnside.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 302, for the relief of Leon Gass Estabrooks.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 303, for the relief of Irene Myra Cohen Auerback.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 304, for the relief of Brenda Iris Gibson Dunbrack.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 305, for the relief of Geraldine Lenore Dowd Costigan.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 306, for the relief of Eugenia Lion-tos Anderson.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 307, for the relief of Molly Leibo-vitch Beane.-Mr. Henderson.
[Stage Direction]
Private Bills-Divorce
Bill No. 308, for the relief of Doris Katz Moscovitch.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 309, for the relief of Jean Denis.- Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 310, for the relief of Grayce Marion Mack Campbell.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 311, for the relief of Genowefa Tkaczyk Janeczek.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 312, for the relief of Marion Stewart Whitehouse McCormick.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 313, for the relief of Shirley Jean Weir Villeneuve-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 314, for the relief of Herbert Marshall Connell.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 315, for the relief of Earl Morrison. -Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 316, for the relief of Joseph Roger Fernand Masse.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 317, for the relief of Anita Bernice Rosnick Joseph.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 318, for the relief of Harry Nut-brown.-Mr. Henderson.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, March 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Henderson for the second reading of Bill No. 247, for the relief of Pauline Margaret Patricia Sylvester McLean.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this is one of the bills to which the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. McCullough) was speaking the last time it was before the house. We indicated our objections to it at that time but we are prepared to state those objections by saying "on division" at the appropriate moment.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Carried on division.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Items Nos. 78 to 88 inclusive being divorce bills, is it agreed that these items be considered in the one motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



SECOND READINGS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 321, for the relief of Jack Stevenson Chalmers.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 322, for the relief of Jeanette Goldman Baskin.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 323, for the relief of Henry John Bushby.-Mr. Henderson.

Bill No. 324, for the relief of Yvette Roby Pinard, otherwise known as Yvette Roby Beauchemin.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill	No.	325,	for	the	relief	of	Marion
Augusta Butler Thomas.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 326, for the relief of Frederick William Cummings.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 327, for the relief of Lucy Lavinia Munford Macdonald.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 328, for the relief of Dorothy Eileen Worsdell Cantlie.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill	No.	329,	for	the	relief	of	Aurora
Josephine Moretti Guimond.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill	No.	330,	for	the	relief	of	Samuel
Goulding.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 331, for the relief of Elizabeth Harris Bobula.-Mr. Henderson.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: These bills are referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private	bills. Is it unanimously
agreed that items 89 to 100 inclusive shall stand until items 101 to 122 have been disposed of?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Items Nos. 101 to 122,
both inclusive on today's order paper, being divorce bills, is it agreed that these bills be considered in the one motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



SECOND READINGS-SENATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 361, for the relief of Jacques Petel.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 362, for the relief of Cairlan Lawrence Earl Gagnon.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 363, for the relief of Julio Donato Cianci.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 364, for the relief of Mimi Frances Aberback Sherback.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 365, for the relief of Alphonsine Alain Lachance.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 366, for the relief of Mary Patricia Pierrette Brisebois McGuire.-Mr.Henderson.
Bill No. 367, for the relief of Marjorie Alice Ridout Collett-White.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 368, for the relief of Mary Elizabeth Catherine Russell Morgan.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 369, for the relief of Anne Glass-berg Craft.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 370, for the relief of Joseph Napoleon Hyacinthe Romeo Cote.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 371, for the relief of Agathe Rose Alma Bison Taillefer.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 372, for the relief of Nick John Oncescu.-Mr. Henderson.
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 373, for the relief of Richard Supple.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 374, for the relief of Joan Dorothy Beaver Mavor.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill	No.	375,	for	the	relief	of	Barbara
Bennett Roach.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 376, for the relief of William George Walker.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 377, for the relief of Mary Ghetler Feldman.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 378, for the relief of Joseph Bernard Guy Locas.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill	No	379,	for	the	relief	of	Andreas
Erdelyi.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No 380, for the relief of Theresa Alice Cain Martin.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill	No	381,	for	the	relief	of	Millicent
Felicite Dawson Stairs.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No 382, for the relief of Philippa Hazel Martin Foster Hill.-Mr. Henderson.

William James Henderson: the second reading of Bill No. 332, for the relief of Georges-Etienne Cartier.
Mr.	Stanley	Knowles	(Winnipeg North
Centre): Mr. Speaker, before this bill with the rather historical name is dealt with I should indicate that it is, one that we feel should not be passed. As a matter of fact this application for divorce by Mr. Cartier is the second application he has made to parliament. In a former session, I believe two years ago, there was a bill before parliament for this same divorce. At that time we were able to persuade the members of the house that it was not an appropriate case and the divorce did not go through at that time. Hon. members will recall there have been some bills on which this has happened. I would point out that this case was not re-heard by the other house. Rather, their honours have simply taken the evidence that was submitted two years ago and on the basis of that evidence two years ago this house was not satisfied. I feel, therefore, that whatever the house may feel about the divorce business generally, this one should not go through.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson):
That Bill No. 332 be not now read a second time, but that it be read a second time this day six months hence.


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is moved by Mr. Knowles and seconded by Mr. Nicholson that Bill No. 332 be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence.


An hon. Member:: After six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
82715-189J
2, 1957	2933
The Budget-Mr. Fulton AFTER RECESS
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed 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.
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, because of the relatively limited opportunity at this session to discuss matters of urgent importance to one's own constituency which, while particular, are but symptoms of situations that have larger implications, I should like to follow a course this evening which I have not usually followed on the budget debate, and bring to the attention of the government and the house certain difficulties in my own constituency rather than to devote the whole of my remarks to the budget itself. I should like to refer particularly to the situation confronting our cattle growers with respect to the difficulty in obtaining supplies of feed grains at reasonable prices; and to the problems of Columbia river power development.
But before doing so I should like to say a word or two in general about' the budget. A number of attempts have been made both in the house and outside to give a name to this budget. I recall it being defined as "the bubble gum budget" or "the sugar candy budget", and other uncomplimentary terms have been used with respect to the efforts of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris). But I would rather approach the budget on a different basis. I prefer rather to define it in terms of what it does and what it does not do and also to give credit to the Minister of Finance where credit is due for the efforts he has made and to suggest blame where blame is attachable and offer some particular criticisms.
Approaching the budget on that basis, I would say that the minister seems to have taken to heart some of the lectures which he has been given in the press of Canada, mainly in the press friendly to the government. I think particularly of such journals as the Winnipeg Free Press and also articles written by another journalist friend of the government, Mr. Bruce Hutchison, where the minister has been warned that if he is to retain the respect of the Liberal party, as interpreted and defined by the Free Press and Mr. Hutchison he must be consistent.

The Budget-Mr. Fulton He has been told that, having sounded warnings as he has of the dangerous implications *of the present economic situation and having sounded the praises as he has of the policy of high taxes and surpluses, he should stick to those policies.
I give the minister credit generally speaking, for having been consistent in the budget that he presented to the house some two or three weeks ago. He did indeed try to be consistent with those policies which he has advocated and followed over the past few years.
For instance, as a result of the minister's policies we have had very high taxes. He obviously felt that it was the part of consistency to keep taxes high. He certainly succeeded. He has kept taxes at record high levels. Again over the past years the minister followed a policy which did not allow him to permit the average Canadian to keep for himself, after he had paid his taxes, any surplus of his own earnings for his own requirements. The minister seemed determined to continue to disallow Canadians from keeping their own earnings, and in this respect he has succeeded in being consistent.
Indeed, the minister has succeeded admirably in maintaining a consistent policy of applying the screws to the average Canadian taxpayer so that after the end of the year when he has met his own day to day living requirements and paid his taxes he has virtually nothing left over.
Along with high taxation, the minister has also followed a policy in past years of the accumulation of substantial surpluses, apparently based upon the belief-we have to recognize the belief and, as I say, give credit for consistency where consistency is shown-that spending of the people's money by the government is better than spending of the people's money by the people themselves and that, somehow, record high levels of government expenditure are less inflationary, although generally speaking nonproductive, than it would be to allow the people to keep their own money for their own purposes, to save for their own future and invest in the development of Canada. So the minister has ended the fiscal years, with one notable exception, with substantial surpluses, and he has certainly been consistent this year and has forecast an equally consistent program for next year.
Indeed, in the analysis of the budget as a whole we must, while giving credit for consistency, suggest that the minister is open to the criticism that he has given no recognition in this year's budget, more than he has in the past, to the problem of the average Canadian who would like, and who, IMr. Fulton.]

indeed, we on this side believe is entitled, to end up the year with some savings, some surplus himself. You see, Mr. Speaker, attention has been focused to such an extent upon the surplus accumulated by the government that we have been inclined to forget the right of the Canadian taxpayer to end up the year with his own surplus. As a result he has been placed in a position where it is absolutely impossible for him to do so.
There have been a number of justifications advanced as to why the tax rate should be kept high and why surpluses should be confined to governments rather than to taxpayers. We are told that high taxes and budgetary surpluses are anti-inflationary. We are also told that there are a number of other justifications for high taxes such as that they are a method of redistributing income and wealth. It is interesting to analyse these justifications briefly. There was an old and, I have always felt, healthy doctrine, that taxes were only justified to the extent that they enabled government to meet its actual financial commitments, that they were a painful necessity but that government was entitled to take from the people through taxes what it required to meet its actual financial commitments.
But now there are these interesting new justifications for high taxes-that they are anti-inflationary or that they are a method of redistributing income. Well, it is interesting to recall that in the majority of years since the end of the war we have had high taxes, and substantial surpluses: but we still have mounting inflation, we still have some very rich people and we still have some very poor people. Indeed, I suggest that we have a new group of poor people, namely the tax-poor. There is an increasing number of Canadians who end up the year on April 30-having met their own increasing living costs and having paid their taxes- with absolutely nothing left over with which to meet any emergency. Confronted with the emergency of unexpected sickness, accident or any other sort of emergency, they have nothing left with which to meet it and they are driven into the hands of the finance companies. It is interesting to reflect upon the growth of the finance companies in Canada over the recent years. I was in a small, average Canadian city the other day and I was told that whereas about four or five years ago that city had one finance company, it now has nine.
What about the Canadian who wants to save for his own future or to invest in the future development of Canada? What opportunity has he at the end of the fiscal year when the government has collected from him

the taxes with which it accumulates its own surplus? What surplus is left to the average Canadian to invest in the development of Canada? There is none because of the government's policy that it and it alone is entitled to accumulate surpluses.
The minister has accumulated a surplus of $400 million or more this year in spite of the various efforts he has made to hide it. He has a surplus that would have meant $100 to the average Canadian family with which to save or to invest, or five cents an hour in take-home pay to the average Canadian wage earner that he might have had at the end of the year to save or to invest or to meet emergencies with which he might be confronted.
In respect of all this we must admit that the minister has been consistent and that he has not changed his policy. We must admit that with the limits he allowed himself for tax relief, he recognized that he had only very limited fields in which to give concessions. I said I would give credit where credit is due. I must give the minister credit for the fact that, within the limits thus allowed to him, he has spread his concessions with what I must call a blatant cynicism. I recall what happened in the course of delivering his budget, while he was doing his best to spread the concessions with a thin smear, as I might call it, over as many as he might be able to reach. After having announced some three, four or five of these trifling concessions, when he came to the next one he was greeted with laughter; and the minister just simply could not refrain from laughing himself because he knew just how cynical was his whole approach.


Walter Edward Harris: Which one?


Edmund Davie Fulton: He laughed at his own budget.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He is laughing now.


Edmund Davie Fulton: As to those concessions that were given, it is obvious that they were given with one object in view and that was, as I have said, to touch lightly as many Canadians as possible. They were given on a most unscientific basis. It seemed to me that the approach of the minister was that having taken his hands out of as few as possible of the taxpayers' pockets, he was going to put his hand back into as many pockets as possible in terms of concessions. The result was that with few exceptions the concessions mean virtually nothing. Particularly they mean nothing to those who really needed them.
In no field is this fact more conspicuous than in the field of old age pensions. On all sides of the house since the budget speech was
The Budget-Mr. Fulton delivered we have had occasion to realize the bitter disappointment felt by the old age-pensioners. Of some particular significance-is it to find that absolutely without exception the social welfare agencies which are interested in this problem, not from the point of view of votes but because they know the real need on the part of many old age pensioners, were bitterly disappointed by the minister's approach to the problem of increases in old age pensions. I would suggest that there is no greater proof of the cynicism with which this problem has been approached' than the fact that the increases have been delayed until July 1.


Stanley Howard Knowles: July 31.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am corrected by my friendl the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who tells me it is July 31-


Walter Edward Harris: You had better be careful and not take his word for everything.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Whether it be July 1 or July 31, the fact is that the budget was announced in March. There is no administrative problem here of any insuperable nature which would have made it impossible to give the increase by May 1 at the latest, if not April 1. There is only one reason that I can suggest or indeed that anyone can possibly see for the increases having been delayed as they are. That reason is that there is to be an election between now and the date when the increases become effective. We have seen it in the approach which the party of my hon. friends opposite are making to the people now. They are going to try to tell them this: Unless you vote Liberal in the election, you will not get your old age pension increase.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Small stuff.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What other possible reason-can there have been for delaying the increase until after the date of the election? If one of my hon. friends opposite who are now growling and grumbling can give me a good reason, I should be glad to hear it. But there is not one who can give a good reason because there is no good reason for that delay beyond the explanation that I have suggested. I therefore submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that in summary this budget can be described as one of the most cynical approaches that we have yet seen in this house to the two problems of relief to Canadian taxpayers and assistance to Canadians who are genuinely in need of social security benefits.

The Budget-Mr. Fulton
I should now like to turn to the two specific problems which I mentioned at the beginning. Perhaps I should deal first with the question of power development in British Columbia. This matter is not unrelated to the budget, Mr. Speaker, because you will recall that in his budget speech the minister reversed the previous trend of government policy and said that the federal government Is now prepared to offer assistance to provinces with respect to the development of power projects where they were satisfied that the development is justifiable. This represents a complete reversal of government policy; and that reversal, I suggest, is dictated by the approach of the election.
Although we in this house, confronted with the rigors and unpleasantness of election campaigns, sometimes dread an election, nevertheless it is interesting to contemplate the number of benefits-even though sometimes restricted-the elections actually bring. Sometimes I think it might be a healthy thing if elections were held more often because they sometimes produce refreshing changes in government policy, and projects which have been refused consistently in years between elections, suddenly assume an attractiveness in the eyes of the government and bring forth promises of assistance on the eve of an election.
In no respect is this trend more significant than in connection with this matter of power development. Here I should say that I am going to deal specifically with the problem of the Columbia river in British Columbia. You will recall that on Monday of last week, the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) made an announcement in British Columbia. Incidentally, I should point out and emphasize that it was not made in this house although this house has shown continuing interest in the problem and is entitled to be informed as soon as is anybody else. But the minister made the announcement in Vancouver in the course of an election or pre-election visit. He announced that the federal government is now prepared to assist the province of British Columbia with respect to the development of power on the Columbia river. Here are the words of the Minister of Fisheries as restated by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage) on March 26, 1957 at page 2684 of Hansard:
If, after international agreement has been reached, the provincial government should decide on public development of this great power potential and need assistance in financing, the federal government will 'be prepared to assist in the same way that it has joined with the government of Ontario-
This represents a complete reversal of government policy. May I say, of course,

immediately, that that announcement is welcomed particularly by every member from British Columbia, as I know it will be by every member in the house and by each province. But it does represent a complete reversal of government policy, and it is interesting to note the timing of the announcement.
Last year, as we have every year over the past four or five years, the official opposition introduced an amendment having to do with the development of natural resources in Canada. We introduced a similar amendment this year. I shall analyse the record of the government in connection with that amendment in a moment. But in addition to the general amendment on national development, last year we introduced a specific amendment having to do with the development of power resources in these terms, as found at page 1346 of Hansard for February 20, 1956:
In the opinion of this house consideration should be given to a joint investment program for the development of power resources in any province where the government of such province requests the co-operation of the Canadian government in carrying out such development.
This amendment was introduced by Mr. Drew, then leader of the opposition. It was supported by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), as he then was, now Leader of the Opposition. In the course of their speeches specific reference was made to the possibility of a joint development program on the Columbia river. It is interesting to note, that on February 21 the government as a whole, including significantly the Minister of Fisheries, voted against that motion. They voted against a motion calling upon the government to enter into a joint investment program for the development of power resources in any province where the government of such province requests the cooperation of the Canadian government in carrying out such developments.
This year, on February 11, the Leader of the Opposition introduced a general resolution regarding a national development policy. In the course of his speech, he made the following remarks, as reported at page 1159 of Hansard for that date, and I might emphasize that he was speaking in support of the resolution on national development when he stated specifically:
We believe that there should be formulated a federal power policy in voluntary co-operation with such provinces as desire it in order to assure a continuing expansion of low-cost energy in Canada. Such a policy would help create, if asked for by the province of British Columbia, a huge industrial empire there-
It is interesting to note that on February 11 of this year every member of the government present in the house voted against that

motion, a motion which called upon the government to assist, if asked by the province of British Columbia, in the development of power projects in that province. This, then, is the record up until February 11 of this year of the government who, by its spokesman the Minister of Fisheries, announced in Vancouver on March 25 that the federal government is now prepared to assist if the provincial government should decide on public development and need assistance in financing. It is an interesting reversal of policy, and the timing is particularly interesting and significant. It is amazing what a change of heart the imminence of an election can bring about upon the part of this government.
As I have said, we welcome the change of heart. But I believe it is not too much to suggest or to ask the Canadian people when they are assessing this whole situation that they conclude for themselves from which government they are most likely to get real assistance and progress in these matters. Is it likely to come from the government which has had a change of heart only on the eve of an election and makes its pronouncement in the course of an election campaign and which, of course, has shown a remarkable but unfortunate readiness to forget about its election promises once an election is over? On the other hand, would they expect greater chances of a real implementation of the policy from a party which believes in that policy and which has had a national development policy as the very core of its program ever since the party came into existence, and which has stuck to that policy and implemented it whenever given the opportunity to do so? I do not think the people of my province will be deluded by this change of heart on the part of this government into believing they are going to get any more from these promises than they have been able to get from this government in the years gone by.
There is one most unfortunate matter that must be mentioned in this connection and that is the utterly irresponsible attitude of the Minister of Fisheries with regard to the proposed diversion of part of the Columbia river waters into the Fraser river system. As I pointed out the other day, there are at the present time delicate and important negotiations going on between the government of Canada and the government of the United States with respect to downstream benefits, which could mean a return to Canada for the development of power on the United States side of the boundary made possible by storage development on the Canadian side of the boundary in the Columbia river. It will be recalled by the house, as a result of previous discussions of this matter, that there
The Budget-Mr. Fulton is also the most interesting and fascinating possibility that at one and the same site, Mica creek on the Columbia river, we can develop enormous power potential and also enormous storage potential, and that the release of these stored waters would of course benefit power installations already completed on the United States side of the boundary as well as our own. What we are now negotiating under the terms of the international boundary waters treaty, is what returns should be given to Canada for the increased power development made possible on the United States side as a result of the Canadian storage of water.
We are, of course, in an infinitely superior bargaining position with respect to these negotiations, if we can say, as General McNaughton has put us in the position of saying, that unless the Americans are willing to agree to a satisfactory return to Canada in return for the downstream benefits which they receive we shall exercise our right to divert those storage waters through the diversion of the Columbia into the Fraser river system and thus generate further power in Canada on the Fraser river system. The possibility of the Columbia diversion into the Fraser is an enormously important matter to British Columbia particularly, and to Canada, with respect to the negotiations about to begin with the United States government on this whole question of downstream benefits on the Columbia river.
What do we find? We find that the Minister of Fisheries is busy doing his best to throw away this lever which Canada has with respect to those negotiations, because even before the detailed negotiations commence he has publicly stated in Vancouver that he is opposed to the Columbia diversion. He talks about it in terms of relieving the threat to the Fraser river fisheries, saving the Fraser river fisheries from the threat of power development. These words refer specifically to the Columbia river diversion. So you have a position where the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources is entering into negotiation with the United States, in the course of which he would have a tremendous lever, if the Canadian government would preserve that lever with respect to the possible Columbia diversion. You have that minister on the one hand, but on the other you have the Minister of Fisheries from British Columbia doing all he can to prejudice the success of those negotiations with respect to one of the biggest bargaining weapons that we have. That, sir, is irresponsibility in the extreme.
I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) about it the other day; I asked him what remained of the principle of cabinet solidarity in this respect, and you recall what the reply of the right hon. gentleman was. He
2988	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Fulton said, "I think this debate has gone on long enough". That, of course, is the kind of answer that we get from this government because, as we have seen so clearly in the course of past debates in this house and developments in that connection-the pipe line debate, I think of particularly-this government does not believe in any of the principles that we used to regard as the principles governing the course of democratic government in Canada. It no longer believes in the principle of the supremacy of parliament, and it obviously does not subscribe to the principle of cabinet solidarity. This is not just an academic question; this is a question of Canada's vital interests which are being prejudiced by the irresponsibility of the present government.
I would like now to refer briefly to the other problem that confronts my province and particularly the cattle growers in my constituency, namely the problem of obtain-ning a supply of feed grain at reasonable prices. I am glad to see the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) here because I want to place it before him and his colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). We have discussed it briefly in previous exchanges in this house, and the right hon. gentlemen and I have had correspondence about the matter. I regret that to date we do not seem to have been able to arrive at any sort of satisfactory solution, and perhaps it would be fair to state we have not even yet achieved a reasonable meeting of minds.
I appreciate the fact that the government is committed to-and indeed we have supported-the principle of the wheat board method of marketing grain. In my discussion with the British Columbia beef cattle growers association and the British Columbia livestock producers co-operative association they have made it clear to me, and I state it unequivocally here, that they are anxious not to do anything which would jeopardize the wheat board system of marketing grain. But there is a legitimate interest on the part of our beef producers in British Columbia, approximately 85 per cent to 90 per cent of whom are represented by the association I have mentioned. They have a legitimate interest in obtaining adequate supplies of feed grain at reasonable prices, and particularly in obtaining feed grains at prices comparable with the prices for feed grain which the producers of cattle on the prairies have to pay. At the present time-and I have checked the figures and rechecked them with the association-they have to pay for grain delivered in Williams Lake, to mention one point


only, anything varying from wheat at $59.78 a ton to barley at $52.04 a ton. That was February 13, 1957.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have never questioned that; that is correct.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But they find-and I have verified this-that the growers of cattle on the prairies are able to obtain supplies of grain from their neighbours who grow grain at prices varying from $20 to $25 a ton.
You will appreciate, and the whole house will appreciate, that since our cattle have to compete on the Vancouver market with grain-fed cattle from the prairies, and since the trend is almost universal today to grain-fed cattle, that places our cattle growers in a terrible competitive position.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do question that as being the general price on the prairies; sixty cents a bushel is not the general price.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have never quarrelled with that statement; it is not the wheat board's price. But I have seen advertisements, I have been shown advertisements in the prairie papers, carried by people who really have never been in this business before advertising that they will take cattle and supply grain on feed lots at prices which, as I have said, run around the figure I have mentioned, $20 to $25 a ton.
It may well be that this situation will be acute only in years of surplus grain production; but it is in years of surplus grain production that agriculture seems to get into difficulties, and it is in those years that depressed prices and uncertain economic conditions in the agriculture industry most affect the cattle producers of British Columbia.


James Garfield Gardiner: If my hon. friend will permit me-I do not like to interrupt too often -the one price that has been quoted is the price of frozen grain on the prairies and the other price is the price of good wheat in British Columbia.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, Mr. Speaker.


James Garfield Gardiner: I know it is.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I hoped that I might just lay the problem before the minister before getting into a direct contradiction in views. I can only repeat to him through you, sir, what I have said earlier, that I have had these prices checked and double-checked. These are not the prices of frozen grain; they may not be the prices of No. 1, or first grade grain, but they are the prices at which feeders of cattle on the prairies are able to obtain supplies of perfectly adequate feed grains from their neighbours.


James Garfield Gardiner: Any man who lives on the prairies knows you are not right except in occasional cases.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I hold in my hand a suggestion from the livestock co-operative association of British Columbia of a method which might solve the problem of our producers and at the same time preserve the wheat board marketing system of grain. They say:
What is needed now is some formula under which any farmer or farmers' association in Alberta, who wishes to sell grain by direct dealing to a farmer or farmers' association in British Columbia, can do so at an agreed price.
The minister has mentioned difficulty in following through a particular lot of grain once it has entered an elevator and we must admit that grain can be handled more economically through elevators in most cases.
I would suggest a procedure something along the following lines.
Brown in British Columbia wishes to buy Number 2 feed oats from Jones in Alberta and they reach an agreement on price. Brown fills out a form, signed also by acceptable witnesses of his bona fides, certifying that he needs the grain to feed to his own stock.
In other words, it is not for resale.
If instead of Brown the buyer is an association or farmers' institute they certify that the grain will be fed only to their members' stock.
Jones-
The grower on the prairies-
-takes this form to his local elevator which applies to the wheat board for permission to ship the number of carloads specified in the agreement between Jones and Brown to Brown, on delivery of an equivalent amount of Number 2 feed oats from Jones.
Payment will be made direct from Brown to Jones, but the elevator's handling charges will be deducted from their eventual settlement with Jones when his consignment of No. 2 feed oats is sold.
They point out that no legislation should be needed to accomplish this, only a regulation by the wheat board exempting such transactions made under permit so that the grain from the prairies could be shipped to the purchaser in British Columbia and receive the feed grain assistance now available.
They conclude with this comment which I submit for the consideration of the minister:
The only time when such a scheme would not work to the advantage of all farmers, elevators and board, would be when there is a shortage of box cars; these "permit shipments" would then have to wait until the shortage had been overcome.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Order. I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I thought I did not begin until a few minutes after eight. Let me conclude by saying that I have laid this problem before the minister in the hope that he will bring it to the attention of his colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce
The Budget-Mr. Low
because it is a problem of increasing importance to the producers of cattle in British Columbia.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, the budget has received a rather thorough going over and it is not my intention to repeat the things that have been said about it. However there are a few matters which have not yet received much if any attention and after dealing at short length with one or two matters on which I should like to simply restate our position I would like to deal with these new subjects for just a few minutes before summarizing the stand that we take with regard to the vote that is coming in a matter of an hour from now.
The first subject I would like to discuss just briefly is the question of succession duties. I would like to tell the minister again-for perhaps he has been told several times already -that a good many thousand of Canadian citizens and particularly our womenfolk were bitterly disappointed that the minister failed to indicate in his budget any change in succession duties this year. It seems to me that the Canadian people had every right to expect the government would bring in amendments to the act this year to bring up to date the provisions contained in the old act. As a matter of fact the present act is not only outmoded but it appears that it must have been drafted and conducted through parliament by people who considered the Canadian housewife as a chattel. Certainly they did not give any indication that they believed she was a person. I find now that womenfolk throughout the whole country are up in arms and have their tomahawks bared and are after the minister's scalp. I cannot blame them because they feel they should have better treatment and I think they should too.
We in this group very strongly support their demands. I think they are reasonable demands. They ask that half of a deceased husband's estate be considered for tax purposes as having been earned by his widow and therefore should not be subject to succession duties when it passes to her upon the death of her husband. This is of particular importance to farming people. The wives of farmers have contributed in no small way to the building up of the estate and they should have that consideration.
The second claim they make is that instead of exempting estates up to $50,000, as is the practice now, this amount should be made a true exemption deductible from the value of the estate before the calculation of succession duties.
There is one more demand that is being made today and which has considerable merit. It is that half of the value of a gift of
2990	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Low
property or of any other nature from a husband to a wife be not subject to the gift tax; that is to say only half of the value should be subject to tax and the other half should not be so taxed.
Canada must be looked upon by other nations as a country which is just emerging from the stone age if we are to be judged by the present succession duty act under which we have been operating in this country for so many years. I hope the minister will not lose any time in bringing in amendments which will render the act more up to date than do the provisions he has made.
Much has been said about old age pensions and it is not my intention to engage in a lengthy discussion of the subject. I think I should state as others have, however, that I feel ashamed of the very meagre increase of $6 a month provided by the minister especially in the light of what was said this afternoon by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). The minister could very easily have made the amount of increase $20 a month and in my judgment not less than that is required to meet the increase in the cost of living since 1949. I have not too much of an axe to grind in the matter because in my province we are already providing $55 a month and in the other Social Credit province of British Columbia they are providing a supplementary payment of $20 a month.


Walter Edward Harris: You are providing $15.


Solon Earl Low: Yes, that is true. To be exact I should have said that in my province of Alberta we are providing a supplementary allowance of $15 a month which brings the total to $55 so that any increase this government would make now would not add too much to what I have already suggested is the required minimum to meet the present cost of living. It seems to me that if the minister were to exercise what I believe is the fertile brain and imagination he has in his head he could figure out ways and means of putting into the hands of the aged citizens of this country the surpluses of food, clothing, fuel and other materials that are present in abundance so that these people could have a decent standard of living.
There is another matter in connection with old age pensions with which the government should have dealt long ago. I believe I have not heard anyone mention it during this present session. I see no real reason why it should be necessary to continue to apply the 20-year residence rule before aged citizens are eligible for pensions. The people who come to Canada and have every intention of remaining here to make their contribution
[Mr. Low.l

as good citizens should not be required to wait 20 years before they become eligible for pensions. There are many people in this country who are 75, 80 and even 85 years of age and who are experiencing great difficulty in making a living. No one will hire them and in most cases they have not had the good fortune to lay by very much on which they could eke out a meagre existence for a period of years but they cannot participate in our old age pension scheme because they have not resided in this country for 20 years. It seems to me we should give them treatment commensurate with the treatment we accord immigrants who bring their children to this country. After one year's residence the children of immigrants become eligible for receipt of the family allowance payments. Why in the world should we treat one group in one fashion and a second group in a different way? I believe we would be doing only what is right if we were to make it possible for aged people who had not been residents of Canada for 20 years and who, as I have said, have made their homes here and contributed to the building up of this country, to have at least a modicum of the security provided under the Old Age Pensions Act.
There is another matter related to old age pensions which I think we ought to attend to as well, and it is this.
Industry looks with disfavour on retaining in employment or taking on into new employment anyone beyond 55 or 60 years of age. They want younger people and they seem to be, many of them, in a dreadful hurry to retire men and women who although they have reached 65 years of age nevertheless are still in excellent physical condition and capable of many more years of active and useful work. People age faster in these days, in this modern age of speed, and it is becoming harder year by year for middle-aged people to find a decent job. Increasing mechanization, or what we call automation, is going to make it all the harder. Governments, it is my judgment, will of necessity have to adopt lower pensionable ages if suffering is to be prevented and if the goods and services that our economy produces are to find their way into the hands of the people who need them. From an economic point of view alone I think it is essential that we make an immediate and thorough study of the whole question of pensionable ages, with a view to doing something about it soon; as a humanitarian problem it is most urgent.
Now a related problem is that of a nationwide transferable pension plan for workers. The workers are finding it increasingly difficult as they are laid off work in a branch of industry to find security in any other job

and many times commerce and industry will not take into their employment people who have lost a job in another branch of industry and who have not some way of carrying on with their pension arrangements. That in itself makes it more difficult for people in the later years of their lives to find decent employment. It seems to me that we ought to be doing something about it in this country. I understand that Beardsley Ruml in the United States has drafted a proposed plan for the national planning association there. I understand the plan is now before the Congress of the United States for study and I would certainly recommend to the government that something be done about the problem here.
When parliament meets again I think it would be advisable to have the industrial relations committee of this house take up a study of such a nation-wide transferable pension plan for all the workers of Canada. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that we could find something that would work and certainly it would be of tremendous assistance to the people of the country who find it necessary to transfer, during their middle age perhaps, from one job in industry or commerce to another.
For a few moments I would like to turn to the consideration of a matter which in my judgment, is of sufficient importance to warrant a most earnest and searching study by members of the government and I mean particularly the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann). This matter involves an attempt by United States tax collectors to reach over into Canada for the purpose of collecting twelve years of back taxes on income and capital growth of a Canadian company, income on which Canadian taxes to the extent of between $600,000 and $700,000 have already been paid under Canadian law.
It appears that the United States internal revenue department is seeking to collect $2,598,000 from Premium Iron Ores Limited on income which it claims the company earned during the war years. That was a period when the Canadian government thought it was to the national interest, and I thought it was, to grant exemptions both to Steep Rock iron ores and Premium Iron Ores Limited for the purpose of encouraging them to develop ore beds so as to make it possible for both Canada and the United States to put on a real war effort. At the time the United States was becoming short of iron ore, at least it thought it was, and in order to assure itself of ample supplies it co-operated
The Budget-Mr. Low
with Canada in giving encouragement to these two particular companies, to help them to get started.
Here are some of the facts which ought to be most carefully considered and I put them on the record because I am concerned about what this case may lead to. The United States government is demanding that Premium Iron Ores Limited pay approximately $2,600,000 back taxes and at the same time they demand that the owners of Premium Iron Ores, who are United States citizens, pay another $2 million in personal taxes. The basis of the United States government's claim against Premium is that it says Premium Iron Ores had a permanent office in the United States and therefore it is liable for income tax. One of the major owners of Premium Iron Ores Limited, Cyrus Eaton, says that this company did not at any time have a permanent office in the United States and therefore does not owe the tax. In fact, the owners of the company say that the Canadian corporation had no office or bank account, offices, directors or employees in the United States, the corporation conducted no business in the United States and it neither purchased nor sold anything in the United States. It had no contracts either, with any United States company.
Premium Iron Ores Limited is a Canadian registered company and is sales agent for Steep Rock Iron Mines Limited. There is in existence today, as members of the government know, a tax treaty between Canada and the United States which is designed to avoid double taxation. The United States revenue department takes the position, however, that the Premium case has nothing whatever to do with the supplementary convention to the United States-Canada tax treaty which is now under consideration by the senate foreign relations committee of congress.
Now Premium makes the claim, which in my judgment is of tremendous interest to Canada, that the United States tax action against it, and Mr. Eaton and Mr. Daley his partner, private United States citizens, jeopardizes the tax treaty between our two countries and makes it possible for similar Canadian companies to be slapped with back taxes by the United States bureau of internal revenue. The United States says for its part that there is no principle involved such as this and that it is only interested in Premium and in no other companies. However, I think I can see a good many indications which would lead me to believe just the reverse. In the meantime the Premium case is now before the United States tax court; how long it will be there of course is anybody's guess, but it should not take too long to solve the case.
The joint committee of the internal revenue taxation in the United States is aware that

The Budget-Mr. Low
the Canadian government has not protested the internal revenue's action against Premium Iron Ores Limited. This appears to be considered by the committee as a very important point. The United States state department has already said that it is wrong to think the action of the United States internal revenue department against Premium is a unilateral action. It says that Ottawa has never challenged the United States attempt to collect tax and some of the officials indicate that they feel that silence on Canada's part indicates acceptance or at least non-objection by this country.
Now the Prime Minister some months ago -I do not know the exact date but I know that he did some months ago, and of course he admitted this a few days ago in answer to my question-sent an aide-memoire to the United States government saying that the co-operation which the Canadian tax officials gave to the United States tax officials in gathering information on the Premium case did not mean the approval of the United States position in that case. Now I say that that is not a protest by any stretch of the imagination. It is reported also that the memoire said that when the Canadian government, as a war measure to increase essential production, agreed to exempt Premium from income and excess profits taxes for the period of three years it was not contemplated that there would be any United States tax applicable to these operations of the company which the Canadian and the United States governments were both trying to accelerate in the joint interests of their two countries.
From the Prime Minister's reply to my question on Tuesday, March 19, it appears that he is under the impression that the Premium Iron Ores tax case involves only the question of permanent establishment. There appears also to be the impression in official circles in Canada that the "permanent establishment" claim is a question of fact which should be committed to the courts for determination. I say, Mr. Speaker, that is not the case, and we have to look at it that way. An international group of accountants, lawyers and technicians has made a most searching and careful study of this whole situation and in their report they make, amongst others, this very potent statement:
The action taken by the United States taxing authorities in assessing taxes against Premium Iron Ores reveals a basic policy determination by the United States officials which amounts to a virtual rewriting of the treaty. The treaty was designed to prevent double taxation of all industrial and commercial profits excepting cases where the corporation was engaged in substantial business at a fixed, definite, and permanent establishment in both countries.

They continue:
The Premium case discloses that the United States taxing authorities have adopted the policy of seizing upon slight, insubstantial, and isolated activities as a basis for asserting that the Canadian companies have a permanent establishment in the United States and for imposing United States taxes upon them. The case demonstrates that the United States authorities have decided, as a matter of policy, to deny exemption under the treaty whenever the slightest pretext can be found.
These same experts who made a searching study of the case also declare that the case demonstrates that the United States taxing authorities have adopted a policy of denying exemption to most types of selling commissions, imposing great penalties upon Canadian companies and denying deductions to them and subjecting individual United States investors to personal taxes for the income of Canadian companies which have participated in Canadian developments.
I need not point out to the Minister of Finance that if this policy is pursued by the United States authorities it will have an inevitable and very bad effect upon United States investors in the future, and unless it is changed it will result in very great damage to Canadian development and certainly will be injurious to the financial position of Canada and the provincial governments. It seems quite clear that the policy that they have launched in the United States in this regard can be changed only by firm and direct action on the highest level and then only if the officials of our Department of External Affairs and perhaps of the treasury as well insist that the intent and purpose of the tax treaty must be fully observed and implemented by both governments. Therefore we should not go dawdling along tied to the apron strings of any group in the United States in this regard. We have to stand on our two feet and tell them where to get off when we feel they are not treating the tax treaty as it should be treated.
It ought to be abundantly clear to the government that if they dilly-dally around, if no formal and strong protest against what is happening across the line is made and if as a result Premium's case is lost in the tax court on the ground that there might have been a slight activity in the United States by what has been declared a "permanent establishment", then the results will be very far-reaching. The rule of that case will undoubtedly be applied to collect United States taxes for past as well as future years from a good many Canadian corporations that, up to this time, have been thought to be exempt from United States taxation.
There is a feature about the case, which seems to me pretty fantastic. It is that the

United States tax assessments against Premium Iron Ores are on the basis of gross and not net income. That is almost unheard of. The taxing authorities down there seem to take the position that a Canadian company is subject to heavy penalties and is not entitled to deduct taxes paid to Canada and the provinces or other expenses where the company has failed to file United States tax returns on time even though, as in Premium's case, the company and the Canadian government had good reason to believe that no United States tax returns were required to be filed. This again illustrates how primitive the attitude of the United States tax authorities can be, and my judgment tells me that it indicates considerable hostility towards the treaty exemptions and Canadian companies which, in good faith, avail themselves of these exemptions.
Many thousands of Canadian people from one coast to the other are disturbed about this whole situation. They believe that when the United States attempts to assess taxation against United States investors in a Canadian development company it strikes right at the root of something pretty fundamental, and unless it is carefully handled at the policy level-no other level is capable of handling it-the economy of Canada and the economies of the different provinces of this country are likely to get a pretty severe jolt.
I raise the question only because I am concerned about a very large number of companies which have been financed in exactly the same way as Premium. This company's case certainly is not unique in any sense of the word and United States investors in this company have in this instance financed in exactly the same way as United States investors have in many other instances in Canada, some of which affect my own province. But if what the United States is now trying to do is allowed to become law without any protest from Canada, then no company of the kind would be safe. I suggest that Canada must move before it does become law in the United States. We should not be sitting idly by while an attempt is being made to rewrite unilaterally the whole United States-Canada tax treaty.
I might point out for the benefit of my hon. friends, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue that in the United States they have a law which provides that 25 per cent of any tax that is collected may be paid to informers who inform the department of internal revenue of that country that someone is liable to pay tax. In this case that in itself becomes a dangerous thing because involved are more than $4
The Budget-Mr. Low
million in back taxes, and 25 per cent of that amount is $1 million. One million dollars is a lot of money with which to tempt some people into getting information.
I certainly suggest-and this is the reason I asked the minister the question which I did the other day-that we have to watch these things most carefully especially when there is a pernicious law like that on the statute books of the United States. As I said, a million dollars can buy a lot of information. Information has been bought around here in the past week or ten days without a million dollars about which the minister knows something. I would strongly urge that we watch this situation most carefully.
I should like to turn now for a few minutes to something a little more pleasant. I think I can make a suggestion whereby the Minister of Finance can save some money. I think the government should welcome our efforts any time we can find a way to save some money. It has occurred to me for a long time now that our nationally owned broadcasting system could be operated on a far more efficient and economic basis if instead of maintaining what is a costly coast to coast network of C.B.C. stations for more than 18 hours a day, seven days a week, as is now the case, the C.B.C. would prepare a few high quality programs each day and have them released by the privately-owned stations on a contractual basis. I should think that this would save the expenditure of millions of dollars every year, and yet I believe it would provide far better coverage for C.B.C. programs than they get now because I think the minister realizes that a good many more people listen to the privately-owned stations than listen to the C.B.C. That is the record.
I am not saying that in any critical sense at all but simply stating it as a fact.
I think everybody realizes that broadcasting conditions have changed in the past few years. The outstanding network programs of former days do not exist any more. I am referring, for instance, to programs such as the ones on which Jack Benny, Bob Hope and Eddie Cantor appeared, all these great entertainers who used to be commercially sponsored and were used to make the radio network profitable. But they are on television now and radio has gone what is called "local", with the exception of news and special events which I consider to be good programs.
I see no earthly use at all of the C.B.C. owning and operating stations from coast to coast for the purpose of broadcasting gramophone records which already are being broadcast by the privately-owned stations. The financial butter is being spread altogether too thinly now, and that has been one of the

The Budget-Mr. Low
main complaints both by the C.B.C. and by the people who listen to the C.B.C. throughout the whole country. It is costing the treasury more and more every year, with increasing television expenses to be added to the cost of radio.
Take a look at station CBO in Ottawa.
I have nothing against the station but it is a fair sample of what one finds all over the country. If the information I have obtained is correct, and I think it is, that C.B.C. station employs a staff of about 75 people. It contributes three 15-minute programs a week to the network. In the city of Regina, according to my information, the C.B.C. employs 54 people who do not produce a single program for the network.
This is unproductive work which could just as easily be done by the private stations and which is duplicated a good many times over throughout Canada.
If the C.B.C. would produce a few national broadcasts a day, perhaps special features for farming, fishing and labour, and a few good musical and dramatic programs, in my judgment it would be doing a fine job. These programs could be carried by the private stations which are covering Canada already without the necessity of the C.B.C. network. C.B.C. features would be better then because they would be concentrating their efforts and money into a few hours a day instead of trying to provide an 18-hour service over five different time zones throughout Canada.
With some of the millions of dollars that could be saved through this system of operation the C.B.C. could make a real effort to encourage the development of music and dramatic talent across this country. One of the great difficulties of developing first-rate talent today is the lack of enough teachers and producers available for local groups. The C.B.C. could have a talent development section that would supply local groups with music and scripts which they could work on themselves; and then at the proper time the services of a C.B.C. producer might be provided in order to bring them along to broadcast standard when they are ready.
I think this suggestion is well worth the careful consideration of the government and the C.B.C. May I say, Mr. Speaker, that I have not written to the C.B.C. about it, but I imagine I could do so perhaps without being accused of attempting to interfere with C.B.C. programming.


Mr. Nowlan:: Exercising the right of a private citizen.


Solon Earl Low: 
Walter Edward Harris: 


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Speaker@: The Minister of Finance has already spoken to the motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, he has.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I have a right to reply. If there is no other member prepared to speak, I would ask to have the floor.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: I have-

The Budget-Mr. Robichaud


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps you have the same point of order that I have, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has in mind, but certainly I should like to know upon what ground the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) wishes to establish that he has the right to reply.


Walter Edward Harris: I do not mind, Mr. Speaker, if there is no right to reply because really no reply is needed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Should it not be made clear, however, that our standing orders permit a right of reply only on a substantive motion and that a motion that Mr. Speaker leave the Chair does not qualify as a substantive motion?


Mr. Speaker:: That was my understanding of it, although I would not be prepared to make it as clear as the hon. gentleman seems to make it. That is my understanding of it, but I would not want to be in the position of making a snap ruling on the matter. I feel secure enough in my opinion, however, to not allow the minister to speak in reply today.


Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Since the Minister of Finance presented his annual statement, more commonly known as his annual budget, I have followed with great interest the speeches made in the house by hon. members from both sides and from all parties. In the eight days allotted to this debate the members of all parties have expressed their own opinions. As one might expect, some were favourable while others were most critical and could see this budget as nothing but an unrealistic document which offered nothing but unimportant concessions. For my part, I want to congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) on his expressed moderate optimism, for his lack of exaggeration and his sound comprehension of our Canadian economy. His significant budgetary surplus is most justifiable and desirable at a time when there is every indication that the demand for goods and services is creating a trend towards possible inflation, and at a time when every possible measure should be taken to help combat inflationary pressures in our Canadian economy.
The budget presented in this house on March 14 last was a tax setting document which, in greater or lesser degree, had something for just about every Canadian citizen. The members of the opposition parties are not serious when they are criticizing the government for failing to produce any major changes in the tax structure, and particularly in the income tax field. The Canadian public, fully conscious of our inflationary pressures, were not expecting concessions or deductions

of major consequence. However, every thinking citizen of this country will recognize this budget as one of cheer to Canadians of all ages in which levies were reduced by $128 million. It was a budget designed to increase further the humanitarian measures intended to assure for Canadians a social standard comparable to that of any other people throughout the world. This aim is well proven by increased disbursements to all classes amounting to $133 million.
The amendments moved by both the conservatives and C.C.F. were well identified by their demands for increased old age pensions, as well as deductions in income tax. These matters have been dealt with in detail by members from the government side who have preceded me in this debate. The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benidickson) has mentioned the increased estimates of Conservative governments in Ontario and New Brunswick, where spendings were forecast at all time highs. Since then the estimates have been tabled in Nova Scotia, where there is another Conservative government, and here again expenditures will be increased by approximately $6,800,000, an all time record.
The Tory members from New Brunswick have been brisk in complimenting our present New Brunswick government for its achievements, and in the same breath criticizing the federal government for its lack of generosity towards the Canadian people. I realize that $6 per month for old age pensioners, for invalids and for blind and disabled persons, may not seem satisfactory to the recipients of those pensions, but at the same time it will mean an additional outlay of $66 million per year to these classes of people whose income is limited and in most cases more or less stabilized. These same people have not forgotten that it was a Liberal government which introduced these security measures, originally on a basis of $20 monthly, and that it was a Liberal government which has provided gradual increases until today the rate of $46 per month has been proposed.
The increase of $42 million a year in family allowances may not seem much to opposition members, but to us on the government side it means much more than the refusal of the Conservative convention held in Ottawa on December 13 last to even consider recommending an increase in the rate at which these allowances are presently being paid.
The increase of $25 million in payments under the Pension Act and the War Veterans Allowance Act may not seem generous enough to opposition members, but even this increase

may not have been possible had their excessive demands in other security fields been met.
The opposition critics have not recognized the importance of one of the more notable adjustments in the budget which was made with the hope of increasing savings and thereby curbing inflation. This provision which allows income tax deductions to individuals purchasing certain annuities will, aside from encouraging Canadians to save, provide the self-employed people with a retirement security fund deductible from yearly taxable income.
The 1957 budget, Mr. Speaker, is much more generous than the one presented a day earlier in the New Brunswick legislature. There we had clear evidence of increased expenditure with the only reduction being the abolition of a three per cent sales tax on dynamite-


George Hugh Castleden: From what is the hon. gentleman reading?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: You could mind your own business and you will find out later.


George Hugh Castleden: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe the rules of this house are made to stop any person from reading a speech into the record.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I state I am speaking from notes.


George Clyde Nowlan: Hold them up so we can see them.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The 1957 budget is a wise and generous one. It has been accepted, not only as a family budget but also as a far-reaching new deal designed to breathe new life into the economy and offer a long-range development program to the Atlantic provinces. The announcement of proposed new and immediate assistance toward the alleviation of the freight rates and power problems in the Atlantic provinces is a clear indication of the intention of the present government to co-operate in the great task of developing the rich natural resources of our country. The federal government has been requesting for years a sound and economical proposal or scheme from the Atlantic provinces that could be implemented on its merits. I will admit that opposition members from New Brunswick, and I could add from the Atlantic provinces, have been eager to criticize this government at every opportunity. We have heard such expressions as traitor, saboteurs; we have heard cries for justice and the government has been accused of being disloyal, of refusing to endorse a note for the construction of Beechwood.
The Budget-Mr. Robichaud
During all this time the present government was taking a realistic view of the situation, and at the same time was taking a positive and comprehensive approach to the problems facing the Atlantic provinces. The government has studied seriously certain recommendations contained in the Gordon report and already, within less than three months from the presentation of this report, is prepared to implement some of its most important recommendations.
The announcement of a plan for federal construction of thermal power plants and of interconnecting lines between the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia is regarded as a most encouraging development. The development of this system, together with further implementation of this program by the government now and by this government after June next, will assure full development and processing of mineral resources in New Brunswick, and more particularly in the northern sections of the province.
Already representatives of both provinces have met with officials of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources and judging from press releases, have arrived at a most satisfactory mutual understanding. In my constituency of Gloucester, where major deposits of lead, zinc and copper are presently under development, this announcement of a reasonably low cost supply of power has been received with great satisfaction. We can provide at Bathurst in proximity to the mining deposits port facilities to handle by water the transportation of coal from the mining centres of Cape Breton and other sections of Nova Scotia. We have in Pokesudie, at a distance of only 60 miles from the mining areas, port facilities which could handle year round, without interruption, any amount of coal which could be required to generate the necessary power for the mining of our minerals.


George Hugh Castleden: On a point of order, I love to hear the hon. member read but he does not read very well. According to citation 293 (o) of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, second edition, an hon. member is not supposed to read a speech in the House of Commons. The hon. gentleman is obviously reading almost every word that he utters. I would like to have your ruling, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has cited citation 293(o).


George Hugh Castleden: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Which reads:
Read from a written, previously prepared speech.

The Budget-Mr. Robichaud
There is also a citation in Beauchesne's third edition to the effect that a member may, however, use notes. If the hon. gentleman reads the very lengthy memorandum which I prepared on the question, and which has appeared in Votes and Proceedings, he will see that in my view if the hon. gentleman tells me, as he told the hon. member a moment ago, that he is not reading but merely following his notes, am I not in the position where I have to accept his word?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: This most important decision of the federal government could well mean the assurance of a smelter for northern New Brunswick and the processing within our border of the base metals produced in the area. We can now regard as a reality the supply of additional electric power which was always regarded as a key to the maximum development of New Brunswick's mineral deposits.
I am convinced that the so-called "nebulous proposal affecting the maritime provinces" as expressed in this house on March 22 by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) could well prove to be the most important decision and the most logical answer to the problems of the Atlantic provinces. When the hon. member is given a chance- and it may be sooner than he expects-to consider the effect of this decision in his own city of Saint John he may change his mind completely and be most embarrassed to explain his attitude to the electors of his constituency. The only nebulous part of the deal could well be the words or expression used by the hon. member on that occasion.
On Monday, March 18, the leader of the official opposition addressed a Conservative convention in Fredericton, the capital city of my own province. On that occasion he accused the Liberal members from New Brunswick of being rubber stamps and yes-men for the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). I am not ashamed to be a yes-man for the Minister of Trade and Commerce, whose reputation is well-known as one of the greatest Canadians who ever lived. His contributions to his country in wartime and in peacetime will long be remembered and his name will be highly regarded in Canadian history. I would rather be a yes-man to the minister who has sponsored such great projects as we have witnessed in this country in the last 20 years, and would rather support such bills as the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines bill, than to have any connection with a party or parties which have so earnestly and vigorously opposed measures designed for the development of our natural resources.

On the same occasion the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) is reported as saying that the member for Restigouche-Madawaska had "dehorned" the Liberal members from New Brunswick. If this statement can be considered as an approval of the hon. member's tactics, as an approval of his statements and expressions used in this house, if this can be considered as an approval of his accusations against the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg), I want him to know now that his approval was given in the wrong place and at the wrong time. The people of York-Sunbury will not stand for anyone calling, or approving the calling of, the Minister of Labour a saboteur.
If that is the policy to be adopted by the Conservative party in the coming election they may as well make up their minds right now that this is a land of peace-loving people tied together by bonds of unity and respect and that such attitudes will get them nowhere.
In the course of his remarks on Saturday, March 30, the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Van Horne) referred to a Liberal nominating convention held in his constituency on Sunday, March 17. He considered it an insult to people of many faiths in his riding to hold a convention on Sunday afternoon while church services were being held. We all know that on Sundays church services are normally held in the morning or in the evening.
I hold in my hand a true copy of an announcement which was made over station CJEM, Edmundston, on Friday, March 15. It reads as follows, and I translate:
The member Van Horne is detained at United Nations in New York and he will not be in Edmundston Saturday, but he will be present at the big meeting Sunday, and will be at the disposal of all Sunday night at the office on Canada street.
It is a crime, an insult for the Liberals to hold a convention on Sunday afternoon, but it is permissible for the hon. member to have his meeting on Sunday evening at an hour when church services are normally being held.
No one at that meeting ever said that the hon. member was not in New York on the day previous, but we made it clear that he had no business to be detained at the United Nations at that time. By using his own words I could say: How ridiculous can he be? How far can he stretch the truth? It is not right that he should do that. How far can he stretch the truth when right here in this house he himself shifted back from Saturday to Friday and then to Thursday in order to try and make us believe there was a special meeting of

the committee on resolutions of the United Nations being held on those days. We know now of the special interest he had toward his friends the Cameroons. Who is playing on the ignorance of people?
We all know of the hon. member's remarks at the Spadina Tory convention in Toronto a few weeks ago, where he declared that in his own riding, at his own by-election, the Liberals were giving away money and television sets to buy votes. In this house on Saturday last he stretched the truth and his imagination by saying that such incidents took place in the neighbouring riding of Temiscouata. In a few days he will likely stretch his imagination still further and maybe move into my own constituency of Gloucester. I hope he has not forgotten his series of oyster parties and orgies which he himself had during his 1955 by-election campaign. His charge that during the campaign I said, "If you vote for Van Horne you will lose your old age pensions and family allowances" is absolutely false, and there again he is stretching his imagination and distorting the facts, as he has done so often in this house and outside.
His charges of Tobacco Road look in northern New Brunswick is another example of his imagination and dim approach to any situation. We do admit that we have in northern New Brunswick certain areas where people are badly in need of assistance, but such conditions are not typical of our province alone. These problems need a more comprehensive and realistic approach than irresponsible charges and accusations such as we have heard from the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska.
The hon. member was quick to notice my absence from my seat when he spoke on Saturday last. I shall not mention his attendance record for fear that he may again seek the excuse of attending the United Nations special committee on resolutions. If I left Ottawa on Saturday afternoon it was to go to my own constituency and discuss with certain authorities the possibility of a large low rental housing project for aged people under the Central Mortgage and Housing program.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Is that the only day you were absent?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: As I said on previous occasions, my attendance record in the house would compare favourably with that of any hon. member across the floor.
As I have previously pointed out on numerous occasions it is not by crying havoc and despair that improvements can be achieved but by adopting a positive and comprehensive approach to the problems facing us.
Income Tax Act


An hon. Member:: Don't tell us you wrote that speech?


Stanley Howard Knowles: You had better read a little faster.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: It is rather difficult, however, to reconcile the black-eye statements of the hon. member with the great prosperity and optimism of our premier who stated on the very same day that the future economic prospect of New Brunswick was good.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I have just been advised by the Clerk that it is now 9.45. Those in favour of this motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those who are opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Howard Charles Green: On division.
Motion agreed to on division.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall proceed with the resolutions beginning with income tax.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Minister of
Finance could repeat his announcement pertaining to business later on. At this moment I have received instructions to leave the chair.