1957-03-30

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to rise on a question of privilege concerning a matter in which I believe every hon. member of the house will be interested. Indeed I believe that you, sir, and all hon. members would want at this day's sitting to pay a tribute to the service which has been rendered to the House of Commons by one of our faithful employees who has worked for the House of Commons 38 years and who I understand is retiring today. I refer to a very modest and unassuming gentleman, Mr. Thomas S. Hubbard, the editor of Hansard.
I am sure it is unnecessary for me to say how important Hansard is to the House of Commons. We all appreciate the work done by the Hansard staff on this important document. I understand that Mr. Hubbard first came to work for the House of Commons as a reporter in 1919. At that time this building had not yet been rebuilt following the fire and the House of Commons was sitting in the national museum. During these 38 years Mr. Hubbard has served in ten parliaments and in the regimes of five prime ministers. I suppose he has seen as many as a thousand members come to this house, and I think it is only fitting, on this day when after he edits this final edition of Hansard he will retire, that we should pay tribute to this faithful servant and this fine friend of the members of the House of Commons.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like you to allow me to say just a word in support of what has been said by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I have been well acquainted with Mr. Hubbard for quite a number of years, not only as the editor of debates, in which capacity he has always been most fair, just and helpful in all respects, but also as my next door neighbour ever since I moved to Ottawa.
I want to say here that as well as being a good editor he is also a good neighbour. He has raised a fine family, and they are good community people in every respect, exemplary and splendid citizens of this country.
I just wanted to add my voice to that of the hon. member who has spoken in testimony to the excellent service this good man has given to his country, here in the House of Commons.


Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: May I add just a word or two on behalf of the official opposition. I am sure it has been the experience of everyone who has dealt with Mr. Hubbard in his capacity as editor of debates that he has always been extremely courteous and efficient, and also extremely patient.
A member who is about to make a speech, and who has made one and then would like to see it improved a little when he reads the first takes, is not always easy to handle; but I do not believe it would have been possible to find a more co-operative or fairer editor than we have had in Mr. Hubbard. On behalf of the official opposition may I wish him many happy years of retirement and say, in tribute to him, that I think he has rendered a splendid service to the House of Commons and also to the country.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think the tributes which have been paid to Mr. Hubbard will be appreciated by him all the more because of the fact that those who have spoken for every group in the house are equally happy to extend congratulations to him on his own work and on the work of his assistants which, no doubt, was inspired in a large measure by his example.
I think we are all inclined to agree that his editing has made our remarks in this house read somewhat better than a phonographic tribute would have allowed them to. I am sure he was always very careful not to modify in the slightest degree the substance and meaning of what was said by each hon. member, but that he was able to correct some of those mistakes which occur in rapid speech to all of us and make them conform more closely to the accepted rules of grammar and syntax.
I think the fact that the kind of tributes we have heard have been paid to him by speakers representing all groups in the house is something which will add to the good wishes we extend to him for a very happy and well merited period of retirement, and I think we can all feel confident that the manner in which he has performed his

Inquiries of the Ministry duties, as reflected in the care given to the reports of Hansard, will have set a pattern which will outlast the 38 years of devoted service that he has rendered to the parliament of Canada and thereby to the Canadian nation.


Mr. Speaker:: Had I known that the house would be prepared to dispense with its own rules today and allow a so-called question of privilege to be presented, I would have been the first to pay tribute to Mr. Hubbard. Many employees of the House of Commons of the calibre of Mr. Hubbard have retired in recent years and there will be others in the ensuing years. We have been particularly lucky in securing for our staff men of the calibre of Mr. Hubbard. At this time I express appreciation on his behalf and thank the house for the tributes that have been paid to him. I know I express the sentiments of the entire house when I wish good luck to his successor, Mr. Buskard.


Mr. Mclvor:: This is better than flowers later on.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to authorize the Canadian National Railway Company to make capital expenditures in the year 1957 not exceeding $318,707,000 and to make certain capital expenditures and enter into certain contracts prior to July 1, 1958; to authorize the national company to issue securities to provide amounts required tor the authorized expenditures; to provide that, except as expressly provided, the aggregate principal amount of securities outstanding at any time shall not exceed $248,107,000; to authorize the governor in council to guarantee the principal and interest of securities issued by the company for the purpose aforesaid; to authorize the Minister of Finance to make loans to the said company secured by such securities and not exceeding $248,107,000 in principal amount to enable the said company to meet such expenditures and with authority to give financial aid and assistance to other companies of the national system.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
The Secretary of State for External Affairs-The following proposed resolution;-
That it is expedient that the houses of parliament approve the statute of the international

atomic energy agency signed by Canada at New York on October 26, 1956, and that this house do approve the same.
Mr. Speaker:: Transferred to government orders.



AWARDS AND DECORATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond):: wish to address a question to the Secretary of State or, in his absence, the house leader. Can the Minister of Finance inform the house if recognition has been granted to Corporal H. Johnstone of the R.C.M.P. for his bravery in connection with the hold-up of a bank in Port Coquitlam, British Columbia?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, we always expect and always have courage, daring and devoted service from the R.C.M.P., but on occasions there are outstanding examples of that devotion to duty. In this case Corporal Johnstone's action on the particular occasion has resulted in Her Majesty being graciously pleased to award the George Medal, and the announcement will appear in today's Gazette.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister give the house any assurance that the agriculture estimates will be put before the house before the close of the session?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I could not, but it had been my intention to discuss the probable order of business with other hon. gentlemen some time today or over the week end.


Mr. Nicholson:: Can the minister indicate whether the Minister of Agriculture will be back before the dissolution of parliament?


Walter Edward Harris: The Minister of Agriculture is engaged in activities-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes?


Walter Edward Harris: -with which, if my hon. friend wants to have any success in some of the things he has in mind, he might be patient.


Howard Charles Green: Is he starting the Saskatchewan dam?



REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE OF USE IN PROPOSED THERMAL POWER PLANTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M, Buchanan (Cape Breton North
and Victoria): I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Will the minister assure the house, and especially the members from the Atlantic area, that coal will be the fuel used in connection with the operation of the proposed thermal power plants in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, these plants to be built and operated by the federal government?
Hon. George Prudham (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, I think this question could be more properly directed to my colleague the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, whose department has been making a study of that proposed project along with the provincial governments concerned. However, I can assure my hon. friend that in so far as the dominion coal board is concerned, they have no doubts that coal should be used.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of his assurance on March 15 that consideration was still being given to doing something for retired civil servants before the end of this session, can he say whether a decision on this matter has yet been reached?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall the qualification of something being done by the end of this particular session, but subject to that I want to assure the hon. member that we are considering all the problems in connection both with present civil servants and retired civil servants.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, March 28, consideration of the motion of Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Macdonnell.
The Budget-Mr. J. W. Murphy
Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lambton West):: Mr. Speaker, before discussing some items in the budget and some other items in particular which have interested me since I came to the House of Commons, I first wish to deal with a question that was asked by the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Brown) on February 26, 1957 as reported at page 1650 of Hansard. The question was raised at that time when there was some possibility of a strike at the Polymer Corporation which I am proud to say is in my riding. The hon. member to whom I have referred was about to depart that evening for a visit to my riding where he planned to speak to a Liberal ladies' association meeting. These were his words:
Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Would the minister advise us what the present situation is with respect to the work of the commissioner on the Polymer strike at Sarnia?
As I have already pointed out the hon. member was leaving that evening for the city of Sarnia and I might remind him that during that period the Minister of Labour was kind enough to keep me informed about the situation at Polymer. I assured the minister that at no time during that period would I ask a question which might embarrass him or tend to affect the efforts of the conciliator or mediator with the hope of avoiding that strike.
Might I also remind the hon. member for Essex West that at that particular time there were some 10,000 unemployed persons in the city of Windsor and in spite of his concern about the welfare of the employees at Polymer may I point out to him that since I came into this house I have repeatedly spoken on behalf of the employees of that great corporation with the hope that their wage levels would be comparable to other industries, and I have reference to Imperial Oil.
Perhaps I might be permitted to make a kindly reference to the Minister of Trade and Commerce who on one occasion indicated in reply to my question that he too hoped and expected that the employees of that great crown corporation would receive wages commensurate with their responsibility and that their social security measures would be equal to those in any other industry and preferably the Imperial Oil at Sarnia. May I remind the hon. member for Essex West that on more than one occasion I said I hoped as well that the superannuation scheme for the employees of Polymer and their hospitalization schemes would be designed to better the welfare of the employees of this corporation and I hoped that the wages coupled with these benefits would induce these highly skilled technicians and valuable employees to remain in Canada

The Budget-Mr. J. W. Murphy instead of travelling to the United States where so many of our engineers, technicians and highly educated men have gone seeking better jobs. I make no apology for that, Mr. Speaker, and I do hope that the hon. member will consider that, after all, charity begins at home.
May I say this, Mr. Speaker. On March 27 the hon. member referred to the Unemployment Insurance Act and how beneficial it was to his particular riding. I certainly agree with him because that is one area in the Dominion of Canada in which unemployment has been too high for the good of the community and the welfare of the wage earners in that particular city. At page 2759 of Hansard for March 27, 1957, the hon. member said:
We are not crying about this, we are not complaining about our lot, we are going ahead to take steps to help ourselves.
Then he goes on to say that some departmental officials are going into the area to make a study of the situation. The hon. member happens to have been the representative of that particular riding since 1945, and during that period the unemployment situation in the city of Windsor has been very critical. I think I would be much concerned if I were he, about that unemployment situation. I am sure that it is not to the liking of those people that conditions in that particular city do not warrant a good wage for any one particular year. On March 28, 1957 the hon. member made a revision and the revised version reads as follows:
We are pursuing the matter and not complaining about our lot; we are going ahead along prearranged lines.
If he had inserted the word "bread" before the word "lines" he would have been speaking the truth.
It appears, Mr. Speaker, that we are not going to be able to discuss all the items of the estimates during this session, probably only one department. I do intend to mention briefly a couple of items which apply to my own riding, and one is the harbour improvement at Grand Bend and the other is the clearing of the sand from Perch creek. I am going to speak at some length about the low water levels in the Great Lakes. It may be that the time has come for us to take a long range view and give serious consideration to the treaty into which we entered in 1909 with the United States concerning boundary waters and lake Michigan. The situation in Grand Bend is simple. I have taken it up with the Minister of Public Works who has a sympathetic ear for this particular problem because of the plight of the fishermen there and because that is an area which concerns the tourist industry.


We are now in a cycle, if you may call it that, of low water on the Great Lakes.
It will require considerable dredging in places like Grand Bend in order to permit those fishermen to bring their boats into the river. It is also going to require an extension of the harbour. These things must be done. The government should make an effort to assist areas of this kind which depend on fishing as an industry and also the tourist industry in particular.
In view of the fact, as I said a moment ago, that we are facing low-water levels, whoever happens to be the minister of public works in the next two or three years, and even more, will have to find funds to take care of the harbour requirements because the streams and harbours are filling up with sand. Those improvemnts are required not only there but elsewhere in connection with great lakes harbour facilities. It will also help the tourist industry. I have mentioned the tourist industry on more than one occasion. As a matter of fact, I think the first speech I made in this house was on the tourist industry. I think the more we have spoken on it the less value we as Canadians have received from the travel bureau division of the department. No doubt that is because it has not had the support it should have had and merited.
Perch creek near my place will have to be deepened to permit fishermen to beach their boats. It will also help the tourist industry. It has been a handicap to the fishermen because the mouth of the creek has filled up with sand and it will help the drainage of farmlands. I draw this to the attention of the Minister of Public Works and the government. Even though there may be no appropriation this year to take care of these necessities, the improvements should be made without delay.
I am going to speak on the budget very briefly, Mr. Speaker. I do not think any old age pensioner in this country is satisfied with the budget. In fact, old age pensioners are disgusted because the government took a niggardly view of the situation and gave them a little increase of 20 cents a day as supplementary assistance to the small pension of $40 a month to which they have been entitled. I think the protests that hon. members in all parts of the house have been receiving will bear testimony to what I have said. I know that in my own area and in western Ontario the old age pensioners, because of the huge embarrassing surplus that the government has built up, were expecting an amount commensurate with their requirements.

I am indeed sorry, and I know they are, that this government did not see fit to grant them more than 20 cents a day. It could have been doubled at least.
I mentioned the tourist industry a moment ago, and I am going to deal with it briefly. I am going to do it because I am not satisfied and I am sure the people of this country are not satisfied with the reports we get from the dominion bureau of statistics of the revenue that is coming into. Canada from tourists from the United States and from other countries. The travel bureau was set up in 1934 by a prime minister of our party, and I think it has been under 14 or 15 different ministers of the Liberal party since they came into power in 1935. It seems that they are not very kindly disposed toward this bureau, which is an adjunct of government, probably because it was fathered by a Conservative prime minister. The records speak for themselves.
I am going to suggest in a moment that this bureau be wiped off the slate and that the money that is now being appropriated by the travel bureau be allocated to the provinces which will get more value for the money spent. When I came into this house the revenue from United States spending in this country was some $200-odd million a year. In the course of a few years I maintained it should be $1 billion a year. We have everything to offer the tourist from the United States and other countries who is seeking recreation within the borders of our country.
I have advocated that if a separate department could not be set up for this industry which should bring in $1,000 million a year, there at least should be a deputy minister in charge of our tourist business. I appreciate the work done through the years by Leo Dolan; I give him credit for all he has done; but he was working under a handicap. The present head of the travel bureau is going to be under a similar handicap. If this travel bureau could be operated with this gentleman as deputy minister, having some authority, and if this travel business is to be handled by the federal government it could be done on a businesslike basis.
Do not forget that about 90 per cent of the tourists who enter this country come in on rubber. I regret to say that no efforts have been made by this government to increase this tourist business. They have increased the appropriation for advertising, but I submit that this should be handled by the provinces. There is not a province in the country but knows where to get its revenue, where to do the advertising; any province knows a great deal more about this than does this government.
The Budget-Mr. J. W. Murphy
I mentioned a moment ago that these people come in on rubber. The first people they meet at our border are the customs and immigration officers. I think the ministers in charge of our customs and immigration services might well be proud of these men. I have entered Canada at many different points and I have always found a high degree of efficiency and courtesy among these men. They are most important to the tourist industry of this country.
Not so many years ago the salaries paid these people in the customs and immigration services were a disgrace to any government. Fortunately these salaries have been raised but they are still one-third lower than those paid in the United States. In the case of Sarnia their salaries are one-third less than the salaries paid to the men who sell tickets to the motorists to cross the bridge. Imagine immigration or customs officers with the responsibility he has receiving less than the man selling tickets.
I have some enlightening figures I should like to place on the record. In 1946 our revenue from the United States was $222 million. In 1947 we spent $768,000 on advertising. In 1948 our revenue was $280 million, and in 1949, $288 million. In 1949 we spent for advertising $918,913, and in 1950, $921,925. The revenue in 1952 amounted to $275 million. In 1952 we spent $852,911 and in 1953 the expenditure was over $900,000. In 1956 we spent $1,586,000 and our revenue was only $335 millions, only one-third of the billion dollars which we should be getting at this time.
For this coming year the amount we are going to spend is about $300,000 more than was spent last year, or approximately $2 million for advertising. This is to be spent through the same advertising agency which has obtained so few results over the past several years.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Which advertising agency is that?


Joseph Warner Murphy: It happens to be Cockfield Brown who do considerable advertising work for other departments of the federal government and for the Liberal party. There is one alarming figure I should like to place on the record. In 1956 Canadians spent $390 million in the United States and $106 million in other countries, or a total of approximately $497 million, whereas our total revenue was only $335 million, leaving a deficit of $162 million. Is it any wonder that I contend that it is about time we had a right about face in connection with our travel bureau which could mean so much to this country but which means so little?

The Budget-Mr. J. W. Murphy
It was not so many years ago that the tourist business meant more to this country than any other industry with the exception of gold mining, and that was around 1938. I submit that these figures are alarming. We heard the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage) say the other day that the government was appropriating $300,000 extra this year to advertise the tourist business so that greater benefits would accrue to the maritime or Atlantic provinces. I submit that if the Atlantic provinces had that $300,000 plus what is being spent under other appropriations they would get twice or three times the value for the money. The same goes for every other province.
As I have contended for years, unless this travel bureau is elevated to its proper position in our Canadian way of life we are going to have deficits in our tourist spending. If our travel bureau continues to be operated as it has been operated in the past these deficits will occur even though the particular minister in charge decides that more money should be appropriated for advertising.
What we are receiving is small compared with what we should be receiving. In the United States they estimate a revenue of $20 billion from the tourist industry; the revenue in Canada is one-third of a billion. There are states in the United States that have a tourist revenue of over $1 billion; this country is larger than the United States and yet we are only getting one-third of that billion. I submit that if we cannot do any better than that we should scrap the travel bureau and give this money to the provinces in proportion to their population. If that is done I will guarantee-and I know the provinces will also-that we will have a far more prosperous tourist industry than we have today.
There is another item I should like to speak about. I have asked many questions from my place here about the lake levels and the boundary waters between Canada and the United States. No doubt many hon. members were like myself and were not acquainted with the treaty which was signed in 1909 and under which the international joint commission was set up. As a matter of fact that treaty was signed by the United Kingdom on behalf of Canada.
I had the idea that all the great lakes and the rivers between the United States and Canada were under the jurisdiction of the international joint commission, and it was only recently that I found out that lake Michigan, which is wholly within the boundaries of the United States, does not come under the jurisdiction of that commission. As a result they can take any amount of


water they require provided they are able to get the permission of the United States supreme court.
When this treaty was signed, Mr. Speaker, Canada got the short end of the stick, as is usually the case when we enter into agreements with the United States, it appears to me. Under this agreement Canada has nothing to say with regard to the amount of water that can be taken out of lake Michigan for the purpose of the Chicago drainage scheme and for other purposes which I am going to mention in a moment. The agreement says that if we suffer damage we can sue in the United States supreme court, but there is another clause which states that if use has been made of that water before the signing of the treaty there can be no recourse in the United States or anywhere else.
That is an alarming position, Mr. Speaker. The situation is not so critical at the moment with regard to power, since more water is flowing over Niagara falls than we can actually use, as a result of the United States power plant having been dumped into the river. As a matter of fact, we are now selling power back to the New York power commission. Nevertheless I contend, Mr. Speaker, that lake Michigan should be considered as within the great lakes boundary waters and should not be treated separately. After all, it and lake Huron have the same level. What concerns me is that while the authorities at Chicago, Illinois, will say we can make application to the United States supreme court, they could just order an extra 35,000 cubic feet or more per second to go through that Chicago drainage scheme without our having anything to say about it. We would not be consulted.
Taking a long range view, I think we must decide to ask for a revision of the treaty. I think the time has come when Canada should make representations to the United States to have this treaty revised so that lake Michigan is included in the boundary waters. If through the taking of a great deal of water the lake levels are lowered, what is going to happen to navigation on the great lakes, and what is going to happen to our harbours? No doubt it will mean that millions of extra dollars will be required to be spent by this country in order to keep these harbours in shape. The same will apply in the case of navigation.
There is one more point about which I am alarmed. I think if a larger amount of water is permitted to go through that Chicago drainage scheme, in years to come we will be short of water at Niagara. In addition, the extra water going through the Chicago drainage scheme is going to permit barge

transportation from Chicago down through to the gulf. This is bound to lead to interference with the success of the St. Lawrence seaway.
I would like at this moment, Mr. Speaker, to refer to an editorial in the Detroit News of February 3 of this year. Several states of the United States have been very critical of this water diversion, but at a meeting of the great lakes harbour association held recently for the purpose of studying the effect of this Chicago drainage scheme it was pointed out in discussion that the increase from 1,500 cubic feet per second to 8,500 cubic feet per second was not only for a drainage scheme but was also to assist barge transportation. In fact the mayor of Milwaukee, Wisconsin was very much concerned about the situation, because his city hopes to benefit from the St. Lawrence seaway project. As he said there, the main plea was that drought and low water had disrupted barge navigation. That was his contention. I submit, Mr. Speaker, it should be our contention, if this scheme is going to deprive the St. Lawrence seaway of some hundreds of millions of dollars worth of freight most of which would otherwise be passing through the seaway.
Mr. Speaker, I have ncrticed considerable other editorial advice that we should be on our toes-whether our little toes or not I don't know-with regard to the critical situation we shall likely face unless this treaty is revised, and I submit that the states and the cities along the great lakes and the St. Lawrence seaway project should concern themselves about it now, not in five or ten years from now when this diversion will have become a threat to our harbour facilities, our navigation and to the volume of shipping going through the St. Lawrence seaway, part of which will be diverted through the Ohio and through the Mississippi.
Let me repeat; it is not only the drainage that Chicago wants now. It is the water transportation. The Sarnia Observer, published in my own city of Sarnia, had an editorial article a few days ago supporting the contention I have asked the government to consider. This article points out with very sound arguments that though this may not be of critical importance at this moment it is of very real importance if we take a long range view; and it is a situation which we must one day face, whether we face it now or later.
There is another matter, Mr. Speaker, which I would like to discuss in connection with the tourist industry, though I did not refer to it when I first mentioned that subject. During the last year or year and a half
The Budget-Mr. J. W. Murphy we have been very much concerned along the great lakes about the lamprey menace. We were disturbed because of its effect on the commercial fishing industry, which has lost around $5 million annually in the great lakes because of this pest, but it is not only the commercial fishing which is imperilled. As hon. members know, many rivers flow into the great lakes through Ontario, rivers which in turn have their sources in other bodies of water. Many of these rivers and lakes have been a source of revenue because they have been stocked with game fish, and unless this menace is eliminated, sooner or later lampreys will penetrate these Ontario rivers and lakes and eliminate the trout with severe consequences to the tourist industry. That in itself is going to be a very serious blow to our tourist industry.
Many of us have spoken on the budget and have indicated how unfair it is to the small taxpayer and how thinly the Liberal government has spread its picayune benefits. I was much interested in an article written not long ago by a correspondent for the Thompson newspapers in this country which called attention to the earner having a wife and two small children and making some $3,500 a year and indicated that his taxes were much higher than those for a man in a similar position in the United States. We have advocated over the years that municipal taxes should be deductible for income tax purposes, and I think it is a very sound argument.
Today the federal government Is taking a high proportion of the tax dollar. The figures have been placed on the record on more than one occasion. I put them on the record in the debate on the speech from the throne. As a result the municipalities find themselves in a plight never before experienced since coming into being, and their plight seems to be getting worse and worse. They are getting less and less of the tax dollar. The burden of the home owner is becoming greater and greater each year because the federal government is taking so much more of the tax dollar as time goes by.
Dealing with a United States citizen with a wife and two children and a salary of $3,500 we find that he can deduct personal property taxes for income tax purposes and also real estate taxes, state income taxes, state or local retail sales taxes, automobile licence fees, state capitation or poll taxes and state gasoline taxes. As is so ably pointed out by the observer to whom I have referred, in our country the tax on such an individual would be $178 whereas in the United States his tax would be in the neighbourhood of $40 odd.
From time to time tables have been put on the record by government spokesmen showing how much lower our taxes are than those of

The Budget-Mr. Maltais the United States. You may be able to take a particular bracket, possibly a very high income bracket or some other bracket, and show that taxes in Canada are lower than in the United States for persons with the same income, but I submit that by far the greater number of taxpayers are found in the group earning around $3,500 a year and that we should accept that group as the basis for a fair comparison. I do not think it is fair that the man earning that amount of income in a year should have to pay such a high tax.
In the past we have advocated that tax exemptions should be higher for single men and women as well as married people, but to no avail. It seems that we have to keep on arguing as we did in the case of taxation of crown companies. We had to continue our arguments over the years in that regard in order to get the government to adopt a taxation formula. Today that formula means that the city of Sarnia gets over $300,000 a year, which is about one-tenth of the total taxation of the city. That is fair, and I think that in the budget the government should have considered the plight of the small home owner as well as the pensioner.
Finally, I say that my own city of Sarnia and all other municipalities across the country are in a plight that is getting worse and worse each year. They are dependent on provincial governments for additional revenues and the provincial governments are finding it very difficult to provide such revenues without increased taxes. The city of Sarnia is obliged to construct a sewage disposal plant because Sarnia is on boundary water, and it is going to cost some $3i million. Our taxpayers cannot afford that sum in the light of all the additional expenses the municipality has for schools and other municipal requirements.
I hope that some alleviation will be provided not only for Sarnia but for other border municipalities that may be required to build sewage disposal plants and that when they have to build them some help may be given to them by the federal government if it cannot be provided by the provincial government. I suggest a loan or a guarantee at a small interest rate. There is one thing that is most apparent in the policy of this government. They have not seemed to care about the plight of the municipalities, and the same applies to our old age pensioners and those on small fixed incomes.
(Translation):


Mr. Auguste Maltais (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, on March 8th last I put a question on the order paper to ascertain if the federal government intended to amend the regulations of the present Disabled Persons Act.

I was happy to learn if not officially, at least in an informal way, that these regulations will be modified as of July 1, 1957.
May I express the hope that some changes will be brought to the medical requirements so as to extend the benefits of the act to far more people and that there will also be changes in the amount of allowable income under the means test.
I am sure that several of my colleagues have received a great many representations about the stringency of the present legislation. I hope that the Minister of National Health and Welfare will now entertain applications which, because of the stringency of the act, had been turned down, and let the people involved submit new applications, as these people might now qualify under the changes which are to come into effect on the first of July.
Before going into the main part of my remarks, which will concern the means of transportation in the constituency of Charlevoix which I have the honour of representing, there are a few other observations which I would like to make at this point about the unemployment insurance act.
We were all quite happy when, in the last few years, the act was amended to increase benefits payable to the unemployed and to extend these benefits to certain categories of workers which until then had not been covered. Nevertheless, another improvement would be in order. There is a provision in the act stating that it does not apply to farmers, a fact which is unfair to farmers and constitutes discrimination which should not be allowed to continue.
At the present time the farmer who goes on the labour market to seek help for certain types of work, for instance for help in bringing in his crops or for occasional work such as wood cutting, etc., is faced with an insoluble difficulty, because the act does not let him make use of unemployment insurance stamps for his employees. Those who are asked to do farm work find a thousand and one reasons not to do so, since this work does not provide the same opportunities as industrial or other employment. Under the Unemployment Insurance Act, a worker employed on a farm not only loses the benefit of unemployment insurance stamps already accumulated, but also the benefit of those he would get if he were employed elsewhere. That is the obstacle facing the farmer on the labour market, which means that he does not have the same opportunity as industry, the day labourer and the woodcutter. The worker also faces that discrimination when he is directed to do farm work.

I do hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Department of Labour will take that situation under serious consideration and that we will not have to deplore it much longer with respect to the Canadian farmers.
And now, my remarks concern the advisability and the need of improving the means of transportation in Charlevoix constituency.
Charlevoix constituency is situated below Quebec city and is bounded on the east by Saguenay county, which is usually called the north shore of the St. Lawrence, and on the west by Quebec city.
It will come as a surprise to no one if I repeat once again what each of us has learned, through the newspapers or by some other means, that an unparalleled development far beyond the imagination is taking place on the north shore. There has been talk for the past few years of establishing winter harbours on the north shore of the St. Lawrence to accommodate all areas of the north shore for the transportation of freight.
For the past thirty years, freight shipments to points on the north shore of the St. Lawrence, in the winter months, have been carried by rail either from Montreal or Quebec up to Pointe-au-Pic and from there by ship to the various points of the north shore. However, in view of the tremendous development I referred to a moment ago, which is taking place in the areas of Bersimis, Baie Comeau, Seven Islands and, much further east, Blanc Sablon-areas where the population has practically doubled and where investments have increased from 500 to 600 per cent -it has been estimated that within two years the production of the north shore would exactly equal the whole budget of the province of Quebec, but the transportation facilities servicing that area of Quebec are taxed to capacity during the winter months. Of course, among the various means of transportation available in that area, besides ship transport, there is air transport.
I know that several municipal councils of my constituency are considering a plan with a view to establishing a municipal airport in the Charlevoix area. The difficulties encountered, I hope, will be settled in a satisfactory way. However, I should like to draw the attention of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) to the policy prevailing at this time to assist in the building of municipal airports.
For some years now, when the Department of Transport, after considering a particular project, decides to assist a municipality, the only subsidy that can be made available to that municipality without any strings attached has been an amount of $25,000. When it is realized how much it costs nowadays to build a modern airport, when the cost of property is considered, it is soon realized that the
The Budget-Mr. Maltais sum of $25,000 is no longer adequate. I would therefore ask the Minister of Transport, who surely must have received many representations, to consider the possibility of increasing that subsidy to municipalities requesting federal aid for the building of a municipal airport.
To return to my subject, Mr. Speaker, let me say that there is no doubt that transportation of freight by aircraft is rather costly and that when the freight to be carried is heavy, the costs are actually prohibitive. There is then only one other solution offered to the people of Charlevoix and of the north shore of the St. Lawrence, that is rail or water transport.
I might point out that below Baie Comeau the lack of roads does not admit of trucking, and even where roads are now under construction, I hardly believe they could accommodate even a tiny fraction of the freight now being shipped via the north shore.
I am not referring to shipping during the summer months when, the river being navigable, ships can touch at any port on the north or on the south shore of the St. Lawrence. However, during four winter months navigation is severely restricted because of the ice.
Only four years ago the north shore of the St. Lawrence was served by a single ship, the Nord Gaspe, which went out from Pointe-au-Pic and put in at different harbours along the Saguenay. A ship of 505 tons, it could cope with the work at the time, but these last two years, and more particularly this last year, the harbour of Pointe-au-Pic has been faced with a very abnormal situation. As a matter of fact, during the winter of 1956-57 four ships had to ply between the Charlevoix district and the different points on the north shore. They are the Nord Gaspe, which has been doing that service for the last four years, the Guard Maveline, the Keta and the Venesta, all ships of some 550 tons which carry an average of more than 1200 tons of goods per week.
So the Pointe-au-Pic wharf has been taxed beyond its capacity these last seasons.
Hon. members will have an idea of the goods that went through Charlevoix county, more precisely through the harbour of Pointe-au-Pic, when I tell them that an average of some 80 cars, spread out over a distance of some 40 miles along the Canadian National tracks, had to wait for a couple of weeks for ships to moor alongside the Pointe-au-Pic wharf and take on these goods. The bottleneck was such that a number of the cars had to be shunted out of the way on sidings.
Following the experience of these last two years, I think it would not be advisable to

The Budget-Mr. Maltais try other experiments elsewhere, but that it is imperative, necessary and very appropriate that the Department of Public Works improve the shipping facilities at Pointe-au-Pic, in Charlevoix county.
Another solution has been suggested i.e. the building of a new harbour with entirely new facilities at some place along the south bank of the St. Lawrence.
I shall now quote some of the views expressed by the Charlevoix chamber of commerce in the brief presented to the Departments of Public Works and Transport.
We are satisfied that the advantages of Pointe-au-Pic are far greater than anything one could adduce in favour of some other point along the south shore.
They are considering the position from a geographic, economic and military point of view.
The main channel of the St. Lawrence river is located a very short distance past the wharf at Pointe-au-Pic; at the end of the present wharf, there is enough water, even at the lowest tide, for 2,000-ton cargoes, and very deep water not far away. But the present wharf is not only too small to permit handling a large volume of goods; it is unsuited to that purpose and is ideally conducive to bottlenecks. After all, this structure was intended for passenger traffic and not for freight.
The winter winds all over the St. Lawrence estuary are the following (according to frequency): north (from west to north); northeast (from northeast to east); southwest (of short duration); and- very seldom-southeast. The north and northeast winds give navigation the greatest trouble. At Pointe-au-Pic, the coastal mountains form a perfect shelter from the first; Cap-4-l'Aigle cuts much of the second. The southeast wind never lasts long and is never violent in this season. And winter in Pointe-au-Pic is always fogless.
The threat of maritime accidents is then at its lowest and the fact is that for more than 50 years of winter navigation there never was any.
Moreover, there are, in the county of Charlevoix, along the north shore, other aids to navigation where ships can find shelter at any time.
There remains the question of ice, in the whole estuary of the St. Lawrence, only fresh water ice floats about on the salt water. In accordance with the laws of nature, these ice floes always travel on the right (going downstream). This natural drifting is enhanced by the prevailing winds (west to northeast) which push the ice southward and form ice barriers, often many miles wide, which stick to the reefs of the shore. Even ice-breakers often have trouble making their way through this ice accumulated on the south shore. On the other hand, ice drifts are seldom seen on the north shore.
The ice breaker McLean was caught in the ice floes on the south shore for several hours and when it finally broke free it was to come and rest at Pointe-au-Pic.
I would now like to deal with a few of the economic reasons for improving shipping facilities at Pointe-au-Pic, as I have been arguing.
The total distance between the north shore and Quebec via Pointe-au-Pic is slightly shorter than any other practicable route. The railway route
[Mr. Maltais.)
from Pointe-au-Pic to Quebec is also the shortest practicable route. It will therefore be seen that transportation rates via this route cannot be unfavourable.
Pointe-au-Pic is sheltered from storms and ice free at all times, a fact which allows a more assured and regular service through this port than through any other port on the south shore, provided, however, that the facilities at Pointe-au-Pic are always adequate for traffic.
From the point of view of the taxpayer Pointe-au-Pic has several great advantages. The fact that the railway skirts the shore and passes only a few feet from the present wharf and from any future wharf is in itself highly advantageous. On the other hand the property surrounding the wharf is entirely suitable for future construction and the necessary improvements and extensions may be brought about at minimum cost compared to the large investments required to construct a new harbour at any other point on the south shore.
Any such investment might moreover prove to be a total loss because it is quite possible that any winter service between the north and the south shores will prove to be quite impracticable. In any event, such a service cannot be assured without continuous help from an ice-breaker, an expense which is never necessary at Pointe-au-Pic.
The works which would be necessary to make a winter harbour out of Pointe-au-Pic will not be lost for the summer season. During that season the present wharf is very severely taxed by the passenger ships of the Canada Steamship Lines and the cargo vessels loading pulp and paper from the Clermont mills. If, at the same time two or three coasting vessels are moored, it will readily be understood how the traffic facilities can be overloaded. It has long been recognized that the county of Charlevoix has rich undeveloped mineral resources. Present indications are that these minerals have given rise to considerable interest. Any development of these resources, even on a very modest scale, would further congest the only deep water harbour facilities in the county, those of Pointe-au-Pic.
At any rate, a wharf extension at Pointe-au-Pic would be a boon to coastal shipping. Used in the summer as a warehouse to store the products of the Clermont mill, this wharf would eliminate the always awkward mix-up of trucks driving through milling crowds. It could even be used to promote the tourist industry, as it might encourage the visit of yachts, which are quite unwelcome now, and allow the mooring of bigger cruising ships having a wider range than the ships of the Canada Steamship Lines.
It is interesting to note that the construction of a new pilot station on the north shore of the St. Lawrence is now under consideration. Would not Pointe-au-Pic, with its means of rapid communication by air, highway and railroad be the ideal location for such an establishment?
I now wish to state the military reasons which would justify some important improvements to the transport facilities at Pointe-au-Pic.
We come here to a subject of extreme importance for the whole country. In wartime, Canada has always been handicapped by a dangerous bottleneck as far as facilities of navigation are concerned, especially in the winter time. Anything that would be justified in peacetime and which at the same time is liable to improve that situation should certainly be given priority.
As we have seen, the wharf at Pointe-au-Pic has just about the necessary depth. Located on a rugged coast, it is none the less well sheltered. In case of emergency, either in wartime or in peacetime, Pointe-au-Pic could be used as an

Atlantic harbour, linked as it is to Quebec city by a system of roads and railroads completely independent from the system serving Halifax and the maritimes.
It must be said incidentally that, if ever the new transcontinental line of Chibougamau (Beattyville-St. Felicien) needs a maritime outlet open the year round, Pointe-au-Pic will be the ideal location for it. The route between Chicoutimi and La Malbaie has already been laid out. It is a short distance and the ground to be covered is smoother than other possible routes. Such a road between Chicoutimi and La Malbaie would also provide Chicoutimi and Quebec with better rail services than the present facilities of the old Canadian Northern.
But from the military point of view Pointe-au-Pic is of strategic importance as a winter harbour. That harbour could not only serve the north shore and even a certain amount of transAtlantic traffic, but it could provide an outlet for the raw materials, of immeasurable strategic importance, of the north shore. And that without interfering in any way with the Quebec-Halifax systems. We do not have to point out that no future harbour on the south shore could provide as much.
Mr. Speaker, following these remarks, borrowed in a large measure from a brief submitted to the Department of Public Works by the Charlevoix chamber of commerce, I ask once more the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) to give these proposals his kind consideration, in order that we may get as soon as possible the improvements we have been asking for a number of years at Pointe-au-Pic.
While dealing with transportation, I want to call the attention of the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) to another problem which relates to administration rather than to the means of communication. For the past two or three years, ship operators in my constituency have sent me representations about the necessity of obtaining from the Department of Transport certain documents printed in French, or at least in both languages. It is impossible for the captain of a ship and for a sailor who applies to the Department of Transport for documents relating to the sale of a ship, the maritime mortgage and the declaration of ownership, to obtain any French form, or even bilingual forms.
Most of our ship operators and seamen have not had the privilege of associating with their English speaking fellow citizens or to attend schools where English is spoken fluently, and have to call upon experts to get a translation of the documents they need, which entails not only difficulties and delays, but even extra expense. I have been sent, for instance, some maritime hand-books they are required to have and which are entitled: "Continuous certificate of discharge for seamen." I have tried to obtain a French
The Budget-Mr. Maltais version of these books from the Department of Transport, but I have not received them yet.
We all know that such documents, couched in legal phraseology, are already fairly complicated, and this makes it all the harder for the seamen to get them translated. I trust I will not have to refer to the constitution to draw the immediate attention of the Minister of Transport to this matter and to get him to supply the seamen of Quebec with bilingual documents or at least documents in French, to improve the situation.
I believe this is the only department, in Ottawa, which provides the Quebec public exclusively with English documents. I am not blaming the Minister of Transport for this situation, because there is a whole story applying there. Some of the papers were printed following new treaties with Great Britain and other countries, and I think that the text which sometimes appears in those documents is only a repetition of part of the treaty. I would appreciate it if the Minister of Transport would put bilingual papers at the disposal of our navigators. If, because of the lengthy wording and technical terminology it were possible to turn them into a handbook, it would be important to have a translation made.
I wanted to draw the attention of the Minister of Transport to this situation, because I was discussing means of communication and thought I should say a few words with regard to the representations that were made to me.
Before concluding my remarks, I also want to draw the attention of the Minister of Public Works on the opportunity, or rather the necessity of better landing facilities in St. Bernard parish, on ile-aux-Coudres.
Situated in the St. Lawrence, opposite Les Eboulements, Ile-aux-Coudres is inhabited by 1,800 fellow-citizens of mine. Living on an island, these Canadians are completely isolated for three months. During the winter their only contact with the mainland is by air. But their air service is rather primitive and costly. There is little prospect of improvement because of the limitations of the local market.
I was very satisfied with the welcome extended by the maritime commission to a delegation which came to Ottawa this week to press their claims for a grant towards a winter ferry service between the ile-aux-Coudres and St. Joseph de la Rive. I would very much appreciate both the granting of this subsidy and immediate attention,
2874	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Hahn on the part of the Department of Public Works, to the advisability and possibility of improving dock facilities at St. Bernard, on ile-aux-Coudres.
(Text):


Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, the budget this year is indeed an interesting document and it seems to me it has met with different reactions everywhere in the country. In checking those who have taken part in the discussion thus far I was particularly interested to note that only one Liberal member west of Ontario has spoken. I think that in itself speaks of what we find in the budget, because a good deal of the budget is devoted to what is being done, or will be done, in the maritimes. I might refer to what the hon. member for Inverness-Rich-mond (Mr. MacEachen) had to say. He made a very interesting comment on page 2596 of Hansard. He said:
A budget which announces a surplus cannot be taken as a sign of improvidence or imprudence.
Later he went on to say:
However, Mr. Speaker, my main remarks this morning will be directed to an appreciation of those parts of the budget having to do with the maritime provinces.
As I listened to the various speakers from the different parts of Canada speaking to the budget I wondered whether it was just an accident that most of the government supporters who have spoken have come either from the province of Ontario or the maritime provinces. The reaction I receive from the contents of the budget is that we are enjoying extremely good times.
I noticed in this morning's paper an announcement to the effect that while the Minister of Finance had expected a surplus of some $282 million, after eleven months' operation it appears we are going to have a surplus of $544,100,000. I am happy that we do have surpluses because, as the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond suggested, a budget which announces a surplus cannot be considered an improvident thing; rather it should be rejoiced at.
The hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) was the first member to speak on the budget and I congratulate him upon so doing. He told us that while the budget was disappointing it had been greeted with enthusiasm and great joy. If he did not say that in so many words, what he did say indicated that that is exactly how it was received.
The Minister of Finance has announced a great surplus, something for which all Canadians should be grateful. However, it seems to be causing him something of a headache. He does not want to spend it as
[Mr. Maltais.l

the tight money policy he has announced would indicate that the government does not wish to build more public buildings. We have pressed hard all along that more money be made available for the building of homes. It was announced yesterday that more money would be forthcoming, but the minister has found it most difficult to dispose of this money.
Apparently he does not want to give it away in the form of tax cuts because so few have been announced in the budget. It is unfortunate that in the case of the tax cuts that are announced from time to time the public do not seem to get any benefit from them in the final analysis. The minister removed taxes on certain items which should give the children a certain amount of joy, items such as gum, chocolate bars, soda pop and so on, but we find the manufacturers saying that they were going to have to boost prices anyway and therefore they will have to take advantage of the reduction. Of course that is not the fault of the Minister of Finance, it is just an indication of the unfortunate position in which we find ourselves.
Then the question of giving money away in the form of pensions is a sorry subject especially to those people who had expected a little more from the budget. The minister decided that the best thing to do with a good portion of this surplus was to bury it, to take it out of circulation, and he has done that rather effectively. Now that he is going to have another $250 million to play around with I wonder whether he intends to bury that or just what he will do with it.


Walter Edward Harris: What $250 million is the hon. member referring to?


Frederick George Hahn: The difference between the $282 million announced by the minister as his expected surplus and the $544 million announced recently.


Walter Edward Harris: There is no surplus of $544 million.


Frederick George Hahn: I am quite prepared to accept the minister's statement that there is no such surplus. However, the minister has had his problems. Because of the orthodox financial system under which we still work we are told that it would be wrong under present conditions to give this surplus to the taxpayers because it would create more inflation. Of course that makes the economists not too happy. Probably it was at the instigation of his colleagues that the minister tried to do a little bit for everybody in the way of token assistance in the form of old age pensions and family allowances so the economists are not too happy. The taxpayer is sad because he did not get any benefit, or anything like what he was looking forward to. Of course

the pensioner just has to pull in his belt a little tighter because of the increased cost of living.
As the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Patterson) indicated yesterday, the announced increase of $6 per month will be of little value to old age pensioners because the landlords are now asking for more in the way of rent for the space in their homes occupied by old age pensioners. As a result the old age pensioner is not going to be helped at all by this budget.
The Progressive Conservatives, the official opposition, brought in an amendment which seems to be at variance with the opinion expressed by the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond. I shall not read it as we are all familiar with the fact that there are several shortcomings in government policy as announced through the medium of the budget.
I referred earlier to what the hon. member for Kootenay East had to say. I found many of his thoughts quite interesting. During the course of his remarks on Thursday last he attempted to show that despite the fact the British Columbia government had increased its supplementary allowances by $10 per month since 1951; despite the fact that the population of that province had increased by 20 per cent since 1951-I would remind the house that at that time we suffered under a Liberal-Conservative coalition-despite all these things British Columbia is paying out less today than it did in that year in the way of supplementary allowances.
I do not argue with the figures as most likely they are quite accurate, but I would draw one conclusion with which I am sure the hon. member for Kootenay East, all his colleagues and the members of other political parties in this house will agree, and that is that since in British Columbia old age pensioners and those in receipt of old age assistance receive their supplementary allowances under a means test, it would indicate that the people in British Columbia are prospering more under a Social Credit government than they ever did before. We hope that that state of affairs will continue for a number of years to come.
However, the recognition of that fact is not sufficient. While there may be fewer people who are apparently in need to the same degree than there were before, nevertheless there is a large group of old age pensioners and other pensioners who are in great need. These people require more assistance. They cannot live as decently and respectably as they should be able to live in this country on an old age pension of $40 per month plus the $20 that British Columbia gives provided
The Budget-Mr. Hahn they are in need, nor will they be any better off with the suggested proposal of $46 per month.
Some provincial governments recognized this need for supplementary allowances considerably before the budget was brought down. I find that early in the fall of 1956 a Social Credit convention was held in Vancouver attended by some thousand persons at which the following resolution was passed:
Whereas the national government has implemented an old age pension plan that pays $40 monthly to all Canadians at age 70 years; and
Whereas the present pension payments are inadequate and provincial governments are compelled to augment these payments;
Therefore be it resolved that the national pensions be increased by at least $20 per month.
I suppose there are those who will say these are recommendations by a group which did not have the responsibility of finding the $20. However, I contend-and the people at the convention apparently agreed-that we do have the money available today in the form of this surplus, though, of course, the financial and fiscal policy which the government is now following	prevent
advantage being taken of it.
No one will deny, I am sure, that the government of British Columbia has realized its responsibility in this matter by suggesting to the Minister of Finance and to the government that if the federal government saw fit to increase the old age pension by $20 a month, it in turn would continue to pay on the basis as formerly the $20 which is now being paid in that province.
I will call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to another article in the Vancouver Province. This is also dated considerably before the presentation of the budget-it is dated February 16, 1957-and it speaks of a larger share for the old folks. What inspired this article was, I think, an announcement-possibly from a not too responsible source- that the federal government intended to increase old age pensions by between $5 and $10 a month. The editorial is headed: "A Larger Share for the Old Folks" and it goes on to say:
Surely a country as prosperous as Canada can give the old people at least an extra $10 a month. That, of course, is nothing more than a crumb from the growing national prosperity.
But the governments have made a habit of dropping only crumbs for the aged and infirm. Something in the atmosphere of Ottawa seems to harden the heart and shrivel the cheque book when the question of OAPs comes up.
We hope that the government will not try to fob off the old people with an extra $5 a month and the plea that the nation cannot afford more.
A government embarrassed by a budget surplus running into hundreds of millions can hardly take refuge in the excuse of penury.
A government that generously offers $50 million of the taxpayers' money to cook up culture should

The Budget-Mr. Hahn not cavil at spending at least $100 million more to put more and better food into aged stomachs and some hope into stout old hearts.
If we can afford culture, surely we can afford enough bread for everyone.
I do not wish to extend the debate by dealing with this question of culture. We have already discussed that for some time in this house. But I would recall, in this connection, that the reason for our objection on that occasion to the government's proposal to make this $50 million grant was that we wanted some indication of exactly what the government was prepared to do for the old age pensioners before we endorsed the spending of this large sum for culture.
Along the same lines, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Eric Nicol, whom I am sure everybody knows as a renowned Canadian humourist, has this to say in his column of February 16, 1957, under the heading: "Pensioners planning feverishly now to spend federal windfall":
I see where the federal government is planning to increase the old-age pension by $5, maybe $10, a month.
This will be in addition to the $40 a month the old folk have been getting since 1952.
It is expected that an emergency meeting of the Senior Citizens Association will be called to discuss how to spend all this extra cash.
"We don't want members rushing out and squandering the extra five dollars a month," said one official, "on luxuries like bread and shoes."
Economists are also worried about the effect on inflation of all this additional money in the hands of the oldsters.
"We'll now have several hundred thousand people in a position to buy pork jowls once a week," said one expert. "The price of pork jowls is bound to be driven up, and there goes the price of hog feed."
That is the cynical fashion in which a columnist sees this whole situation. These people are in close touch with these affairs; they get letters from old people in the country-people who are in distress and who require help.
Is there not something wrong, Mr. Speaker, with the present method of conducting financial assistance? Here we have a huge surplus announced by the Minister of Finance, but we cannot feed the people. We know there are many who are in desperate need in this country, and yet we say we have to hide away a good portion of this money in order to stop inflation. Surely there must be some other way of stopping inflation than the orthodox way. I know that governments are usually controlled in orthodox fashion with regard to their financial undertakings. I also realize that there are no short cuts to proper financing. However, there are so-called unorthodox methods which might surely be instituted, and which would rectify the position to which I have called attention.

This $6 increase in pension is an insult to the decency and respect of every Canadian in this country. Everyone expected more- at least $10 a month. I will say this, however: that the budget has partially recognized the request of the war veterans. Married veterans are to have their allowance increased from $108 to $120, while they may receive earned income of $240, and $240 in assistance-


Mr. Philpoti:: One hundred and seventy dollars to $200 disability pension.


Frederick George Hahn: I believe the pensioners in this country agree that this will result in a great deal of happiness and contentment. However, it leaves the single war veteran in a very desperate plight. I think that the single war veteran who has to live on a pension of $720 plus an additional $120-I think this is $240 now-with the assistance for which he is eligible, bringing his total income up to $960-finds himself in a very difficult position if he is unable to supplement his income through casual earnings.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So are the widows who receive only $60 under the act.


Frederick George Hahn: Yes. These veterans of the second world war are in a very difficult situation.


Mr. Bennett:: We can pay $20 a month in addition to the $60.


Frederick George Hahn: That is what I say, and that is what brings it to $960 a year. I contend that these people are in a difficult situation because expenses-rent and other things- cannot be shared in the same way as a married couple could share them. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) interjected a word about the widows.
I am very sorry indeed to see that the budget has failed to give us any reason to expect any modification in the act with respect to widows of war veterans who have not lived in this country for the necessary 20 years. The hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) and other hon. members as well as myself have brought this question up time after time in the war veterans committee, and I am satisfied everyone recognizes that this is a need which should be met and which must be met. At the present time we are saddling municipalities and charitable institutions with the responsibility for looking after these poor souls. If their husbands had lived, they would be citizens of 20 years standing of this country and the question of eligibility would have been taken care of; their husbands would have been receiving

war veterans allowances. But because they had the misfortune to lose their mates soon after they came here and despite the fact that they themselves have lived here for 20 years or more, they are being denied the war veterans allowance and the assistance it would give them.
With the tremendous surplus that has been announced I think we could have easily looked after these two classes of people, the single burnt-out veteran who is incapable of working so as to assist himself through casual earnings and the widows who are not eligible for an allowance. So far as blind and disability pensioners are concerned, the fact remains, as has been indicated by other members of this group many times, that there should be some special allowance in their case because there is a special need. In looking back over the days that have passed since the budget was introduced, I wonder whether the announcement by the Minister of National Health and Welfare of an increase of $120 in the amount of permissive earnings allowed these people, provided they can get a job, was intended to pacify them because there was so much animosity throughout the nation with respect to the $6 increase. I realize that there probably was a necessity to keep in line as well, but I think the minister would have been well advised to do one of two things, either increase the amount of permissive earnings allowed even more or, more important still, he could have made the government more popular by doing away with the means test for widows between the ages of 65 and 69.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Frederick George Hahn: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder whether he is aware of the fact that the action in raising the ceiling by only $120 a year means that many of these married people will get only $5 each instead of the magnanimous $6.


Frederick George Hahn: That is a point I had not taken into consideration.


Stanley Howard Knowles: An increase of only five dollars a month.


Frederick George Hahn: I am very pleased that the hon. member has drawn it to my attention, but the aggregate increase did not have to be $120, I believe, to bring it up to the $6.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is the use of giving $144 if only $120 is the only increase in the ceiling?


Frederick George Hahn: I would agree, and I am not suggesting at all that it should have been any less. The fact is that I believe it should 82715-182
The Budget-Mr. Hahn be considerably more in order to make it possible for these people to live better.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Frederick George Hahn: However, I would also repeat that I feel the government might be well advised to look into the possibility of including widows between the ages of 65 and 69 and making them automatically eligible for assistance at the age of 65.
The hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) also referred to the question of United States pensions. I have on file quite a number of articles by Jean Howarth, a columnist for the Vancouver Province. She took a tour south through Oregon, Washington and California and wrote a series of articles. Each one of them deals with the matter of old age pensions somewhat differently. I am satisfied that a good number of my Liberal friends would say that in the United States it is necessary for each state government to do these things, so why does the province not look after its responsibility to a greater extent than it does today?
The fact is that the system of taxation in that country is somewhat different. As the hon. member for Lamb ton West indicated a few minutes ago, the state is left with more money and the householder is left with more money because the federal administration has a different method with respect to the assessment and collection of taxes from that of our federal government. In the case of the three states to which I have referred we find that the pensions are considerably greater than in any province of Canada. For instance, I have here an article headed "$89 A Month", which is found in the Vancouver Province of Saturday, February 23. I should like to read part of it to indicate what I mean. It is in these words:
How much each worker gets is determined by how much he has made over the years. This is far too complicated for me to understand, let alone explain-
She is referring to old age pensions.
-but what it boils down to is this; you average your earnings out over several years, selecting the years in which you made the most money. But let's reduce it to figures, they're easier to understand.
If your average monthly pay was $50, you'd collect a $30 a month pension; if it was $100, you'd collect $55; it it was $150, you'd collect $68.50; if it was $200, you'd collect $78.50; if it was $250, you'd collect $88.50; if it was $300, you'd collect $98.50; and if it was $350, you'd collect $108.50.
That's if you were single. If you were married your wife would receive in addition half of what you were getting.
Later she goes on to say:
There are a lot of other benefits included in the thing, such as benefits for people who become disabled; but I expect by this point we're all sufficiently confused. . . . California does not believe

The Budget-Mr. Hahn
that anybody can live decently on less than $89 a month. Therefore, if you have lived in California for five years, are a U.S. citizen, and have no income, you can apply to the state at the age of 65 and receive $89 a month. If you're married and your wife is also 65, she gets another $89.
The cost of living is a very important factor in determining the amount that people require on which to live. I find that in an article in the Vancouver Province dated February 22, 1957, she compares the actual cost in Vancouver as taken from advertisements of articles in the newspapers with the cost in San Francisco. For instance, in Vancouver hamburger is 39 cents a pound and in San Francisco 25 cents. Pork chops are 79 cents a pound in Vancouver and 59 cents in San Francisco. A pork leg roast is 57 cents a pound in Vancouver and 34 cents a pound in San Francisco. So we go right down the line. Potatoes are 10 pounds for 49 cents in Vancouver and 10 pounds for 26 cents in San Francisco.
If they find it necessary in these states to provide a living allowance that is more commensurate with the cost of living and in so doing increase their allowance far above what we have in every instance, certainly when we have such a huge budget surplus as announced this session we should be able to make much better use of it than to put a great amount of it in the vault.


Mr. Speaker:: Would this be a convenient point for the hon. member to break his speech?


Frederick George Hahn: Yes, I will call it one o'clock.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Speaker, before the lunch hour was called I was comparing the retail price of certain foods in the California markets as advertised in their newspapers with prices on the lower mainland of British Columbia.
There are economists who tell us that because we have inflation we must not use any of the budgetary surplus that was announced to increase pensions, because this would result in an increase in inflation itself. The ordinary definition of inflation, as I understand it, is that there are too many dollars chasing too few goods. I am sure the Minister of Finance recognizes, as does everybody in this country, that there is no shortage of consumer goods in

Canada today. Certain hon. members of this house, including the hon. member for Macleod, drew this matter to the attention of the minister in very clear terms.
If the government was sincere in its belief that the real cause of inflation is that there are too many dollars chasing too few goods, then we would be back in the same position we were in during the war years and it would be found necessary to have some form of rationing. I am satisfied that we could not sell the idea to anybody in this country that we should ration butter, sugar, flour, meat or any other commodity because there are too few of those goods available. However, there definitely is an inflationary trend in Canada today. I maintain that it is an artificially created form of inflation which actually is caused because too many people are chasing too few dollars with a view to using the dollars for the purpose of investment and for capital construction rather than for the purchase of goods. Too many people are chasing too few dollars for the purpose of investment with the hope that their investment will eventually show a large measure of profit.
It must be admitted that there appears to be in some small degree a shortage of manpower. However, our statistics do not completely bear this out. In the city of New Westminster alone we have an overabundance of manpower available today. I believe there is a genuine shortage of technical people which is greater than the shortage of manpower in any other field. If we are short of any commodity of course it is heavy machinery and equipment that will assist in building up the country.
We have inflated the value of our dollar on the foreign markets of the world, but on the other hand we have deflated the value of our dollar at home to the point where it is worth only about 52 cents as compared with its value 20 years ago. The result of this latter policy of devaluing our dollar at home I am sure causes each of us to receive letters similar to the one I hold in my hand, which was written by one of my constituents. He describes how when he had some spare time on his hands he went into the post office in New Westminster and read the notices posted there. There were advertisements for annuities, and in his letter he says it reminded him of that time many years ago when there was a similar appeal to the people to invest in Canada by investing in annuities. He says he took the money which he normally would have invested in speculative companies, the shares of which are today worth three or four or more times the original value

of the investment, and bought an annuity. Today he finds himself with a shortage of dollars with which to buy the consumer goods he so desperately needs.
During the war years we appealed to the people of our country to buy government bonds and support the war effort by investing in Canada. I am sure we are all familiar with the form of investment that was proposed. Those people who took their original investments out of companies and invested in Canada through the purchase of war bonds today find themselves in the awkward position where their bonds are worth less than the shares of the companies from which they withdrew their investments. The shares today are probably worth many times their value at the time they withdrew their funds. These people have not only lost financially, but they have also lost confidence in this government and its policies.
Perhaps I may be permitted to read a paragraph or two from the letter written by this constituent to whom I have already referred. He says:
The class for whom I speak have no organization and no pressure group to force their demands upon the government or upon individual members of parliament and they seem to be a forgotten element in our society, though probably more deserving of consideration than many who are receiving a great deal more attention . . .
In the course of the letter he also states that he has completely lost confidence in this government because of the action it has taken. The effect of our inflated dollars on foreign markets has been drastic. We have deprived ourselves of foreign markets because there is a premium of 4 cents or more on our dollar, which means that any foreign buyer must pay more for the goods we export because the value of their currency is less than ours. They can undersell us when they send goods into our markets, so we are actually injuring ourselves in two ways, which only adds to our difficulty.
Because the Canadian dollar is worth more than, let us say, the United States dollar we find Canadian citizens going to the United States as tourists because they can purchase more goods for the value of their dollar. This can only result in our having an imbalance of trade with the United States which is growing regularly by leaps and bounds. This makes it necessary for the people of the United States to invest in our country in order that we might balance our trade with them.
In conclusion I would express the hope that the government would see fit to reduce the value of our dollar to, let us say, 90 cents, in order that we might recapture some of the markets we have lost and in order that industries on the west coast, such as the lumbering 82715-182J
The Budget-Mr. Carter industry which is suffering so materially because of the present policy, may recapture some of their lost markets. This would enable us to hold our domestic markets and would serve to balance trade without our having to depend upon United States investment or any other foreign investment in the country, by making Canadian dollars available for such investment.


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: I should like to join with all those who have congratulated the Minister of Finance both on the nature of his budget and on the very lucid manner in which he presented it to the house on March 14. I should like to congratulate him even more on his courage in resisting the temptation to bring in an election budget on the eve of an election. This budget, I think, plus the fact that in spite of the surplus this temptation was resisted, is proof once again of the statesmanship which characterizes not only the Minister of Finance but all his colleagues in the cabinet.
The opposition critics have treated this budget solely as though it were merely a statement of revenues and expenditures, of collections and hand-outs. It is true that the budget is a statement of national accounts, that it gives a preliminary statement of revenues and expenditures for the year just ended and of anticipated revenues and expenditures for the year that lies ahead; but to represent the budget solely as a statement of national accounts is, in my opinion, very misleading to the public. The budget is something more important than a balance sheet. The important thing we should keep in mind about the budget, and which we should try to impress upon the public, is that it is an instrument of fiscal policy which has been designed to control the economic climate in such a way as to assure the best conditions for continued economic expansion, with maximum employment and good wages without permitting the expansion to get out of hand.
Very little reference has been made to this aspect of the budget, and very little criticism of it has been voiced. The opposition has criticized the budget mainly on two counts. In the first place they criticized it for not spending enough money; pension increases are said to be too small. These increases have been referred to as picayune and as an insult to the old age pensioners. The leader of the opposition himself on page 2781 of Hansard referred to it as a sop to political expediency. On that same page and the following page he indicated that in his opinion old age pensions should have been raised to $60 per month.
In that connection the Minister of National Health and Welfare stated that even the 15 per cent increase which the budget has
2880	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Carter granted will cost around $133 million. If the increase advocated by the leader of the opposition had been granted the total cost would have been around $450 million, in other words some $300 million in excess of the proposed expenditure for a full year.
Where would this money come from? You cannot finance old age pensions out of a surplus. An increase in social security expenditures or other expenditures of a department is a commitment and must be provided for in some way. A surplus is something we may get if we are lucky, but of which we cannot be certain. If we were to raise old age pensions to the level advocated by members of the opposition, some additional taxation would have to be imposed. As yet I have not heard the other side state from what source that additional money would come.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: That is not right, because the hon. member for Acadia showed exactly from where it would come.


An hon. Member:: Order.


Charles Edward Johnston: He asked a question, so I had to answer it.


Chesley William Carter: No, I said nobody has said what additional taxes would be imposed or should be imposed to find the additional money.


Mr. Rowe:: Use your surplus.


Charles Edward Johnston: Answer that one, now.


Chesley William Carter: We on this side of the house have not yet been convinced that the way to create money is to just print it. We still have the idea that people who do that are sometimes locked up.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You will find yourselves locked out.


Chesley William Carter: Somebody has indicated that there should be a reduction in expenditure. Unless opposition members say what expenditures should be reduced I do not see that their suggestions deserve very much attention.
The second criticism which opposition members have made is that this budget has done nothing to control inflation. This is very much in keeping with the statements we have become accustomed to receiving from the Conservative party. At the last election, I remember, their platform was that they would spend more money and at the same time collect less taxes if they were elected. They criticize us out of one corner of their mouth for not doing anything in this budget to control inflation, and out of the other they blame us for not spending more money to increase inflation.


I assume the Conservative party wants us to spend real money. The Leader of the Opposition on page 2777 of Hansard defined inflation not as too little money but as too little production. I must confess that I did not find that statement very meaningful. Of what is there too little production? Is there too little production of wheat? I have been here for eight years now, and almost every year I have heard complaints that we have too much wheat, more than we can sell and more than we can store. We do not know what to do with it.


Frederick George Hahn: Your selling policy is wrong.


Chesley William Carter: I do not know if the Social Credit party can print enough money to enable the Social Crediters to eat all the wheat. If they could do it, well then I think they deserve some attention, but personally I would like to see some proof of it.
We have heard a great deal here in recent weeks about price supports for such commodities as eggs and cheese. That does not indicate that there is any shortage of these commodities. The hon. member for New Westminster just said that in his opinion there was no shortage of consumer goods.


Frederick George Hahn: Right.


Chesley William Carter: Well, I do not take issue with him on that point, but I am saying the Leader of the Opposition pointed out there was too little production. I think there is too little production of certain basic metals, such as steel, which are required for heavy construction, for the building of factories.


Frederick George Hahn: I said that, too.


Chesley William Carter: And means of increasing production generally; but the time will come, with our present rate of increase in population, when Canada will be able to carry economically an increased production of those commodities. At the present time, with our small domestic market, it is not economical for us to invest in the production of those commodities unless we are prepared to subsidize them.
Unlike my hon. friends opposite, I should like to assure the Minister of Finance that, despite anything Mr. Donald Gordon might say, we in Newfoundland are really thankful for small mercies. We appreciate the increases which have been granted in blind pensions, old age pensions and veterans allowances; we appreciate them all. We admire the skill with which the Minister of Finance has been able to make those benefits available to so many Canadians.
The hon. member for New Westminster, who preceded me, read a statement into the record showing comparisons between pensions

paid in the state of California and those in Canada. Comparisons of this kind are apt to be misleading to the house and to the public in general unless the complete story is told. The only point I can see that he was making was that his province of British Columbia should be doing more for needy people between the ages of 65 and 70.
I do not dispute the fact that people in California may be receiving pensions of $89 a month, but along with that we should also know two things. In the first place, I think it should be emphasized that that pension is paid not by the federal government of the United States but by the state government of California. In that connection I think the public should also be told on what basis the need was calculated before the pension was made available, and also whether the people of California paid a state income tax in addition to the income tax paid to the federal government.


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Speaker, I understand the state of California and the federal authorities have a joint pension scheme.


Mr. Brooks:: That is right; the state pays part and the federal government pays part.


Chesley William Carter: There are two aspects of the budget which, in my opinion, deserve special consideration. The first is its emphasis on the fact that the danger of inflation is not yet over, and the second is its emphasis on the importance of personal savings. With respect to inflation, although the policies initiated by this government are showing signs of success it is well to remember that the battle is not yet won. In my opinion the greatest danger of inflation is the possibility of our adjusting our attitude toward it: that we might come to accept it as a normal condition, as something that we must learn to live with. Already there is a growing tendency in this direction, and even some economists have gone so far as to say that a little inflation cannot do very much harm. Well, such attitudes as these are not conducive to victory in the battle against inflation.
We must keep in mind, and it is our duty to keep before the public, that inflation slowly eats away the purchasing power of our dollar. It depreciates the value of our investments, of our life insurance and of our personal savings; it works hardships on pensioners and on people who have to live on fixed incomes. And, as the hon. member for New Westminster pointed out, it tends to price our goods out of foreign markets. For all these reasons we must not forget that inflation is a bad thing and something with which we must come to grips, because even in small doses it is harmful.
The Budget-Mr. Carter
Last year inflation increased by 3 per cent. If that rate of increase should continue for 20 years, then in another 20 years' time our present dollar would be worth only 40 per cent of its present value, and personal savings would be reduced in value by 60 per cent. Another thing we must also keep in mind, and keep before the public, is that inflation cannot be controlled by government action alone. It is a job for everyone, for business, for industry, for labour and for consumers. We all have a part to play and a responsibility to fight against inflation.
It is true that we cannot do much about inflation which is caused by conditions outside of Canada in other countries with whom we have dealings and particularly those with whom we trade; but by all working together with a singleness of purpose there is much we can do to control those inflationary causes which originate inside of Canada. We must stop thinking negatively about inflation and start thinking positively, not in defensive terms, of adjusting ourselves to it or protecting ourselves against it, but in terms of reversing inflationary trends. I should like to point out that the reversal of inflationary trends does not necessarily mean deflation. We should be thinking more in terms of purchasing power and less in terms of dollars.
Some time ago I came across a story which I think gives some indication of what can be done.
In Holland several years ago a businessman who manufactured foodstuffs called his employees together and told them he would like them to assume equal responsibility with him in serving the people of Holland. From the discussions that followed it evolved that his employees thought it would be possible to increase production by 20 per cent, but before doing so they wanted to know what he would do if that 20 per cent increase in production was brought about. They wanted to know whether it would be distributed in the form of dividends to shareholders or whether the savings would be passed along to the people of Holland in the form of lower prices for the commodities produced. This manufacturer agreed to take the second course, and he and his employees working together were thus able to make an important contribution to the stabilizing and appreciation of the Dutch currency, as well as to lowering the cost of living in Holland.
That is a simple story but it is true. I think it is worth noting, because it demonstrates the pattern of statesmanship which must be forthcoming from business and labour and government. We must all work together if we are going to be successful in this fight

The Budget-Mr. Carter against inflation. If we follow that example, think of the benefits that will result. Instead of decreasing, the value of our dollar will increase and it would have more purchasing power. We will be in a better competitive position in foreign markets, and there will be an improved standard of living for old age pensioners and those who must live on fixed incomes. In fact everybody will be better off and nobody worse off.
The second aspect of the budget which deserves special consideration is the incentive it offers for personal savings. The Minister of Finance is to be congratulated upon emphasizing and encouraging this old fashioned virtue. When we disregard it, either on a personal or national level, we do so at our peril. Personally I would like to have seen the Minister of Finance go a step further and place restrictions on instalment buying.
Instalment buying serves a very good purpose and benefits a good many people, particularly those in the lower income brackets, but like all good things it can be overdone. When instalment buying reaches the point where goods can be purchased with no down payment and three years in which to pay it is certainly not conducive to personal saving. Unless some limitation is imposed I believe the point will be reached eventually where it will become harmful to our economy.
In days gone by it used to be considered wise to save money in order to purchase higher priced articles at a discount, and business firms encouraged this by offering discounts for cash. However, today many firms prefer to give credit rather than to get cash. This practice cannot be said to be economically wise, because this form of instalment buying, with no down payment and payments spread over a period of three or four years, together with a continuing increase in the consumer price index, means that it no longer pays to wait and save in order to purchase at a discount.
Let me give a concrete example. Suppose a consumer wishes to purchase a bedroom suite, a television set or something costing around $300. Under instalment buying he would have no down payment to make and three years in which to pay, which is roughly $100 per year. Let us say the firm charges 10 per cent for carrying charges. At the end of three years that man has paid $330. If he had waited and saved his money the actual increase in the consumer price index, even if it was at the average rate, would still bring the cost of that article up to about $330. Under instalment buying he would have had the use of it for three years for nothing.
There are many cases where the price of goods has increased even more than the

average rate, and in those cases it is much cheaper to buy under the instalment plan than to pay cash. This sort of thing in time must produce inflation. If 25 or 30 per cent of a man's income is tied up in long-term payments for the purchase of his house; if another portion of his income is tied up in the purchase of a car; if another portion is tied up for three or four years in the purchase of household articles, there eventually comes a time when there is a serious reduction in the number of dollars available for consumer spending, and this in turn will have a harmful effect upon our economy.
I was amazed at the total increase in savings of $1,052 million in 1956 and that it had been distributed so evenly throughout the nation. The budget tells us that it was 37 per cent for corporations, 33 per cent for government, and a little over 25 per cent for personal savings. This in itself is an indication that the tight money policy is proving effective and producing good results. But it seems to me that the tight money policy is a rather blunt instrument for such a delicately balanced economy as we have in Canada.
The disadvantages of the tight money policy are that it works a hardship on small businesses which do not have the financial resources available to larger firms, and it affects adversely regions like the Atlantic provinces where development needs to be accelerated rather than retarded. In my province, especially in the St. John's area, it is creating a severe handicap for the home building industry. I know these restrictions on home building are based on the assumption that the workers employed in that industry can be diverted to other types of building construction. That may be true as far as the mainland is concerned, but it does not apply to any extent in my province. The expenditures being made there on public buildings by the federal government this year will not affect to any extent the economy of Newfoundland. In the main the contracts for this work will go to mainland firms, and to a large extent the materials will be brought from the mainland. Many of the skilled workers will be brought from mainland communities.
The home building trade reaches out to almost every sector of the community. I do hope the Minister of Finance will be able to devise some means of modifying the tight money policy so it can be adjusted to meet differing conditions and wielded with greater precision.
Another feature of the budget for which the government deserves commendation is the special attention it has given to problems of

the maritimes. We rejoice with our colleagues from the maritime provinces at the offer the government has made to finance thermal power stations in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and also at the increase in freight rate assistance under the Maritime Freight Rates Act. As a representative of Newfoundland I wish to voice special appreciation of the government's intention to undertake a fresh and comprehensive examination of the entire transportation system of the Atlantic provinces.
We welcome this assistance, which will make our products more competitive in mainland markets. Our most urgent need, however, is some relief from the excessive cost of transporting goods coming from the mainland into the province, which has such an adverse effect on our cost of living. I would point out to hon. members that freight rates do not constitute the only transportation cost. There is also the excessive cost of packaging, because goods shipped from the mainland to Newfoundland must be packaged as if for export, and the increased cost of doing so is also reflected in our cost of living. That is one reason a standard gauge railway is so necessary in our province.
Before I resume my seat, Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the government the problem of fluorspar producers in my riding. To the best of my knowledge the only fluorspar mines in all Canada are located in the town of St. Lawrence in my riding. There are two companies operating mines there. One is a subsidiary of the Aluminum Company of Canada, and they produce fluorspar for their own requirements; not, of course, their total requirements, but only a small fraction of them. The other company is a private company which has been producing for export. Some years ago this company was fortunate in being awarded a contract by the United States government, but that contract is just about to expire and unless the company can get a share of the Canadian market the mine will have to close down, with the result that some hundreds of miners will be unemployed.
Mr. Speaker, it is impossible for this company to compete with ore coming in from Spain and Mexico. This ore comes in to Canada completely free of duty. Our miners at St. Lawrence get between $10 and $14 a day in wages while their counterparts in Spain and Mexico receive between 80 cents and $1.00 a day.
Mexican fluorspar coming into Sydney can be brought in for around $22 or $24 a ton. It costs that much to produce a ton of fluorspar at St. Lawrence, and in addition there is a freight charge of $3 or $4 a ton between
The Budget-Mr. Rea
there and Sydney. That still leaves no provision for a fair margin of profit on the operation. The same is true of fluorspar destined up the river to the Algoma Steel Company and other places. Unless something is done to enable this company to compete in the Canadian market this little industry, which is the only one of its kind in Canada, will be forced to curtail its operations and may even have to close down all together.
I do hope the minister and his colleagues will be able to do something about this, by tariff protection, freight subsidy, or even by imposing import quotas to alleviate this situation and enable this industry to survive.


Mr. Charles E. Rea (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to enter this debate on the "dribbling" budget which has been introduced, or we might call it the "jack of all trades" budget because it contains a little bit of everything but not much of anything, I wish to say that it shows up just one thing, the fact that the people of Canada were overtaxed. That is what the surplus means, overtaxation of the people.
The embarrassment of having so much money left over presents an awkward problem for the government, and apparently they have not known what to do with the surplus. I am sure there are many hon. members here on both sides of the house who received many letters from old age pensioners before the budget came down, telling them their problems. I know I had a lot of them, and I know other hon. members had a lot, too. Hon. members over there on the other side must have had them. Can you imagine how ashamed those government members must have felt when, after the budget came down, they had to go back to these senior citizens and say, "We can give you only $6 more a month."
Six dollars. That is less than 20 cents a day, or about three-quarters of a cent per hour. That is all the government is going to give them, with a surplus amounting to close on $500 million. What is going to happen to these old people? I wonder whether supporters of the government have visited these people in the homes where they are living, and talked to them about their difficulties. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that they are one of the responsibilities this parliament should assume. The conditions in which some of them are living now are terrible.
I want to say that the responsibility should be laid squarely where it belongs, on the doorstep of this present government. Yet the government turned away and abolished the tax on soft drinks. Does anyone imagine that the soft drink manufacturers are going to make larger bottles so consumers will

The Budget-Mr. Rea
get an ounce more, and that the advantage of the tax concession will be passed on to the public? No, Mr. Speaker; the public will get just the same as they got before the tax was taken off.
One hears a lot of talk about tight money. Certainly money is tight, but the government is controlling it like a man turning a faucet on and off. It says, "You can have money today, but you cannot have it tomorrow." This creates great difficulty for small businessmen and those in similar positions. A man who owns a little store, for instance, will wish to buy some clothes or merchandise, and his banker is willing to advance the money necessary. But a little later, when he wants to do the same thing again, the banker says, "Not today. The faucet's off." I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this situation is very serious, and that it is having an adverse effect on our whole economy.
The people of Canada, especially the working people and the white collar men, are almost round shouldered because of the rate of taxation. They are carrying a terrific burden, and they don't know what to do to make both ends meet. The prices of food and clothing, rent, and the cost of money have all gone up, yet there have been no income tax exemptions in favour of such people. These people are in a tough and bad situation, especially white collar workers who do not have a union to help them obtain pay increases when they think they are entitled to them.
Families who live in cities today may not have more than two children, and even then they hope these will be both of the same sex. If not, when the children become older it means having another bedroom, and this involves paying more rent or getting a bigger house. The way rents are today that presents quite a problem.
I had a chap call me the other day. Three years ago he bought a little house, a new one. He has a $6,600 first mortgage, and in order to secure a $2,500 second mortgage he had to agree to sign a mortgage for $4,000 before he could get the house. He now has four children, and he is steadily going into debt. Last week the quarterly payment on the second mortgage came due. All he could do was pay the interest of $55; he could not pay the $75 off the principal. The people who hold the second mortgage told him that if he did not pay by this coming Monday they would pick up the first mortgage and foreclose on him.
What is that chap going to do if he loses his house? There is only one answer. He will go back into rooms again with his wife and four children, and I do not suppose he will ever be able to raise enough money to

make a down payment on a house. But just think what a higher exemption on his income tax would have meant to him. He would be all right today with only a small additional exemption on his income tax. It would have helped him out of his present difficulty. I am almost sure that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is beginning to hear many stories similar to the one I have related.
I should like to speak for a moment about the indecent literature that is coming into our country. We hear a lot about it and I had received many letters about it, but I did not know how bad the situation was until I made an investigation in Toronto. I went to several newsstands and bookstores, and all I can say is that it is a shame that anybody old enough to read can buy the trash I found there. I could not believe it was as bad as I found it to be. I realize, of course, that the Minister of National Revenue cannot spend all his time reading everything that is published or that comes into this country and be a one-man censor, but the government has to do something about the situation. Just because there seem to be many aspects to the problem the government sits back and does not tackle it because it looks too big, and there is this, that and the other thing to worry about. The problem is not a simple one, and when a problem is not simple the government does not want any part of it.
There is also a problem arising in the city of Toronto having to do with transportation. Toronto, like many other cities in Canada, is growing quickly and with this growth comes growing pains. Some time ago a subway was built on Yonge street and it has been very helpful in relieving the traffic situation in that area. It resulted in the old street cars being removed from Yonge street and automobile traffic can now move more freely. We are now faced with the situation that we need an east-west subway for the very same reason. People get off the Yonge street subway and they have to fight like mad during rush hours to get on the street cars.
It will cost a lot of money for an east-west subway, but I think the project could be financed by the metropolitan council paying 50 per cent, the provincial government 25 per cent and the federal government 25 per cent. Right away someone will ask why the federal government should be concerned. The particular reason is that a subway comes under civil defence activities. What would have happened in London, England, during the war if they had not had the subways? Think of the additional loss of life involving children, women and teen-agers if they had not had the subways in which to take shelter. We may need such protection some

time in our big centres, and I think we all realize that the civil defence problem in such places is very hard to overcome.
Not long ago I had the opportunity in Toronto to see some movies on civil defence, and a physical demonstration. It was an exceptionally good performance, and in my opinion many of us have not realized how important civil defence is and how much we may need it almost in the twinkling of an eye. I should like to give credit to the thousands of people who are really doing a job so far as civil defence is concerned, perhaps without any thanks from the rest of us who take so much for granted.
At this time I should like to pay a tribute to those inspired Hungarians who tried so vainly last fall to overthrow the yoke of communism. When one goes back and reads their history one finds that in March of 1848 the famous March laws were enacted. Imagine seeing in that year such things as responsible government, popular representation, the right of public meetings, absolute religious liberties, universal equality before the law and universal taxation. Can you imagine such laws being put into force 109 years ago? Does this not show that these people really know what democracy means? No wonder they fought so hard for these things. We are very proud to welcome these people to our country, and in that regard may I say once again that we need more immigrants. However, nobody knows what the policy of the immigration department is. I hope the department will bring more people here not only from Europe but from other commonwealth nations.
Once again, as I did last year, I want to draw the attention of the government to the importation into Canada of electrical equipment that does not come up to the standards required of such equipment manufactured in this country. As most hon. members know, a plant in Canada manufacturing fixtures and appliances must first get approval to sell these articles, and to get that approval the articles must measure up to very high safety standards. The materials must be approved. They must be of high quality. Yet similar lamps and appliances can be brought into this country and they do not have to meet the rigid inspection and conform to the rigid regulations required in the case of the Canadian products. Therefore the imported articles are a lot cheaper.
But that is not the worst feature. These imported fixtures and appliances cause loss of life through fire. Do hon. members realize that in the last six years damage to property caused by fires due to electrical defects has amounted to over $55 million, 82715-183
The Budget-Mr. Rea
and that hundreds of people have been disabled and dozens of people killed? Why cannot something be done to stop these articles coming into the country? All the provincial departments concerned have indicated that they want something done, and the only reason nothing has been done is that this government will not take the lead to bring together the provinces and the manufacturers' association representing those who make these things in order to work out something so these appliances and fixtures cannot be brought into Canada unless they conform to our safety regulations.
There are many things to worry about in connection with the problem. The ten provinces have to be brought together and the details have to be worked out, but the federal government cannot be bothered doing it. They are too complacent. They have not the energy they had 20 years ago. Old age is beginning to show, and you can see the results all the time. Therefore they do not do anything about the problem.
Many people in my riding are very much interested and concerned about the situation in the Middle East. For the life of me I cannot understand why anyone with any intelligence-and we expect that the average man and woman over 21 has some intelligence-can place any faith in anything dictator Nasser says or does. Let me give you the reason. Let us review for a moment some of the things he has said. Here is one statement Nasser has made:
The war between us and Zionism has not yet ended, and perhaps has not yet even begun. For us, this war of tomorrow or of the near future means the ending of a disgrace, the realization of a hope and the regaining of rights.
Those words are taken from Nasser's introduction to the book entitled "This is Zionism", published in Cairo in 1955. We will recall that several years ago we heard a lot about another book written by a man named Hitler. I would now like to read a comment by the Egyptian minister of state, who said:
Wait and see, Ben Gurion! Soon will be proven to you the strength and will power of the Arabs. Egypt and the Arab nations will teach you a lesson and quieten you forever. Egypt will grind you to the dust.
Those words of the Egyptian minister of state were taken from the official newspaper of the Egyptian government published in April, 1956. Another comment made by him over the radio in a "Voice of the Arabs" broadcast in April, 1956, was:
There is no reason why the faithful fedayeen, hating their enemies, should not penetrate into Israel and transform the lives of its citizens into a hell. Yes, brother and sister Arabs! The fedayeen will be victorious because their motives are holy

The Budget-Mr. Rea
and their aims are the highest. They will be victorious because they are more diligent in death than Israel is in life.
In another broadcast on January 12, 1956, he said:
Peace between us and the Jews is impossible. As far as we are concerned, it is a matter of life and death, not a dispute over frontiers or interests. Nor is it a difference over viewpoints which require mediation for settlement. The Middle East cannot hold both of us. It is either we or them. . . . There is no other solution . . . Steel and bullets will realize our objectives.
Yet, knowing all these things, the Minister of External Affairs helped to put the pressure on Israel to withdraw from the Gaza strip without any definite guarantees. You know what is going to happen as well as I do.


Mrs. Shipley:: Nonsense. How silly can you get?


Mr. Habel:: Would you sooner declare war?


Charles Edward Rea: Declare war?


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Yes.


Charles Edward Rea: No, I did not say anything about war; that is your problem, not mine. Has Egypt the right to return to Gaza? We heard something about that the other day in this house, and I would like to tell you something more about that situation. We have heard a great deal of the armistice signed in 1949.
Egypt originally gained possession of the Gaza strip by its invasion of Palestine, which was intended to prevent by force of arms the implementation of general assembly and security council resolutions. This military occupation was acknowledged more than nine months after the invasion by the terms of the Israel-Egyptian general armistice agreement of February 24, 1949. Since the territory is not Egyptian, the inhabitants not Egyptians, and since Egypt itself continued to regard the strip as an occupied territory, any claim to return to it would be derived exclusively from the armistice agreement.
The main purposes of the armistice agreement were to end any warlike or hostile acts between the parties, and to facilitate the transition to permanent peace. These purposes were fully endorsed by the security council in its resolution of August 11, 1949, which was not challenged by either party at the time.
The subsequent claim of Egypt that a state of war continued between the two parties, in spite of the armistice agreement, and the claim that Egypt was entitled to exercise belligerent rights, were categorically rejected by the security council in its resolution of September 1, 1951, and the continued validity of this resolution was reaffirmed by the president of the security council on January 13, 1955.
Egypt refused and still refuses to renounce her unilateral claim to a state of war and bel-

ligerency, while at the same time claiming that Israel remains bound to implement armistice provisions selected by Egypt.
By the armistice agreement Egypt retained occupation of the Gaza strip as a non-belligerent. Egypt now seeks to regain possession of that territory outside her borders but in her self-assumed capacity as a belligerent power. There is no such right under the armistice; in fact such a right is not within the letter or spirit of that treaty, and is not compatible with the decisions of the security council. During the Rhodes armistice negotiations the Egyptian representatives did not put forward the contention that a state of war would continue to exist after the signing of the treaty. Had they done so it is certain that the 1949 agreement would not have been signed at all, as no Egyptian rights in respect of Gaza would have come into existence. The claim to return and the claim to a state of war therefore cannot coexist, and nobody can assume that Egypt has any automatic or unqualified rights to the Gaza strip.
According to a report I read in a recent issue of a local newspaper the secretary general of the United Nations who visited Nasser called in the president of the Chase National Bank for discussions. I wonder just what that means. I wonder how much more money we are going to give to Nasser. Is he going to receive all the money he wants with which to build the Aswan dam, in addition to collecting tolls from ships that pass through the canal? It rather appears that it pays to be a dictatorship instead of a democracy, because other countries seem to take more interest in you.
On the basis of all we have heard and seen, the discussions we have had on the budget and all the little dribbling things this government is giving out to the people-of course it is election time-and on the basis of the talk we have heard about inflation and the attitude of this government and events of recent days there is only one conclusion to which one can come. What this country needs is not a good 5-cent cigar but rather a darned good Conservative government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Winters:: There is no such thing.


Mr. Dickey:: That is a contradiction of terms.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the Tory party an alternative to a 5-cent cigar?
(Translation):


Mr. Joseph Fontaine (St. Hyacinthe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada are now aware of the contents of the budget so brilliantly brought down on March 14th last by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris).

I believe that in all fairness we can say that the policies contained in the budget are satisfactory to the Canadian people since they benefit every class of the general population. In the field of social security legislation, the increase made, slight though it be, will, in the first place, bring some solace to old age pensioners.
Many had looked forward to a larger increase in this pension, and had hoped it might be $10 instead of $6. However for my part instead of the present increase I would have preferred that the age limit, which is now 70, according to our present old age pension act, be lowered to 68. As I said here on January 15 last, I would have preferred an extension in the scope of the act rather than an increase in the pension in effect at that time.
Had this lower age limit been provided, it would have been of greater benefit to more people. As it happens, a great many people between the ages of 65 and 69, who do not now qualify for old age assistance because they are in receipt of some revenue, find it hard to maintain a decent standard of living, in keeping with the fruits of their labour. I can understand that my suggestion was not entertained by the minister, but I do take some comfort in the thought that perhaps the next amendment to be brought to our old age assistance act will be such as to implement the suggestions I have put forward.
Also the amendment made to the Family Allowances Act, which, as a whole, is the equivalent of an increase of 15 per cent will surely be beneficial to our large families, especially among the labouring and agricultural classes. The increase in these two items of our social legislation will mean an extra expenditure of $132 million for the Department of National Health and Welfare.
The budget also refers to a new project, that is a hospital insurance plan which is now being submitted to every Canadian province. In my view, that bill will mean for Canadians a measure of security which they have never known. Up to now, five provinces have shown their willingness to take advantage of that proposal. As far as my province is concerned, I wish, as do all well-meaning Canadians of the province of Quebec, that the provincial government will come to an understanding with the federal government on that matter which, in my humble opinion, is, I repeat, of vital importance to our population.
On February 11, 1957, in a televised broadcast, the Prime Minister of this country (Mr. St. Laurent) announced that his government had offered to co-operate with the ten Canadian provinces in the introduction of a hospital insurance plan which would protect Canadians 82715-183J
The. Budget-Mr. Fontaine against those heavy expenses. These bills, as many of us know from experience, are sometimes a crushing burden for families unprotected by any private insurance plan.
The federal government's proposal takes into full account the provincial responsibilities in the field of public health and welfare. That is why the central government has no intention to substitute itself to provincial authorities in the administration of this plan.
The purpose of the government is to assist provinces which so desire to protect Canadian citizens against hospitalization costs and diagnostic services costs for in-patients. On the same occasion, the Prime Minister stated the following:
I am confident that the day is not very far when a sufficient number of provinces will have evidenced their desire to avail themselves of the federal offer, so that it can be implemented. Already five provinces have indicated their intention to accept the federal proposal and negotiations are continuing with other provinces.
Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the budget debate, we have heard some members of the opposition criticize the budget and say that it was unrealistic, since it brought no reduction of taxes. I believe it is fair to say that if there is no substantial reduction for the taxpayers, the Canadian people in general will enjoy certain benefits which, to my mind, are much more necessary and certainly will be more appreciated by the people than the slight reduction which could have been granted in the circumstances.
I am sure that the people will be more appreciative of the hospital insurance plan, of the increase in family allowances and of the increase in the rate of old age pensions than it would have been of a slight income tax reduction such as was claimed by the opposition. Personally, I am not opposed to a lowering of the income tax and I even believe that it would be advisable to review the case of wage earners. For instance, the basic exemption for a married man, which is $2,000 at the present time, in my opinion should be increased by $500 in view of the high cost of living, that is to say that the worker should normally and in all justice have a basic exemption of $2,500. I think, Mr. Speaker, that of all classes of taxpayers in this country it is the one I have just mentioned which is discriminated against.
So I would suggest to the Minister of Finance that he give serious consideration to my request on behalf of these wage earners, and I am convinced that after a careful study of their case he will come to the conclusion that their lot should be improved.
In another sphere I feel I should bring up a matter pertaining to agriculture and which I think is of vital importance for all specialized farmers, in my region as well as in the

The Budget-Mr. Fontaine areas around Montreal. This project, Mr. Speaker, which I discussed some weeks ago in this house, implies the construction of the Montreal metropolitan market. This market would,-as I explained before to some cabinet members,-not only serve the population of that city, but all people in Canada. It will have a national character and should, I think, be called "National Metropolitan Market".
A few years ago, Mr. Speaker, the federal government, in its foresight, favoured the establishment in the western provinces, of an institution similar to the market now advocated; this institution is called the Wheat Pool. At that time, the whole Canadian people, from east to west, rejoiced because of this federal action and, now more than ever, we loudly agree that this farm body saved the situation for the western wheat producer.
Today, a similar organization, though not quite as big I admit, might be set up in the eastern provinces, that is to say in the Canadian metropolis of Montreal. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this government should pay as much attention to the setting up of this farm organization, which would contribute tremendously to the betterment of the farmer's condition.
It has always been claimed, and rightly, that to keep our country on a sound economic basis, a prime requisite is to keep our agriculture prosperous, and I am more than ever convinced that financial assistance from federal authorities in this undertaking is indispensable and would be fully justified.
The Metropolitan Central Market Company holds, in the city of Montreal, a splendid site of approximately 110 acres, located close to both the C.P.R. and C.N.R. tracks.
That location, being close to the future Metropolitan boulevard and the contemplated Montreal-St. Jerome highway, will certainly be of easy access and will solve all parking problems. Montreal is the central receiving and distributing market for fruits and vegetables in Canada. This trade, as a matter of fact, has not only a local and provincial activity, but also a national and even international activity. Indeed, according to the monthly report of the arrivals of fruits and vegetables in 1955, the volume of arrivals would amount to 24,865 carloads from six Canadian provinces and 15 British countries or colonies. This operation of import, export or forwarding to other Canadian provinces amounts to an average yearly value of several million dollars. This trade will expand further when wholesalers, retailers or producers will be provided with modern facilities for unloading, storage and forwarding. The Metropolitan Central Market Company has been organized especially to meet those needs.

At present, the fruit market located in the western part of the city is the only reception centre for vegetables and fruits coming in by railroad. Bonsecours market, in the eastern part of the city, is the only wholesale market available to the farmers of the province of Quebec. This division of the wholesale trade results in price fluctuations which contribute significantly to the increase of distribution costs in the eastern part of the country. As a result, the producers in Quebec, as well as in other provinces, suffer an important loss, as they can hardly compete with prices of vegetables imported from the United States, because of the difficult access to Bonsecours market, while farmers have no access to the Canadian National Fruit Market, where the preference often goes to imported products.
It will also be beneficial to wholesalers and jobbers. The establishment of a central market will give a new expansion to that trade since handling, reception and shipping will cost less. Contacts between all those concerned will be made easier and thus great variations in prices will be less likely. As a result, wholesalers and jobbers, their risks of losses being diminished, will be able to sell at lower prices, which is not the case today.
It will be easier to supply small towns in eastern Canada and, also, exportation should be made easier and more economical.
As a matter of fact, there are no parking facilities at Bonsecours market and most dealers feel that it is practically impossible to buy their supplies there. They prefer to go into the city market halls to buy imported fruits and vegetables while similar products equal in quality and cheaper could be bought at home.
Truck gardeners will be able to use this market, which will be open at fixed times. This will result in stabilizing the exaggeratedly large variations in prices during a single day.
Obviously those who will benefit most from this project will be the producers and, to almost the same extent, the consumers since the fact that truck gardeners will be able to set up shop in a convenient location, providing all the space and room required to move, and where they will be adequately protected in the physical sense, will enable them to set out and grade their products satisfactorily. This will no doubt bring about the establishment of more reasonable prices for them as well as for all those who have a hand in this trade.
Everybody knows that, under present conditions, a gardener who wants to sell directly to the trade has to drive to market either the day before or at daybreak, if he wants to get

space; otherwise, he will have to wait for hours and, being discouraged and seeing no chance to get a location on the market, he will sell at a loss. Speculators will then buy this produce and later resell it on small town or big village markets at prices equal to and often higher than those prevailing in Montreal.
It also happens that market wholesalers are practically forced to get rid of their surplus of imported fruits and vegetables on the Montreal market and that farmers are again left with their production.
As regards the consumer, he will benefit by the savings that may result from a more rational, convenient, economical distribution, and a faster one. The produce they will be offered will be fresher and the savings resulting from decentralization of that business will mean lower retail prices. Consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables will increase and contribute to that extent to the maintenance of national health.
Therefore the construction of a central market in the Montreal region is important for producers as well as for retailers, wholesalers and consumers, who in the end have to pay for the excessive costs of distribution of fruits and vegetables, no doubt arising from present conditions. Besides, the Canadian Horticultural Council has made many protests against the poor conditions prevailing on the present market. At one of its meetings that organization unanimously supported a resolution recommending and approving the steps taken by the Central Metropolitan Market Company Limited. I might add that the producers of Ontario, Quebec and the other provinces are all agreed on that point.
The initial cost of that project would exceed $4 million. Already producers, retailers and wholesalers have invested a substantial amount in the project.
The provincial government has granted a subsidy of at least $1 million, part of which has already been paid to the company.
The city of Montreal has granted a similar subsidy for this project.
Better distribution facilities in the main centres of the country are of the greatest importance to Canadian producers. A modern system of distribution is as necessary in Canada as in the United States where the building and development of markets is taking place at an ever-growing pace.
As it is absolutely impossible to create market centres without financial assistance, it seems only fair that the federal government consider the opportunity of legislation providing a generous grant for the promotion of this project.
The Budget-Mr. Fontaine
(Text):


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, the budget has been criticized by members of this group for a number of reasons. I am not going to attempt to review all of the criticisms or the suggestions that have been made as to how the budget might have been drafted. I wish to comment on it in only three particular aspects.
First of all, the budget failed to restore the social security measures in this country to the position they held previously when they were last improved. As we have suggested during this debate, it is not sufficient that social security measures should remain at any given level; rather they should be increased and improved as the years go by. We are certainly disappointed that increases in family allowances and in old age pensions have failed to restore the value of these measures to the position they held in 1945 and 1949, respectively. Inflation has eaten away a larger proportion of their purchasing power than the government has seen fit to restore in this budget.
The second general comment I wish to make is that as far as agriculture is concerned, the budget is almost entirely valueless. The agricultural industry has been overlooked. As a matter of fact, the agriculture industry and the farmers were merely mentioned in the budget. The assertion was made that if a bumper crop was obtained in 1957, the net purchasing power of the farmers of this country might be restored to the 1951 position. If that should happen it would mean that since 1951 the position of the agricultural industry has not improved, though almost every other industry and almost every other group in the country has shared in the general increase in wealth production.
The third criticism I wish to make is that the budget has overlooked in particular the people on the prairies and more particularly the people of Saskatchewan. I believe any fair-minded citizen really studying the budget, would wonder why the government has not allowed the people on the prairies to share in some of the very worth-while measures that have been announced in it.
There are two items that effect my own constituency more particularly. I wish to associate myself at this time with the remarks made yesterday by the hon. member for Prince Albert, the Leader of the Opposition, who asked that the customs port of West Poplar, Saskatchewan, remain open beyond six o'clock until at least ten o'clock in the evening. This port services the traffic on the international highway from the United States boundary through the town of Assiniboia, through Moose Jaw, up

The Budget-Mr. Argue to Prince Albert and on to the national park and the summer resorts in that area. There are seven customs officers between the Manitoba boundary and Radville on highway No. 6, which are kept open beyond six o'clock in the evening. We feel that in the western half of the province some consideration should be given to keeping a number of customs offices open beyond six, and in particular the customs office at West Poplar, which services the tourist traffic and the normal traffic along this very important highway.
I notice that the Minister of Public Works is in the house, and I wish to tell him that I am very pleased indeed that federal public buildings will be constructed during the present year at Weybum and Assiniboia. A few days ago I was informed that the contract in each case has been let and that construction will commence shortly. These public buildings are needed in the constituency of Assiniboia, perhaps more than public buildings at other points, though there are a number of other points that are worthy of consideration in addition to Weyburn and Assiniboia. So far, the government has not seen fit to approve an estimate for a public building in the town of Radville. The constituency of Assiniboia has fared rather well in the estimates this year, but at the same time I wish to say that the town of Radville has an exceptionally good case for a public building, not only because it is a thriving community needing such service but because of some of the history attached to estimates for such a public building in the past.
I have mentioned this to the minister privately, but I got into something of a debate in that district four years ago with respect to an item in the estimates. The Liberal candidate, of all people, said that as long as the constituency of Assiniboia returned an opposition member there was no chance of federal public works in that constituency. Well, I am pleased that the government is giving an appropriate reply to that assertion, in that federal buildings are being erected in Weyburn and Assiniboia. But as far as the people of Radville are concerned, where this assertion was made, I feel that the government should have given them a plain answer by including an item in the estimates for this year. I express the hope that even before this session is over an item will be included so the people in this area may have the building which is particularly required.
A number of things outlined in the budget are of real value to many sections of this country. Members of the C.C.F. group have always been broadminded enough to support


any measure, no matter what region it may help, as long as we feel it is in the interests of the people of that area. We have said also that it is the duty of the government to present legislation which will enable people in every area to obtain a share of the great wealth produced in this nation. The government are going to be campaigning in this election on the basis that the country is prosperous. They are going to say that the country is more prosperous than it has ever been, and they will outline some of the reasons the people should support them.
As far as this budget is concerned, the people of the prairie provinces are the forgotten people. We have been forgotten in a number of ways, not only because the government has failed to deal with agricultural prices, which affect the economy of the prairie provinces probably to a greater degree than that of any other three provinces, but because the government has singled out certain areas to be benefited when the benefits should have been spread among all the provinces.
I refer first to the very welcome announcement that something will be done soon about the high freight rate structure that affects the maritime provinces. Over the years there have been many discussions in parliament about high freight rates, horizontal increases in freight rates, and the way freight rates adversely affect the economy of the maritime provinces and western Canada. From time to time the government has introduced measures to alleviate the severe burden imposed by freight rates. A royal commission which sat a few years ago brought in some excellent recommendations which have been partially fulfilled. However, since that time further increases in freight rates have destroyed a substantial part of the benefits which flowed from the report of that particular royal commission.
Last year there were two horizontal increases of 7 per cent and 4 per cent, and there is an application now before the board of transport commissioners for another horizontal increase of 4 per cent. In 1952 a subsidy was placed in the estimates to cover the cost of maintenance of trackage through certain parts of northern Ontario. That bridge subsidy was provided in order to make it possible for freight rates to be reduced on goods going to western Canada from the central provinces, and to a degree on goods coming into the central provinces from western Canada. Since 1952 the effects of the $7 million subsidy have been reduced because of inflation and because of horizontal increases in freight rates.

Following the Turgeon royal commission report of 1951 a study was undertaken to equalize class rates in the country, and a report was made in 1955. It was also recommended that a study be made of commodity rates in order that they might be equalized. That study is still in progress and no report has yet been made. Action to equalize commodity freight rates has yet to be taken.
So the picture is this. Recently we have had horizontal increases in freight rates which came on top of a large number of horizontal increases imposed since 1947. Because of those increases freight rates today generally speaking are 218 per cent of the 1947 rates, a tremendous increase.
Hon. members of the house will realize that the result of horizontal increases in freight rates is to place heavier burdens and discriminatory burdens on shippers in western Canada and shippers in the maritime provinces who have to ship their freight over long hauls. Every time an application is made to the board of transport commissioners for an increase in freight rates representations from eight of the ten provinces are placed before it. The provinces spend tens of thousands of dollars in obtaining counsel and making their presentations. The presentation from these eight provinces, that is other than Ontario and Quebec, is that freight rates discriminate against them; that the horizontal increase in rates affects the eight provinces more than it does the central provinces, because the rates which affect the central provinces are to a large extent governed by competition by water and truck transportation.
Because of the burdensome increase in freight rates the Minister of Finance made the following announcement in his budget as far as the maritime provinces are concerned:
In the view of the government we should now undertake a fresh and comprehensive examination of the entire transportation system of the Atlantic provinces in order to determine what changes could contribute towards the economic welfare of the region.
And further on he said:
It is therefore the government's intention to launch an immediate review of the maritime transportation problem in general, and thereafter to put forward proposals as soon as feasible.
And still further on, referring to increases in freight rates, the minister said this:
These increases have fallen rather more heavily on the traffic moving from the Atlantic region to central Canada than on rail movements within the central provinces.
Note the statement of the Minister of Finance in reference to freight rates affecting traffic out of the maritime provinces. He says the rates are higher than for comparable distances in central Canada. He did not say, as he might have, that the highest freight rates
The Budget-Mr. Argue in the nation affect shippers in western Canada. He said the rates were high as compared with those of shippers in central Canada.
I asked the following question of the Minister of Transport on Monday of this week, as appears in Hansard at page 2640:
Now that the government has announced that a comprehensive examination of the entire transportation system of the Atlantic provinces will be made in order to determine what can be done to contribute to their welfare, will a similar comprehensive examination of the system on the prairies be carried out in order to assist the economic welfare of that region and to remove the discriminatory freight rates?
The reply given by the Minister of Transport was:
Mr. Speaker, I would repudiate the suggestion that there is any possible comparison outside of the mind of the hon. gentleman between the two areas which have just been mentioned. I cannot think at the moment of any reason why the government should consider making an inquiry into transportation conditions in the west.
That was the answer of the Minister of Transport. He is saying in that answer that he is not aware that freight rates discriminate against the prairie provinces and against British Columbia. He is saying he is not aware of the results that flow from horizontal increases in freight rates. The present Minister of Transport is apparently not even aware that public money to the extent of $468,000 has been spent in the last few years to enable a royal commission on transportation to report on discriminatory freight rates as they affect eight provinces of this country.
I have not heard for many years a statement made by any minister about his department in this house which shows such a complete lack of knowledge as does that statement by the Minister of Transport to which I have just referred. It is no wonder there is nothing in the budget that will help the freight shippers in western Canada in the same way that freight shippers in the maritimes will be helped, seeing that we have in office a minister of transport who is not even aware of the very burdensome freight rate structure from whose adverse effects western Canada is suffering.
I believe the committee on estimates is going to discuss transport-within the next few days, I hope-and I ami sure we will have no difficulty at all in that committee in establishing, even contrary to the statement of the Minister of Transport, that freight rates today are very discriminatory against the four western provinces, and further, that each horizontal increase in freight rates, two such increases having been put into effect last year, worsens the position
2892	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Argue of shippers on the prairies and in British Columbia, discriminating against us to an even greater degree.
Another section of the budget which completely overlooked the prairie provinces was the announcement about electric power development. I had expected for many years that when an announcement was made by the government with regard to the generation of additional power in any part of Canada, the project which would be given first priority, or at least a priority equal to that given any other project, would be the South Saskatchewan river project and the South Saskatchewan dam. The Minister of Agriculture and Liberal politicians in every election campaign since 1945 have not only been discussing the benefits which would flow from the South Saskatchewan dam, but have been promising categorically that the dam will be built. On May 3, 1945, for example, the Minister of Agriculture, at a political meeting in Southey, as reported by the Moose Jaw Times-Herald, had the following to say:
I am not telling you that we are going to spend $100 million next year, but I am telling you we are going to start as soon as the men are available, and we are going right on until it is through.
Could anything be more definite than that undertaking by the Minister of Agriculture?
I can quote another statement which was made in the following year, on April 27, 1946, by the Minister of Agriculture as reported in the Regina Leader-Post:
As soon as the site has been finally decided upon contracts would be let, and work would proceed immediately.
Year after year one can go through the record and show occasions when the Minister of Agriculture and other Liberal members from Saskatchewan have promised the dam.


Mr. Knight:: He was talking about it last week.


Hazen Robert Argue: Somebody says he was talking about it last week. I have not seen that report, but I will be very surprised if he was not promising it again, even in spite of the categorical "no" from the Prime Minister. In 1945 the minister was promising it, but his party did badly in the election; it lost almost all the constituencies in Saskatchewan. In 1949, however, the Minister of Agriculture said in the course of his election campaign, "Send 12 Liberal members from Saskatchewan and you will get the dam." The people of Saskatchewan took the minister's words at their face value. They outdid themselves and sent 14 Liberal members from Saskatchewan that year. But the dam was forgotten very hastily.
It was promised again at the next election, and no doubt it will be promised this year,


too. But instead of the government coming forward with the South Saskatchewan project it has been making one excuse after another. What are the excuses given? The first was that men and materials were not available.
Surely they have been available now for many years. The next excuse was that the dam site had not been chosen. I think everybody knows where the site will be if the dam should ever be built. Another excuse was that there were no Liberal members from Saskatchewan in the house, or very few. That situation was changed for a four-year period but nothing was done. The next excuse was that no money could be spent by the federal treasury on any project for the production of power. It was said that any part of the cost of the dam that might be attributed to the generation of power should be paid for by the Saskatchewan government. Finally, with this gun at the head of the government of Saskatchewan, that government said, "Yes, we will consider paying $20 million."
That was not enough. The federal government was not satisfied. Now, in addition to asking the province to pay $20 million toward the cost of the dam itself, the federal government is saying that if the Saskatchewan government will offer to pay the cost of penstocks the federal government might take another look at the project in the light of the Saskatchewan government's further offer. The federal government wants the Saskatchewan government, on behalf of the people of Saskatchewan, to commit the province to a further large expenditure of Saskatchewan public money before the federal government will even so much as say the project is in the public interest.
Somebody referred to the Prime Minister the other day as an honest man. I think he made a perfectly honest and frank statement in the house on Thursday of this week, when he said no consideration would be given by the government to bringing in an item before this session was concluded that would enable construction of the South Saskatchewan project to be commenced. He went on to say that no such consideration would be given in the course of the next few weeks.
In spite of the government's attitude that it was unable to advance public money for the provision of power we now have, as far as the maritime provinces are concerned, there was a very welcome announcement in the budget that the government is not only prepared to advance money for the construction of power facilities but has gone beyond that and is prepared to establish a federal crown company for the production of power through the installation of thermoelectric units. The government has said that it is prepared to

extend such a crown corporation to the building of an interconnecting grid system for the maritime provinces.
The other day the government announced through the Minister of Fisheries that it was prepared to spend huge sums of money in the building of public power facilities in the province of British Columbia, and that too was a welcome announcement. The part of the announcement that was very welcome was the statement that the federal government was prepared to construct the facilities as a public development, something that will mean an estimated expenditure of as much as $300 million in the province of British Columbia if that province should agree. Last year in the house a very large sum of money was appropriated for the building of a gas pipe line by a crown company through northern Ontario.
The government has said that it is prepared to allocate public funds for the provision of power facilities in the maritimes, to construct a gas pipe line through northern Ontario, and to provide public power facilities in British Columbia, but when it comes to the prairie provinces and Saskatchewan in particular the government has said that no public funds will be used even for that part of the cost of the South Saskatchewan dam that might be attributed to the generation of power.
The Minister of Agriculture has represented the province of Saskatchewan in the government as Minister of Agriculture for some years. As far as the South Saskatchewan river project is concerned he has been very long on promises and very short on performance. He has utterly failed to bring about this worth-while project for the people of Saskatchewan. The Minister of Labour and the Minister of Public Works have been able to get the government to announce at this session a very worth-while power project for the maritimes. They have been able to get the government to say that it will provide further subsidies from the federal treasury to lower freight rates for maritime shippers.
The Minister of Fisheries has been able to influence the government to offer large appropriations for the development of power in British Columbia. Representatives of Ontario and Quebec have influenced the government to go forward with the seaway development. The ministers from Ontario have undoubtedly influenced the government to set up a crown company to transport gas through northern Ontario. But the cabinet ministers representing the three prairie provinces, particularly the Minister of Agriculture representing the province of Saskatchewan, have been unable to obtain from the government the same kind
The Budget-Mr. Argue of treatment for those provinces that the government has extended to other provinces in this country.
Right now, in addition to the South Saskatchewan river project and the power that might flow therefrom, there is a need for an interconnecting grid system between Manitoba and Saskatchewan. As a matter of fact, officials of the respective power corporations met the other day to consider whether or not such a grid system might be built. Saskatchewan needs additional generating facilities, and I believe the province of Manitoba is in the same position. Today Saskatchewan and Manitoba must depend upon coal for additional power. Manitoba has recently built a thermoelectric plant generating power from coal near the city of Brandon. As I understand the situation, the federal government will probably agree to pay on maritime coal used in the production of electricity the subvention now paid on the shipment of such coal into central Canada. In other words the government is considering very seriously -we in this group welcome it and have so advocated for years-a subsidy on maritime coal in order to provide for the power needs of that area. Why does the government not now offer the same kind of scheme for Manitoba and Saskatchewan that has been offered in the budget to the maritime provinces?
We are going to keep on campaigning for the South Saskatchewan river project. We think the only opposition to the project is that of the government in power at this time, and the Liberal party. I am getting tired of reading and hearing in this house and other places Liberal members of parliament from the province of Saskatchewan from the Minister of Agriculture down complaining against all crown corporations. Apparently they have a pathological opposition to crown corporations. They see any crown corporation as socialism, and therefore will not have anything to do with it. They are opposed to crown corporations, but the government and the Liberal party of which they are a part have offered to the people of this nation at this session a crown company to develop power in the maritimes, a crown corporation to develop public power in British Columbia, and a crown company for the transmission of gas in Ontario, but no offer of public money for the development of power or irrigation in Saskatchewan.
I can come to only one conclusion; that when the Minister of Agriculture and the Liberal members from Saskatchewan are so opposed to any government, provincial or federal, getting into public business they are opposed to the government getting into the business of electrical power development in

The Budget-Mr. Argue Saskatchewan or the public development of the South Saskatchewan river project.
This government has changed that attitude as far as electric power development in the maritimes is concerned. I would agree with those who have said that probably the most important reason for that change of attitude is that the people of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia have turned the Liberals out.
We did that in Saskatchewan in 1944, and we have successfully repelled every Liberal attack since. With the attitude of this government toward the South Saskatchewan dam and toward electric power development on the prairies there is only one further thing the people of Saskatchewan can do-and they will soon have an opportunity to do it- and that is to turn out every Saskatchewan Liberal candidate running in the election, including the Minister of Agriculture.
If that were done, and if we should be so misfortunate as to have a federal Liberal government in power after the next election, that action on the part of the people of Saskatchewan would result in the same kind of benefits being extended to them that are now being extended to the people of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia as a result of their turning out the Liberal governments in those provinces.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this government will be appealing to the people on the prairies in exactly the same terminology they use in appealing across the country. They will parade as the great party of national unity. They will claim it is the Liberal party that is providing a united and prosperous Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hazen Robert Argue: -but as far as this budget and the attitude of the Liberal government to the people of Saskatchewan are concerned

yes, even to the people in all the prairie provinces as a whole-this is a government and a party of disunity. This is a budget which makes the province of Saskatchewan an unwanted child in confederation, because Saskatchewan and the prairie provinces as a whole constitute one area of this nation that has not had access to federal public funds in the last 24 months that would help the people of those provinces share in the national development and production of this nation.
As far as Saskatchewan is concerned, Mr. Speaker, this is a bleak and dismal budget. It is a budget that not only does not restore social security measures to the position they once held; it is not only a budget that ignores the farming industry of this nation, but because of its omissions it is a budget which is 

directed against the economic welfare of the people of Saskatchewan and the people on the prairies.


Mr. J. C. Van Horne (Resligouche-Madawaska):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate, and I would like to deal immediately with the chief problem in my riding. That has to do with unemployment insurance.
In order to get a few things straight and clear at the outset I might point out that the delays in processing insurance claims do not originate in the regional office in Moncton. Those delays come about at the local offices in the towns of Campbellton and Edmundston, and this is where the minister may be giving an erroneous impression to the house when he mentions that there are only a few delays originating at the Moncton office.
The same thing occurred last year when the minister mentioned that only a few delays originated at the Moncton office; but afterwards he stated, and it is reported in Hansard, that there were 7,102 claims from my riding alone that had been referred for decision to the Moncton office. It is very easy to ascertain, as I have done, that those delays were for periods ranging from one week to eight weeks. I brought into the house this afternoon just a few of the thousands of letters I have received-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Ralph Byron Horner: This can be confirmed if any hon. member wishes to do so, because I have sent these letters to the managers of the regional offices where they came from and I might mention that they came not only from my riding but from all across Canada. Sir, I do not look at this question from any partisan point of view.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Ralph Byron Horner: I am submitting a problem that requires attention-


Mr. Studer:: How much were the advertising costs?


Ralph Byron Horner: I have not received the
bill yet.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Ralph Byron Horner: There is no question about it, if the hon. gentleman wishes to know. I did want to know how many constituents in my riding were having trouble getting their unemployment insurance claims processed. I do wish we could adopt a nonpartisan attitude toward this problem.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Ralph Byron Horner: Let me go on from there. The regulations themselves are to blame for these delays. There is no point in accusing the employees or suggesting that the employees in the various branch offices are to blame for these delays. They are not to blame; in fact they are to be commended for the work they are doing in trying to cope with the problem with which they have to deal. They frequently work overtime, often after midnight, as I had occasion to see them do in the town of Campbellton.
When I brought this matter up some time ago, Mr. Speaker-and I wish merely to refer to this in order to clear the air of any misunderstanding which might occur-1 considered very seriously your request that I withdraw the accusation I had made. As a matter of fact I spent a good many hours considering it. Had I been expelled from this house I intended to make a statement which I shall make at this time; that as you, sir, do your duty I shall do mine, and as long as innocent children suffer from hunger and cold because this government is too idle, lazy and indifferent to treat our people with the justice and consideration they deserve, I cannot withdraw that accusation.
Mr. Speaker, there is a difference between doing your duty and merely making complaints for the sake of making them. This is a very serious question. Why cannot the unemployment insurance commission just make up its mind that our people cannot wait anywhere from four weeks to eight weeks for their unemployment cheques? You may very well say they should so manage their affairs that they can wait for many weeks before they receive their cheques. Sir, those are not the facts. If people do not receive weekly cheques many of them cannot buy the necessities of life. Those are the unembellished facts.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to repeat what I said when I first came to this house. I have every respect for the rules of this house and I have every admiration for the Speaker and the excellent manner in which he discharges his responsibilities. I have every sympathy for him as the man on whose shoulders weigh the responsibilities of one of the most onerous positions in Canada.
I recall very well how one night the winter before last when I was speaking of the methods adopted by Mr. Donald Gordon to break the unions of the Canadian National Railways I was called to order by Your
The Budget-Mr. Van Horne Honour and immediately refrained from pursuing that line of argument; and afterwards you, sir, called me down from my room to mention that you had been in error. Those are things one appreciates, and I also appreciate the fairness-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In order to keep the record straight I should like to point out to the hon. gentleman that on that occasion I did not call him to my room-


Ralph Byron Horner: No, from my room.


Mr. Speaker:: I retracted the statement in the house.


Ralph Byron Horner: Yes, that is what I meant.


An hon. Member:: That is not what you said.


Ralph Byron Horner: I intended to say that I was called down from my office into the house, and I appreciate that Mr. Speaker righted the ruling he had made previously.
Mr. Speaker, you could very well give me a blind eye for suggesting a question to the minister, but the only thought in my mind at that moment was that this government had been giving a blind eye to the Canadian people for 21 years. I did not come here to join in a popularity contest sponsored by the Liberal party. I came here to do a job for a people who had been neglected for many, many years, not only by the Liberal government but by all governments since confederation.
Now the Liberal conventions are being held again. The same pattern is being followed that we have seen time and time again in the past. On Sunday, March 17, they insulted the people of many faiths in my riding by holding a convention in the afternoon while church services were being held, and especially on St. Patrick's day. What happened at this convention? I am sorry the hon. member for Gloucester is not here, or as his Liberal colleagues call him, Mr. Hot Shot. At this convention that gentleman told more falsehoods in 15 minutes than the number of crossties on the Canadian National Railways.
The same thing is true of the hon. member for Rimouski, and I shall come to that right away. They were suggesting that I should not come here and say to the Minister of Agriculture that out of $500,000 paid to help potato farmers, only $5,000 reached the farmers. They were shocked that I should come here and say that. They were shocked also that I should mention in a letter to

The Budget-Mr. Van Horne the Minister of Agriculture that according to reports I had from the New Brunswick government, some 50,000 farms had been abandoned in my province over the past 20 years. It was mentioned at this convention that there were only 7,000 farms abandoned in those 20 years and I was wrong when I mentioned 50,000. They were ignoring all those marginal farms in the report to which I had referred.
It is difficult for the Liberals to understand, Mr. Speaker, that if only they would solve our problems, as I said when I first came here in 1956, I would be the first to congratulate them. I would be the first to tell them what wonderful fellows they are if only they would recognize our problems and do something about them. They made a terrific scandal, or tried to but it fizzed out, at this convention on St. Patrick's day because there was some mention that I had been in New York attending some committee meetings on petitions and peace and interviewing certain representatives from other countries in order to ascertain what impressions they had of the Canadian government and the Secretary of State for External Affairs. But there was no knowledge of that at all when these people mentioned those things.
First of all they tried to say I was not in New York. Well, here is my ticket and I will be glad to put it on the table. Then they tried to say it was wrong for me to be there, and I said why? They said it was unconstitutional, and I said I was there merely as an observer. How ridiculous can some of these Liberal fellows be? How far can they stretch the truth? It is not right that they should do that.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: What committee was sitting?


Ralph Byron Horner: The other day, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Temiscouata berated me at the convention merely because I was trying to do my duty toward my people here. I am sorry he is not here, but he seldom is. If the Reverend-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Ralph Byron Horner: -Fathers O'Neill and Dion wish to know how elections are bought and how votes are bartered for pieces of silver and television sets, I suggest to them that they follow the campaign of the hon. member for Temiscouata when he runs in the next election. Those are things which should not be left to the imagination of the people. Those are the facts that deserve to be known. We

did not come here to be treated in the manner this Liberal party has seen fit to treat us. We came here to do a job, and that is all we want to do. As I said, we would be the first to congratulate you if you would do your job. It is the same old game with the Liberals of divide and conquer; playing on the ignorance of people. Lie and tell more lies, and that is the way they will do in the future, too.
I know that when I ran for election the hon. member for Gloucester, Hot Shot as his Liberal friends call him, went about saying: "If you vote for Van Horne you will lose your old age pensions and family allowances". When I spoke in the house just after I came here and asked for an increase in family allowances to compensate for the increases in the cost of living since 1945, and increases of $20 in old age pensions, he was the first man and the only man who got up and berated me and opposed me for asking for these increases. Just where are we going with this type of administration?
Possibly many of you believe I should refer to the hon. member for Charlotte, whom I see across the way, as the result of his remarks about our bellyaching for the things we need in the maritime provinces. Let me tell him that our bellyaching did not do much good. We are going to have to keep on bellyaching in order to get the things we need in the maritime provinces. If they were to suddenly solve only a few of our problems, it would be a help.
Just let me proceed by mentioning the tight money policy. If inflation exists in this country it is because of the government's monetary policy over the last 20 years. The worth of our dollar has gone down to 53.5 cents since 1939. This policy is further crippling the already limping economy of the maritime provinces. We have a recent statement from Mr. Coyne, the governor of the Bank of Canada, that further restrictions are in the offing.
Now, inflation does not exist in the mari-times. We are all agreed on this point. The crying need of the maritimes is for expanded credit and low interest rates. Easy money and more money are the urgent necessities of the maritime provinces if we are to improve the economy of that region. We are also all agreed on this point. I am sure the Minister of Public Works would be the first to admit it, and so would the Minister of Labour.
It is axiomatic that our economic situation in the maritime provinces is the complete reverse of the situation which may exist in central Canada. Our provinces, cities, villages

and towns, our small businessmen and our new ventures need money if we are to overcome the need for one-way tickets to central Canada. I am wondering if, in the coming election to be fought by the Liberals in the maritimes, they are going to use the slogan, "Vote Liberal and get a one-way ticket". This would be a fine accomplishment indeed to show for 20 years of misrule.
Let me tell you how this migration takes place in my riding, because I know whereof I speak. You go into a house in Madawaska county and you will find the father, mother and possibly one son or a daughter who have succeeded in getting work in the pulp mills. All the other sons and daughters are in Hartford, Connecticut. Half of my Madawaska constituents are in Hartford, Connecticut. The migration from other areas is to different places. From Atholville, where 1 went to school, the people go to Niagara Fails; from Campbellton they go to Toronto; from Edmundston they go to Seven Islands-


Irvin William Studer: They all left after you were elected.


Ralph Byron Horner: Just a second; that remark shows the puerile mind of some of the Liberals. That migration has been going on for years and years and it is time it stopped. I do not blame it all on the Liberal party; the blame must be shared by all gov-vernments since confederation, because we have never received a just deal in the maritime provinces since confederation. The migration keeps on. I was talking to one bishop some time ago and he said that parishes are emptying. That is the situation. How can traditions be maintained and how can families be united if they are to be forever torn asunder and driven away like nomads into the desert, driven from our homes by the same economic conditions that yesteryear drove our forefathers from the shores of Europe in great numbers?
Our problems today are far too serious to permit the entrance into this debate of petty Liberal politics. In order to cure inflation which might exist in central Canada the government pursues and continues the dictatorial policy of prohibitively high interest rates and scarce money in all parts of Canada. This policy is applied right across the board. The government says, when too many dollars are chasing too few goods, let us cut down and then we shall have fewer dollars with which to buy the goods.
I am informed that when Mr. Coyne forced his views upon the cabinet he did so without calling in or consulting the presidents of
30, 1957
The Budget-Mr. Van Horne our other banks, as was the habit of Mr. Graham Towers. In other words, the dictatorship which is so obvious in the cabinet is spreading to other government departments and crown corporations. The other school of economists affirms that the real cure for inflation, if it exists anywhere in Canada, is greater productivity. Let the dollars catch the goods they are chasing in a quantity sufficient to keep the prices down.
In other words inflation exists because of too few goods. The cure is more goods, more production, more turnout per unit of workmanship by better tools and equipment. As one of the elder Liberal statesmen of New Brunswick, Senator Neil McLean of Saint John, made clear on many occasions, and how true it is, the tight money prevents urgently needed expansion designed for greater production. These things are scuttled because of the tight money policy. Only the very rich companies can expand, and the smaller or normal industries are simply out in the cold, forced to get along without financing or go bankrupt, and many of them are on the verge of bankruptcy. As one eminent elder statesman said, if it seeks to make itself more efficient through scientific means its hands are tied by an out-dated monetary system, which has one quack monetary cure-all for everything, sound or unsound, namely high interest rates. High interest rates and scarce money, jumping jack interest rates.
The hon. member for Gloucester, my friend or rather my friendly enemy, or as some Liberal colleagues call him, Hot Shot, is well aware, because it was reproduced in full newspaper pages of the children in his own riding, as in mine, burning to death around a kitchen stove because they have to live in tar-paper shacks. Mr. Speaker, tobacco road conditions exist in his riding as in mine. The fact is that many of our people are ill-housed, ill-fed and ill-clothed, and as long as I serve as their representative, the representative of all my people, I shall protest against it; make no mistake about that.


An hon. Member:: It will not be long.


Ralph Byron Horner: Just a minute. Whoever runs on the Conservative ticket in my riding will win with a greater majority than has ever been seen in the past. Let me pull no punches. These are conditions that deserve attention. The National Housing Act does not meet our needs. I would like the Minister of Public Works, who is sitting across the floor from me now, to understand that we are not advancing these things from any partisan point of view; but if only he could go

The Budget-Mr. Van Horne down to the United States-I presume he has been there

and see how the national housing act in the United States is providing homes for the people of that country, which we are not getting in Canada under the regulations-


An hon. Member:: It is not as good an act as ours.


Ralph Byron Horner: Oh, no, sir; 4 per cent on a $10,000 house is all that is required as a down payment, and that includes many items in the kitchen such as a stove, a refrigerator and, in some cases, even a television set. If our people in Canada could get a house for $400 down our housing problem would be practically solved.
There is no doubt that at the moment it does cost too much to own a home. You know, sir, and the Minister of Public Works knows as well, that in 1954 Central Mortgage and Housing cleared something over $14 million; in 1955 they had a profit on their operations of over $16 million, and that is after they paid the costs of maintaining the big cow palace they have out there as headquarters. I have not the figures for their last year of operation, but I am sure the profit would be as much.
It would not cost the government of this country 5 cents to provide proper homes for the people of this country, so they would not be forced to live in tar-paper shacks with the danger of having their children burned to death around a kitchen stove in winter. I had that happen in my riding last year and the hon. member for Gloucester had it happen in his riding this year. Let us make no mistake about these things. To have to pay $3,000, $4,000 and $5,000 as a down payment on a house is simply placing housing beyond the means of many people in Canada, many people who cannot even afford to pay the high rents charged in the larger centres.
In my area housing is just a farce. I made a survey in one town last year, and found that out of 100 people who were interested in buying a house not one was able to find the down payment of almost $3,000 required on a $12,000 house. Those are facts which you have to consider. Those 100 people were denied the right to occupy a house. These are things which deserve the attention of this government. On a per capita basis Canada has more land, more sea, more fisheries resources, a greater capacity to produce goods and services than any other country in the world.


Robert Henry Winters: And more houses.


Ralph Byron Horner: Our people are still being burned to death because they have to live in

tar-paper shacks. That is a fact. Every Canadian is potentially the wealthiest person in the world. On the one hand we have this unlimited wealth represented by our minerals, our forests, our ability to produce all kinds of goods, and on the other hand we have 15 million Canadian people. In between is wedged the government, which is preventing this wealth from reaching the people.
I do not know all the reasons, but I am sure lack of foresight and indifference are two of the main reasons. One of the main responsibilities of any government in any country is to take measures, including the changing of outdated and inefficient monetary systems so the potential wealth of the country can be translated into greater production of goods and services for all the people. The stark poverty that we see in northern New Brunswick should never exist in this country. But it does exist and will continue to exist as long as the government pursues its present policies.
The first duty of the government is to put the basic wealth of the country into the hands of the people in a way that will permit Canada to be developed and in such a way that our people can use it. If the wealth of Canada were properly controlled we would not have to go to the United States to borrow money to develop hydro projects like Beechwood. If the Canadian government does not believe in the right of Canadians to credit and money and a share of the wealth of Canada it is high time we did away with such a government. This is especially so when we realize that our neighbours to the south are anxious to provide this credit at a much lower rate and on better terms.
The government's job is to translate our existing wealth in the form of our mines, our fish, our agricultural products and our manufactured goods into homes, food and clothing and the provision of opportunity and security for all our people so they may all be well housed, well fed and well clothed. That is the problem. I presume that is why I was sent here in the first place. Our people were tired of putting up with a government which did not pay attention to these problems.
The Minister of Public Works cannot convince me that he is taking measures to remove the sticks that are in the wheels in regard to housing. If the minister would just understand that our people cannot afford to make a down payment of $3,000 I am sure we would be a long way toward solving the housing problem. The situation may

change with the next election; the people may realize that it is time for a new government.
I should like to refer now to the Department of Transport. When I was running for election down home the Minister of Transport ran all over my riding trying to pick up votes for the Liberal candidate. I do not blame him for doing this, although he did not succeed very well. He went down to the wharf in Dalhousie, he waved his hands around, he combed his hair and he looked at the wharf. He got down in a boat and he looked up at it. He gave it every possible consideration. It was a sure thing that the government would look after that wharf immediately.
This wharf at Dalhousie had been the subject of many petitions from the mayor of the town, from the warden and members of the municipal council, but nothing had happened. There was an awful lot of stir but nothing happened. This wharf is still inadequate to meet the needs of the shippers. Some time ago I went over and sat down with the minister and asked him what he intended to do. He tried to blame it on the Minister of Public Works. Where do we go with all this? I want results. It should be a simple matter to sit down and state the problem and have it solved, instead of having all this finagling and the making of phony campaign issues out of it, and then end up by doing nothing about this problem.
I have a few remarks to make about the Chignecto canal. This is something that has been batted around ever since confederation. I was talking to an industrialist not long ago who has plans for the area around Saint John, a refinery, smelter and so on. It is unbelievable that the government should refuse to go ahead with the building of the Chignecto canal. This refusal has held back the economy of the maritime provinces all through the years. The building of the Chignecto canal was the basis upon which the Atlantic provinces came into confederation in the first place. In its dying days this government should examine its conscience and take action, belated though it may be. All they have to do is get the machinery rolling. They have the means to do it, and it would be quite simple. I am very much surprised and taken aback with the Prime Minister's insatiable desire to rock and roll the Canadian confederation.
It is high time this government got down on its knees and recognized the seriousness
The Budget-Mr. Van Horne of these problems. We did not enter confederation merely for the purpose of sending representatives to Ottawa to sit around here. Our forefathers entered confederation in the firm belief that we of the maritimes would be treated as equal partners and given equal economic opportunities to develop as we had developed before we entered confederation.
Let me speak about the budget. The hon. member for Dauphin raised a remarkable hypothetical speculation the other day as to how the increase in the old age pensions of $6 per month would work out. The plain truth is that the government is not going to fool anybody; the Liberal party is trying desperately to pick up a few votes. The very fact that this government ignored our older people as the cost of living went up, a terrific increase having taken place since these pensions first went into effect, is just additional evidence of the shameful hypocrisy of the government in its consideration of these people.
And there is nothing in the budget for the working people who shoulder the main burden of taxation in this country. Just before the Liberal convention I went around my constituency, and I found that the people are insulted. They wanted to know what the government was trying to do. They asked me just how silly could the government get. They considered they were being insulted with an increase of $1 a month in family allowances when the cost of living had practically doubled since they went into effect. They wanted to know what they were expected to do with invalid pensions which are cancelled the minute they enter an institution, at the very time they would be most in need of them.
It is time this government, in its dying days, made a careful examination of its conscience and struck its breast the three times necessary to expatiate at least in part its sins for refusing to accept responsibility for these things. I hope I am not using words that might be considered to be out of order. After so much pleading by hon. members of the opposition we are told there will be an increase of $6 per month in the old age pension and $1 per month in the family allowance, with nothing for the working man. Such treatment can only be called, and it is being called from one end of the country to the other, an insult. This budget is an insult and is considered a bribe for votes. Those are strong words, but they are true words.
If these increases are needed now, how much more they were needed a few years

The Budget-Mr. Van Horne ago. Why must the government wait until the eve of an election to reduce the taxation on pop? Why must the government wait for the eve of an election to give $1 more a month for the sake of getting a few votes? The budget is a disappointment, not only to the opposition members but to the vast majority of the members of this house, including the Liberal members. The overriding note is the utter lack of consideration for the wage earners of this country, who are again given the cold shoulder. Any relief from the heavy burden of taxation will have to wait for another day and very possibly another government. These small, puerile increases further incite our people to the sentiments they will express in no uncertain way on the 17th of June.
Mr. Speaker, this sum of $2 million in freight-rate assistance in the maritimes is just another hand-out which does not solve or cure the basic problem of our economic ills in the Atlantic area.
The house was startled yesterday to hear what was done by the Prime Minister, however unintentionally, with regard to the letter written to the C.B.C. I do not want to go over this question again, because it was discussed yesterday; but the point I wish to make is that when one medium of information is controlled partially by the government then all mediums of information risk being equally controlled by the government. It is well known that control of one medium only, means the partial control of all mediums. When I think of reporters being offered all-expense paid trips to Quebec, with the sky the limit, to take in the dinner given for the Prime Minister, I ask what else is that but a covert attempt to control the press? Whether you control the medium at the point of a gun or whether you buy it, the end is still control. That is what is hurting -the country most at this time. Another harmful practice is that of having assignments given on the basis of the popularity of reporters with government officials, which is just another way in which news is controlled. That is well known.
Mr. Speaker, before I sit down I would like to say this very sincerely, repeating what I said when I came here on January 16, 1956. Just give me the chance to say that you are good fellows across the way, and I will do it so quickly you won't know what happened.


An hon. Member:: Please don't.


Ralph Byron Horner: It must always be remembered that we are here to do our duty toward

the people we represent. That is the crux of the matter. We are sent here to do a job, and I don't know why any hon. member should come here if he is not prepared to do that job according to the dictates of his conscience. That applies to all our people. We owe that duty not only to those who vote Conservative, but to Liberals and to members of the C.C.F. and Social Credit parties who happen to live in our constituencies. I can tell the hon. member for Charlotte that at the provincial hospital in Campbellton very prominent Liberals are given exceptionally good jobs. When coping with problems of poverty, disease and despair, politics do not enter into it; they do not ask what party you belong to.
Mr. Speaker, if only we could come to an understanding in this house that our problems are too great to be treated on a purely partisan basis, that our people suffer too much, and that too many people die in tarpaper shacks for the Minister of Public Works not to get busy changing the housing act. If we could only realize that we are living in a country so potentially rich that there is no need for people to live in tarpaper shacks, then we might already be some distance toward finding a remedy. I have visited some houses where there is no proper floor; only one room, and ten children living in one shack. Yet 300 feet away there may be ample timber available.
Mr. Speaker, there is no reason why there should be situations like this in a country such as ours. Ministers should visit some of these tar-paper shacks and see the orange crates which are used for kitchen cupboards, crates that have nothing in them. And these people have to wait eight weeks for unemployment cheques.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am extremely sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but it is my duty to advise him that his time has just expired.
(Translation):


Mr. Guy Rouleau (Dollard):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who spoke before me told us, in concluding his remarks, that he was here to carry out the job entrusted to him by the people of his riding. Well, Mr. Speaker, we too are here in order to do our duty, and the members on this side of the house have shown for the past twenty years that they know their duty. Moreover, following up its achievements of the last twenty years, and more particularly of its last term of office, the government has shown that its members were able to do their duty, in spite

of frequently uncalled-for criticism by the opposition and more particularly, the official opposition.
I lack the glibness of speech of the hon. member who spoke before me, but I believe that in a house like this, so full of traditions, it is hardly necessary to resort to the grand manner or high-flown oratory to do our duty and say what we have to say.
I would not want my remarks to be taken as reflecting on the hon. member who preceded me, but it would be very unfortunate if, within this parliament of the Canadian nation, we resorted to demagogic means
to

(Text):


Ralph Byron Horner: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of privilege. Here is another example of an hon. member-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the hon. member kindly state his point of privilege?


Ralph Byron Horner: Yes. The hon. member
for Dollard (Mr. Rouleau) is referring to demagogues-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member believe the hon. member for Dollard was referring to him?


Ralph Byron Horner: I maintain, Mr. Speaker,
that the hon. member should withdraw his words.


Guy Rouleau: Mr. Speaker, I made it clear that I was not referring to the hon. member, or to any member in the chamber. I was just saying that this chamber was no place in which to be a demagogue, or in which to use means that would not be fitting.


Ralph Byron Horner: In other words we
shouldn't tell the truth.
(Translation):


Guy Rouleau: If I may be allowed to do so, Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat that it would be most unfortunate, to my mind, if in this house any recourse were made to means which are unworthy of men who sit here to represent the Canadian people. Our people are sensible and deserve that their business be dealt with in all seriousness and calm.
At the beginning of my remarks I would like, on behalf of those whom I have the honour to represent, as well as on behalf of all right thinking Canadians, to offer my most hearty congratulations to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) on the magnificent family budget he has brought down.
In this budget speech the minister announced a considerable surplus. Had he announced a deficit, we would then have seen the members of the opposition rise to com-
The Budget-Mr. Rouleau plain and to accuse the government of poor management of this country's affairs. When governments of the various Canadian provinces announce surpluses, there is unanimous applause. Now to my mind what is good for the provinces is also good for the government of the Canadian nation. How can something which is right for a provincial legislature be wrong for the federal government?
If the government manages to announce surpluses, we must assume that the business of the Canadian people is in good hands and this is all to the credit of the government which looks after those affairs.
These surpluses, which we have enjoyed over a few years, have allowed us to reduce the national debt and, at the same time, to keep paying old age pensions, disabled pensions and family allowances, besides carrying on public works throughout the country.
If we seriously consider the amendment moved by the Conservative party as well as the sub-amendment moved by the C.C.F. party, we find that neither of those parties requests an increase in old age pensions or doubling family allowances. Why have the opposition parties not seen fit to request in this house that family allowances be doubled and old age pension increased substantially?


Ralph Byron Horner: I did.


Guy Rouleau: It is because members of the conservative and socialist parties, who go about the country requesting that the rate of family allowances and old age pensions be doubled, are not serious. Why do they not make such requests here where they could really accomplish something? It is because they are not serious.
On the other hand, the federal government, through the Minister of Finance, has done something concrete against the inflation which is threatening our country. Because of the present circumstances, the Canadian government could not substantially reduce the income tax as the majority of Canadians would have liked.
The budget submitted by the Minister of Finance is a serious budget and I call to witness the Ottawa Citizen which had this to say in its editorial on Friday March 15th, 1957, which I translate: "Popular or not, Mr. Harris' budget shows honesty and courage on the part of its author".


An hon. Member:: That is true.


Guy Rouleau: If the Canadian people are convinced of the wisdom of the minister's
2902	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Rouleau budget, this could, in turn, bring excellent results, even of a political nature, to the government which submitted it.
As I said a while ago, the Minister of Finance submitted a family budget. He increased family allowances to an extent that will cost an extra $42 million to this country. This money will be distributed in the various provinces, to help the Canadian family. He increased old age pensions by $6 a month. Like all members and all Canadians, I would have preferred to see old age pensions raised to $50 or $60 a month. However, the increase of $6 a month represents an expenditure of approximately $70 million a year.
The government also raised veterans pensions and allowances.
It has also granted a $100 exemption for charitable donations and medical costs, for which vouchers will no longer be needed, and, according to experts, approximately 125,000 Canadian families will benefit by it.
I have listened with great attention during the budget debate to the various members of the opposition parties making all sorts of suggestions in this house and I have come to the conclusion that, if all those suggestions had been accepted, it would have been necessary to double and even treble the Canadian budget and, accordingly to double and treble taxes.
We have a sound budget. The Minister of Finance has given us an excellent budget.
In closing these few remarks I should like to make a suggestion to the Minister of Finance as well as to this house. At the beginning of this session, the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl) submitted a resolution and, as I fear that it will not be considered before the end of this session, I should like to read that proposition and to make a suggestion to the government. Here it is:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of amending the income tax act so as to provide for the exemption from income taxes of tuition fees paid to universities, vocational training schools, military colleges, academies and other institutions of higher learning, as well as the cost to students of all textbooks and scientific equipment necessary to the courses followed in these institutions of learning.
I congratulate the hon. member for Cartier for inserting that resolution in the orders of the day and I support him wholeheartedly.
I had the opportunity during this session of expressing my views on different matters concerning education and training in Canada as a whole as well as in our different provinces. If the government decided to adopt that resolution, we could thus contribute to the


education and training of our young people, according to the spirit and the letter of the Canadian constitution. We would be helping those students who, in increasing number, want to get an education and add to our national heritage. We would be helping also a large number of fathers and mothers who make heavy sacrifices in order to give an education to their children. I think the government should give serious consideration to that resolution.
As I was saying a moment ago the government has introduced a sound budget. On the eve of a general election, before going to the people, the government could of course have reduced taxes as a vote-getting device. But the Liberal party with the record it has does not have to use such methods to be returned to power. It will be returned on its record, its political past and its achievements. The government in power has practised a national policy and has ensured prosperity.
According to the hon. member who spoke before me, the government should develop our national resources. Well, to answer the hon. member I think that the people of this country have seen the government develop our national resources to the benefit of the Canadian people as a whole. Never has the standard of living in this country been as high as it is now. If we now enjoy this prosperity, whose benefits extend to every Canadian family, it is because the administration of this country is in the hands of a government that looks to the sound management of its business. When the hon. member makes remarks of that kind I feel I must point out to him that he is facing a government which provides proof to the contrary. When we go to the people, in the very near future, I am convinced that they will renew this government's mandate because it works in the interest of Canada and of Canadians.
While the government is working in the interests of this country and looking after its business, the opposition-and this has been the case for the last four years-has been making frequent unjustified criticism without suggesting anything concrete to the government.
As I was saying a moment ago I am convinced that feeling sure as I do of the gratitude of the Canadian people who have given close attention to the achievements of the government in power, this government will be returned with a large majority in the next general elections, on its record and its achievements.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have had an opportunity of becoming acquainted in the course of the last few days with the Fowler commission report. In the first speech I had occasion to deliver in this house, I had referred to the problems facing the C.B.C. and these problems have seemed to me to be highly important, for a long time. Such being the case I might recall that on the 28th of January 1955, in the debate on the address in reply I stated that I was fully in accord with certain groups who claimed that the C.B.C. operated in competition with private stations and that it should therefore not be up to it to decide to whom licenses should be given for radio or television stations. I was glad to note that the Fowler commission, in its report, recommended the establishment of a board of governors of television and radio broadcasting which would have jurisdiction over private and public broadcasting although the board would be answerable to parliament.
I know that the report of that commission is but a recommendation to the government but I hope that, in the near future, next year or at least as soon as possible, these recommendations will be implemented by the government as I believe that they would serve not only the interest of radio and television broadcasting, but also the interests of this country.
In that same report, it is recommended that the federal treasury should contribute about $470 million during the next six years to finance the expansion and maintenance of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and in particular of the television services.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was established, some years ago, to promote Canadian culture in this country. In my opinion, it is very important to appropriate large sums of money to promote the expansion of a purely Canadian culture. The Fowler commission, in its report, gives the following definition of Canadian culture:
The progress of Canadian culture is not the privilege of a few. It must comprise all Canadian ways of living and offer opportunities to all citizens.
The Fowler commission believes that such a definition is accurate and that national broadcasting must constantly strive to achieve it. All those forms of culture must be part of the minimum of national radio and television broadcasting services and, except under unusual circumstances, all stations, public and private, of the network involved should make full use of these services.
And that is why I wholeheartedly support the recommendation of the Fowler commission that a huge amount be spent on the
The Budget-Mr. Rouleau expansion of radio and television in this country. Also, if we want to encourage the formation of a Canadian culture, I think that another recommendation of that same commission should be adopted. This recommendation is to the effect that we should not allow more than 20 per cent of the shares to fall into the hands of outsiders.
The Fowler commission's report forecasts that the broadcasting of colour TV will be achieved within two years. Television is a terrific medium for advertising. Furthermore, it is proposed to improve the services of the C.B.C. which does already an excellent job, and this will benefit the Canadian people.
I am grateful to the government authorities for the great help they have so generously given me during my whole term of office, which enabled me to serve my fellow citizens, and more particularly those of Dollard county, which I am proud to represent in this house. For the last few years, I have, in this parliament of Canada, contributed to the working out of various legislation, as it is indeed the first and foremost duty of a people's representative. I did so with a view to serve my fellow-citizens from sea to sea. Thanks to the co-operation of the government, I was able more particularly to help my fellow-citizens from the county of Dollard. As a matter of fact, as it became necessary, the building of a post-office at Youville was carried out. Moreover, the erection of another post-office in Ville St. Laurent will soon begin, which will answer the urgent need of the local population. As the minister is occupying his seat, I seize this opportunity to thank him very sincerely on behalf of the people of Dollard county. He has shown great understanding towards the people. I thank him for so generously considering the request I made to him on that matter, a request which I have renewed many times.
I would feel remiss if I did not thank the government for putting up the splendid building where the offices of the National Film Board are now located in the county of Dollard. The population of my riding is proud and glad of that fact.
I had also the privilege, thanks to the co-operation of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler), of obtaining the installation of warning devices at many level crossings in the county of Dollard. Negotiations are underway for the construction of a viaduct on Decarie boulevard. I have every reason to believe that this project will be implemented in the near future.

The Address-Mr. Pearkes
I thank the government which, through the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), has granted some assistance to Notre-Dame-de-l'Esperance hospital in Ville St. Laurent.
Thanks to the close co-operation of the government as a whole, and of each one of its members in particular, it was possible to achieve something favourable for the people of Dollard county.
In concluding my remarks I shall thank the hon. Minister of Finance again (Mr. Harris) for introducing a favourable family budget.
(Text):


Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon at the conclusion of the remarks made by the hon. member for Red Deer I indicated my desire to address some remarks of my own on the same subject, but the Minister of Finance then indicated that he had to leave the house. It was either a question of adjourning the debate at that time or allowing discussion of that particular subject to continue in the budget debate; therefore I am going to take this opportunity of referring to the remarks made by the hon. member for Red Deer.
The hon. member had suggested that some form of commission might be established in order to ascertain whether the defence estimates could not be reduced, and whether it is necessary to spend more than about 60 per cent of what is being spent today in order to get the same type of defence protection. He emphasized the point that he believed in the necessity for having adequate defence forces, but he had previously said there was plenty of evidence to indicate that there was duplication and unnecessary expense. He recommended that there be some clamping down on defence expenditure.
While I feel it is necessary to review our defence expenditures, I cannot agree with the thought that there can be a reduction of 40 per cent in order to meet his requirement. I do feel that the changing world situation still makes it essential that we maintain adequate forces, and with the introduction of the many new weapons which are now being produced by scientists the world over I do not see how there can be any substantial reduction in the amount Canada is paying for her defence for some considerable time.
This does not mean that I believe all the money which is being spent for defence is going to the forces or for the type of weapons they need so urgently. In fact we will have to consider the distribution of the defence vote

in order to see not only that the taxpayer gets full value for the money that is voted, but also to ensure that the troops themselves get the weapons which are so essential if they are to be given a fighting chance should there be a war in the future. I feel that our whole effort must be the maintenance of peace. This, of course, is axiomatic. At the present time we can only ensure peace through strength, and I think we must adhere to that axiom just as much as we adhere to our desire for peace.
During the past few months our attention has been focused on the rapidly changing conditions in the Middle East. From week to week plans have been made by the United Nations which have had to be changed or modified to meet an ever-varying situation. Our own Canadian troops, army, navy and air force, have played a very practical part in putting into effect the policies of the United Nations with the result that, perhaps with the exception of those tragic events which happened in Hungary, comparatively little attention has been paid to what has been going on in other parts of the world. In any event, the concentration upon the events which have happened in the Middle East has, I think, obscured the far-reaching changes that have taken place, and are still taking place, in the relative strengths of the two great power blocs, the east and the west.
Although there have been changes in the personnel in the Kremlin, and although from time to time honeyed words have been spoken, there appears to be very little change in the over-all desire of the Russians to achieve the objectives which they set out many years ago. The small reductions in armed forces which Russia announced a year ago really have done nothing to reduce the power of the Russian military machine. Really the reductions have been far more a process of streamlining than any step toward disarmament. It was only about a week ago that the Russian government signed an agreement with East Germany to retain 20 Russian divisions in East Germany.
We have, I think, been lulled into believing that the forces which NATO has assembled in Europe are an adequate shield against this threat which may be developing in the east. But these NATO forces now stationed in Europe have been greatly reduced of late. As you know, France has had to reduce the number of her troops in Europe forming part of that NATO shield in order to send soldiers to North Africa. Great Britain is in the process of making radical reductions in her force, which was something over 70,000 men,

to one which it is contemplated will not exceed 50,000. The British hope to effect this reduction by reducing the number of administrative units rather than front-line troops. The whole trend seems to be toward more flexible units with greater Are power, which would indicate the type of force of the future.
No longer is the division, as it was known in the first and second war, to be considered the basic formation. The division is now to be replaced by small, self-contained brigades or regimental groups consisting of three infantry batallions, an armoured regiment and an artillery regiment with small signal, medical and other units attached. The divisional supply column, with that long train we used to know, is now a thing of the past. For a number of years it has been considered that the nuclear bombs held by the United States air force would constitute a deterrent and that Russia would never attempt another global war. It was felt that the light shield of NATO troops in Europe would be sufficient to block any movement of ground forces across western Europe.
While the possibility that Russia might attack this continent had been recognized, it has until now been felt that Russia would hardly dare to initiate such an attack for fear of instant retaliation which would follow both by the United States strategic bomber forces and the British medium bombers.
On January 9 of this year, speaking in this house, the Prime Minister-his remarks can be found at page 33 of Hansard-indicated that he felt that if the aggressors did attack, Canada would be in the path of any such attack directed against the United States, and he expressed the intention to make that path as difficult and dangerous as possible for the aggressors to follow. These are sentiments which are perfectly acceptable. One may question whether Canada has taken adequate steps to safeguard the residents of her country against the possibility of such a path being followed, but that statement does assume that those behind the iron curtain will be the aggressor, and that the attack will develop across the north pole, to be met by the inevitable retaliation which he hoped would be carried out with as great damage to the aggressor as he might cause to us; the inference, of course, being that the enemy is to make the decision as to whether or not he will attack with nuclear bombs.
However, I suggest that the world situation has changed now to the extent that it is unlikely that the Russians would, as the
The Address-Mr. Pearkes first phase of a war, attempt to carry out a nuclear attack upon this country. They are far more likely-and I can support my contention by remarks from the highest British authorities, including Field Marshal Montgomery-now to take advantage of the weakening of the NATO shield in western Europe and move through Europe with their ground forces. It is very doubtful whether they would at that time use their nuclear weapons. Our NATO forces have been reduced to a very serious extent, so that if Russia does not use her nuclear bombs in the first instance, then either the United States or Great Britain will be faced with that awful decision as to whether they will start the massive retaliation, and will be the first nation to use the nuclear weapons.
The British army and, to certainly a lesser extent, our own Canadian army are now having developed atomic warheads for some of their artillery and their new weapons. In fact it is only by having the most up to date weapons for use by the ground forces and to be employed in Europe that we could ever have a hope of checking the large Russian numbers, unless the nuclear bomb was used.
I	think as the use of nuclear bombs is bound to meet with retaliation, no matter who uses them first, because the Russians are fast reaching parity with the west in their supply of nuclear weapons, then it would practically mean a suicidal war for both sides.
I think, Mr. Speaker, at this point you might call it six o'clock. I move the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. Pearkes the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, may I have the unanimous consent of the house to revert to motions?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, by leave I move:
That on Wednesday, April 3, 1957, and on every Wednesday thereafter until the end of this session the hours of sitting shall be 2.30 to 10 p.m.; that on Thursday, April 4 next, and on every Monday, Tuesday and Thursday thereafter until the end of this session, the hours of sitting shall be from
II	a.m. until 10 p.m.; there shall be the usual intermissions at 1 and 6 p.m.; and that the provisions of standing orders 2(1) and 6(1) and (3) be suspended in relation thereto.

Business of the House


Howard Charles Green: I did not quite get whether this includes time out for lunch and dinner.


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, it does, Mr. Speaker; the usual intermissions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, one does have to look at motions such as this and make sure that we are not imposing too much of an additional burden on the members of our staff; but because we believe we are adding these extra hours for only a couple of weeks we are prepared to agree to the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I can tell the hon. gentleman that those of us who are in charge of the administration always take all these matters into consideration.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But it is the house that passes these motions, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: We always submit to the
house that, in consideration of the hours imposed by the house on itself, certain alleviations in staff working conditions be made. Since I know the feelings of the hon. gentleman and the feelings of other hon. members, they always accede to the request made in that direction.
May I immediately submit to the house that whenever we have adopted these hours it
has always been our practice in the past to split the working hours for the page boys. Some of them are on duty in the morning and those who come in the morning do not come in the afternoon; they come in the evening. When a new schedule is worked out I shall ask hon. members whether they agree that the splitting of the hours schedule that has been adopted in the past shall be followed again. I take it we shall have the approval of the house in that regard.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Walter Edward Harris: We shall continue with the
budget debate on Monday.


Mr. Speaker:: I have another matter to mention before I announce the adjournment. On Monday a bit of history will be made in this house, in that a lady will come to the house as a Hansard reporter. She is Mrs. Joan C. Blair, who has worked as a Hansard reporter in the legislature of Ontario, where I am told one has been working in that capacity for the last three years. I am sure the house will by its applause welcome, as it is convenient, the entrance of this first lady Hansard reporter in the house on Monday.


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

[Stage Direction]
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Low: 1.	What was the complete cost of the Shepody dam in Albert county. New Brunswick?
2.	How much land was reclaimed through the building of this dam?
Answer by:	Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner
(Minister of Agriculture):
1. $1,446,523.25.
Questions
2. 5,576 acres permanently protected from tidal flooding.



CANADIAN LEGION


Mr. Hodgson: Did the government make any grant or grants in each of the years 1954-1955-1956 to the British Empire Service League, Canadian Legion, dominion command, for their headquarters building in Ottawa?
Answer by: Mr. Bennett, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of Veterans Affairs:
No.

Monday, April 1, 1957